Comments by "Fu Uf" (@fuuf7092) on "Channel 4 News" channel.

  1. wake up! they had to add the trinity later Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version.
    1
  2. the fa.Yke comission matt 28.19 isnt found in any manuscript befire the 3rd century. Not only did they add in that " paulanity was now to be spread to the world" they later, had to add in the trinity to this already added command Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28: “The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church.
    1
  3. The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.” The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275: “It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.”
    1
  4. Bruce Metzger, the premier New Testament textual critic, writes: “Matthew and Luke suppress or weaken references in Mark to such human emotions of Jesus as grief and anger and amazement as well as Jesus’ unrequited love; they also omit Mark’s statement that Jesus’ friends thought he was beside himself”. He explains further, that: “The later gospels omit what might imply that Jesus was unable to accomplish what he willed…and also omit questions asked by Jesus which might be taken to imply his ignorance.”[3] Metzger continues further by enumerating instances where Matthew and Luke soften Mark’s statements which might minimize the majesty of Jesus and replaced it with illustrations of a more alluring and authoritative Jesus. In the story of the fig tree as found in Mark, the disciples did not notice the withering of the tree until next morning. For Matthew, this seemed less dramatic and unimpressive, and hence in his narrative the tree withered at once, leaving the disciples in shock and amazement. Matthew and Luke were adamant in changing the words of Jesus. They wanted to make Jesus say what they wanted people to believe, “reflecting a later stage of theological understanding than that in Mark.” (Metzger, pg 83) It seems quite clear that during both the pre and post gospel stages of the gospel traditions transmission, the available material was molded, filtered and changed in direct correlation to the Christological convictions of those who handled the traditions. It is important to stress that this is not a case of the evangelists’ mere differing in emphasis; rather there are numerous occasions when the later gospel writers go out of their way to modify and alter the earlier version. Therefore, if we wish to come close to the historical Jesus in the gospels, it is a good starting point to compare the stories in the various gospels, to discern where the story has altered.
    1
  5. What about “He who is without s77n, should k4st the f1r5t”? Looking back at John 7:53-8:11, it is clear this story was not in John’s original gospel. Your Bible likely has brackets around this story with a note that says something like “The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53-8:11.” This is because the only manuscript before the ninth century to include this story was one from the fifth century found in western Europe (further from where John wrote) and also deviates from earlier manuscripts in other key areas. Other copies from the tenth century onward that have it, often place it, or variations of it, in different places throughout the gospels. It only became more common in its current form and location in manuscripts dating from the Middle Ages. On the other hand, every other early manuscript omits it, notably including two of the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, called Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 that date from the second or early third century and were found in Egypt (closer to where John wrote). Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete copy of the New Testament (c. 325 CE), does not include it either. No pastor or theologian from the eastern side of the early church references it until the tenth century. In their commentaries and sermons, they go directly from John 7:52 to 8:12 (keep in mind that current chapter and verse breakdowns were added later). Finally, all the earliest translations of the Greek New Testament (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Old Latin, and Georgian) skip this story as well.
    1
  6. freidnly fire same as ninebanban and they flip the script and blame us insted no need for sympathy, Gods justice is all that is required
    1
  7. A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive. If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him. Matthew 21:11 And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.” Luke 7:16 Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” and, “God has visited His people!” John 4:19 The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Matthew 21:46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet. John 6:14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” John 7:40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” John 9:17 So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.” Luke 24:19 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, Mark 6:15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” Mark 8:28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” Luke 9:8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again. OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it😇 Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem. Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply offended and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family”. In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet. Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his death and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later.,
    1
  8. Jesus Christ not God. It is clear from the verses below that he was indeed 100% man. John 17.3...jesus says to the father...that they may know you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus whom you sent. John 20.17 Jesus says....I am ascending to my father and your father, my God and your God. Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Romans 5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man (Adam) how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! The Greek word for “man” in these verses is anthropos. The Greek word anthropos means “a human being, whether male or female, generically, to include all human individuals, to distinguish man from beings of a different race or order.” Anthropos is used to describe Adam, the first man. In the same verse (Romans 5:15) it is used to describe Jesus Christ. If words mean anything, one must believe that Jesus Christ was a flesh and blood human being just like Adam. On the other hand, Scripture says “God is not a man.” Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man… Numbers 23:19 (NRSV) God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal… Hosea 11:9 For I am God, and not man— the Holy One among you.
    1
  9. Heart breaking 💔 but the key to all the confusion. The Gospel of John begins with the astonishing claim that Jesus was no less than God Himself! John claims that, in Jesus, God became human flesh and lived among us. And that He did it in order to bring us into eternal relationship with Himself – to make us ‘children of God’ forever. John’s Gospel goes on to describe Jesus’ miraculous ‘signs’ and his heart-searching words that testified to His true identity as ‘the Christ’. The Gospel ends with the words, ‘Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.’ John 20:20-31 Richard Dawkins calls the Bible ‘a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries’. Let’s take the Gospel of John, the fourth Gospel. Is there good evidence to believe that what we read in John’s Gospel is a true account of what Jesus actually said and did? Up until a few hundred years ago, no-one really questioned whether John’s Gospel was historical. But with growing scepticism over the reality of God and the supernatural (a philosophical and cultural movement known as the Enlightenment), scholars began to suggest other explanations for the origins of the Gospel. Against the traditional view of the Gospel having been written by a disciple of Jesus and eyewitness to his life, death and resurrection, they argued that the Gospel was, in reality, written by someone living hundreds of years later, and hundreds of miles away. And the concepts in John, they said, were too Greek, and not Jewish enough (as the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, were). John’s idea that Jesus was ‘God in the flesh’, for example, was said to reflect much later developments in Christian theology. So for these reasons, by around 1900, most New Testament scholars believed that John’s Gospel could not be considered as reliable history
    1
  10. ​@@TOM-TOM-TOMThere will be NO HUMILIATION when we look up the validity of the famous story of the adult eress woman, one that is the GO TO STORY pointed to, as the most beautiful of teachings of Jesus, and we realise that it is remo ved from modern translations because the story was A CONFIRMED INTER POL ATION, a froidd, AND NOT IN THE EARLY MANUSCRIPTS. Even though this story, is a big part of our faith, which we use to show Jesus was all love 🤦. We will not care. ( I mean the story itself contra bicted our beliefs, because we belive Jesus is si nless, and so should have st0n 3d the woman, but he didn't, meaning he was also a s1nner! But stop it. We don't use our brains and question nonsense. We says it's a mystery and blindly accept it) So what if church and Paul teach DIRECTLY OPPOSITE TO WHAT JESUS TAUGHT. So what if Jesus refers to himself as a prophet, and is called by all those close to him! We will change the meanings of words to remain upon falsehood. GOD is now also a prophet because Jesus bought a message, and multiple ano nee mous authors 4 centuries after Jesus told us Jesus is God ( in gospel of John), and so God can also be a prophet. ( again, don't bother pointing out that if Jesus was indeed God, then that means he was D3C3IV ING THE PEOPLE, letting them believe he was a prophet when he was actually their God!, because we won't care) most of us haven't heard verses like john seven teen .3, 2wenty.7teen, unambiguous clear cut, not open to interpretation statements that clearly d35 troy our whole existence, because church pastors like to keep them quiet. So what if most of the statements we depend on, are metaphorical, and clearly refuted by verses from Jesus, so what if Jesus saying he is " Alpha and omega" is removed from modern translations because its yet another fraudlent insertion. Rev1.eleven john 5ive sev7 is one of our most famous frwdulent insertions, the trinity formula, johanine coma, it is also removed from all modern translations, because it is yet anothwer froid. Even though, all the inter pol ations, fraud and mi15 stranslations seem to be around who God is, and who Jesus is, alarm bells wont go off ringing. We will instead, insist the bible isn't kurpted. We will get angry with the Qur'an and Muslims for daring for suggesting it. Even though God says He doesn't accept human s4c rifice, we will insist Jesus the man, d13d for us. We know God is immortal, so we will reconcile by creating a second dimension of Jesus, where he is 100% man and 100% God, so we have a loophole. When muslims tell us God is immortal, and so Jesus can't be God, we will be able to say "his human nature d1 3d".... and if the Muslims say that God hay 8s uman s4c rifice, we can say "He was God in flesh" and it was a divine s4c ri fice! We appreciate when Jesus was asked the all important question about what was required for salvation, he didnt say believe i will dy for your sins, no, Jesus said to keep the commandments, most importantly that OUR lord God is one,...HOWEVER, we prefer the story paul and church taught us, this is much better for us as we don't have to s4c ri fice anymore, we just belive Jesus paid for our sins, and be sorry and bingo! And as you have seen so far, we aren't very s1n seer, so we see no in just iss when an innocent pays for the s1ns of the guilty, or when children inherit s1ns for krymez that had nothing to do with them. Even though this goes against all the previous messages and teachings, and original s1n is only found in pauls work and the last gospel John, we will accept this 3 vil concept. Again, we don't care that in Eze kiel 8teen .2wenty God tells us he hay 8s ORIGINAL S1N, BECAUSE HE IS JUST, and that we can be saved through repentance, not just forgiven, God says He will forget the sin through his mercy, WITHOUT BLuD. ( WE COMPELTELY IGNORE THIS BECAUSE IT IS ISLAM ) ....also we can point to our false pro pet paul, who said we can do away with the old covenant. ( even though Jesus said that not one JOT shouldn't be kept until heaven and earth disappear ) they don't call us paul followers for nothing. We will insist Jesus is the only begotten son of God, even though David is called begotten of God by God in the Bible. And we will say that the title 'son of man' is a divine title ( don't remind us eze keel is called son of man more times than Jesus ) We will claim Jesus was a willing s4k rifice even though Jesus begs, and cries all day to be saved from the cruc fiction. Jesus 'will' was to be saved, but he said he would accept whatever was God's will. We believe God DID NOT ANSWER Jesus prayers, and our God was stripped n4k3d, bee ten whyppd and kil d by men against his wishes. Even though all the disciples deserted Jesus, and there were no historical eyewitness, we will argue there are ( we only have jos ephus, who wasn't an eyewitness, and reported on rumours ) We will point to eye zayya 53, where Jesus meets absolutely NONE of the criteria, and ignore salm 9one where Jesus is mentioned by name, and says not even a bruise or cut would come to Jesus as God will send angels to protect him and raise him up We will ignore the letters of ignacious which writ to challenge the popular belief that the crucifixion of Jesus was an illusion. This proves in the 1st century, people were unsure if Jesus was crucified. We will insist a plural godhead of 3 fully God's is PURE MONOTHEISM. even we know its absurd, but if we keep insisting, we can be at peace with it. Our bible attributes much bad and f17th to Jesus that we wish it didn't, but we are good at spinning and miss represen tation of text, so we will twist our way out of it. Although we believe Jesus is God and always was, we will run whenever people respond to our critique of Islam, by showing 10x worse stuff our God Jesus commanded in the o.t. And for any of the bad stuff they show us from the n.t., we just say Jesus was teaching a parable 😉 always works 💪 We will continue spreading l13s about Islam, because it is the biggest thret to xtianity, many of our pristes, celebs, and in particular, our woman, are leaving paul anity for Islam by the fastest rate. The conversion rates are the highest, and most ree verts to Islam are white xtian woman! But, as malcolm once said, the media can make the innocent the gylty and the gylty the innocent, and the sion media is on our side, look at how easily we made the world believe they did nine wane wan, look how we lyde about sad damn, ga daf, luted them countries and now we are helping the sionist juws carry out a g3n 0cide on the nay tivs. ( we don't care the ones we help LITERALLY belive our God Jesus is boil ing in x crement and sea men)....
    1
  11. Israeli soldier speaks out on war in Gaza
    1
  12. In 1917 Britain promised the Zionist movement they would help establish a national home for the jewish people, in Palestine, where Palestinian Arab natives made up more than 90 percent of the population. ( Balfour Declaration ) From 1923 to 1948. the British facilitated mass Jewish immigration – using force against the Palestinian resistance to take their homes and lands, killing many in the process. From 1947 to 1949, 15k palistinians killed, 78% of their land taken, 750k lost their homes to the jews. today after defeat after defeat, most of their land is gone, the Palestinians are left in the west bank, and the gaza strip ( biggest open air prison in the world, where Israel control the electricity, water, ins and outs, basically everything ) in an APARTHEID STATE. In 1948 the country of Israel was established. During the years since, many countries have tried to help the Palestinians but US and UK fund Israel and easily defeat them. The small bit of land they have left, has since been slowly taken over day by day, Palestinians have been thrown out of their houses, and their lands stolen, and they have been killed when resisted. International law has recognised these settlements as illegal and Israel of breaking international law, Amnesty international recognises them as an apartheid state, but no one can ever do anything because Israel are backed by the west. Its a strategic move by the west to keep allied with Israel as they then have army bases in the middle east, which they have been using to loot the middle east one country at a time. (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, even Libya) and it keeps them in range of Russia. Many groups were formed in resistance, most notably hamas. Hamas are in Gaza, and are guilty of attacks against Israel, and are the only defence Palestinians have against the occupation, who have been committing genocide for a century. They are powerless, and as Nelson Mandela said, our freedom isn’t complete without the freedom of the Palestinians. Zionist Jews control the media, and the mass population does not know how the Palestinians have suffered. Mainstream news wont cover it, they only cover when the Palestinians defend themselves, via hamas, and are labelled terrorists. They are always shut down. E.g. last year, within Europe, footballers were praised for Ukraine support, but when players showed support for Palestine, they were dropped. Its a tragedy for the Palestinians, that their only defence is globally recognised as a terrorist group, and anyone who tries to defend them are labelled that way. This is the first time in my life I have seen the occupied stage such an attack against Israel, normally we just see weeping mums and dads of another child sniped by their soldiers. Especially at Ramadhan, when they always increase their attacks to disrupt our holy month. I have seen many pictures of Palestinian babies with a bullet to the heart. Former soldiers have revealed they are trained to wipe out whole families so there is no future revenge attack from the kids etc “The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” Malcolm X
    1
  13. It's been 2 weeks, hope you ignorant ppl have realised the lie idf told us was born out of humiliation and their evil to flip the capture of hostages and their own murder of their own civilians. Take a break from the western mainstream and see that all genuine hostage survivors have confirmed WHAT HAMAS LEADER SAID, they didn't target civilians, in fact they were very nice to them considering they were taken as hostages Babies b headed, women r8 to death etc all lies to demon ise the resistance force of an innocent native population under an evil brutal occupation. And the islamophobes had a field day, in fact still are despite confirmation those allegations couldn't be verified. We have seen how they blu up hospitals, took credit, and later flipped the script again and said it was hamas, doctoring a fake audio call ( they couldn't use the techno to find out about the 7th, yet in 3 hours were able to tap into this phone convo 🤦) Now, as another reminder, this Yr, upto August, 37 babies of 200 innocent civilians were shot down, with no justice served. Where was the outcry? Where was the coverage? Do we see regular anniversary of the 200 civilians at a peace march in the west bank in 2018 gunned down by idf? Wheres their justice? Will we see the western media, publishing monthly, or yearly anniversary of these incidents? But you can bet we will see yearly, probably monthly anniversary of the lies of the 7th. They will continue to shove them down our throats to reaffirm the general feeling that Muslims are the enemy, whilst we were in reality the victims. And what happens to a powerless and helpless peole? Who live under brutality, kild and wiped out with no justice? You create hate. Not unfounded. And when they retaliate, what will happen? We in the west, with our moral high ground will call them trists...
    1
  14. It's been 2 weeks, hope you ignorant ppl have realised the lie idf told us was born out of humiliation and their evil to flip the capture of hostages and their own murder of their own civilians. Take a break from the western mainstream and see that all genuine hostage survivors have confirmed WHAT HAMAS LEADER SAID, they didn't target civilians, in fact they were very nice to them considering they were taken as hostages Babies b headed, women r8 to death etc all lies to demon ise the resistance force of an innocent native population under an evil brutal occupation. And the islamophobes had a field day, in fact still are despite confirmation those allegations couldn't be verified. We have seen how they blu up hospitals, took credit, and later flipped the script again and said it was hamas, doctoring a fake audio call ( they couldn't use the techno to find out about the 7th, yet in 3 hours were able to tap into this phone convo 🤦) Now, as another reminder, this Yr, upto August, 37 babies of 200 innocent civilians were shot down, with no justice served. Where was the outcry? Where was the coverage? Do we see regular anniversary of the 200 civilians at a peace march in the west bank in 2018 gunned down by idf? Wheres their justice? Will we see the western media, publishing monthly, or yearly anniversary of these incidents? But you can bet we will see yearly, probably monthly anniversary of the lies of the 7th. They will continue to shove them down our throats to reaffirm the general feeling that Muslims are the enemy, whilst we were in reality the victims. And what happens to a powerless and helpless peole? Who live under brutality, kild and wiped out with no justice? You create hate. Not unfounded. And when they retaliate, what will happen? We in the west, with our moral high ground will call them trists
    1
  15. There is only One religious text that commands the kiling of babies. And that is the Christian Bible. The medianites man woman and child, nursing baby and even tree and donkey was to be kild as revenge for a crime their forefathers did centuries before......HOWEVER, ANY VIRGIN GIRL was to be kept alive and distributed to the solders to do you know what 🤮🤮🤮 In the Qur’an, we are commanded to fight ONLY in self defense vs persecution. And no non combatants, no woman, children, elderly, religious leaders or buildings are to be harmed. And if they cease, to show mercy Not only, here, but also in the NT. See verses below Ever wondered why devout christians like Blair and Bush lied to the world with a bogus war on terror, did 9oneone, then lied about wmd and kiled millions of innocent people to steal those countries resources? Or why they overrepresent muslims crimes tenfold(look it up) in the media to wash peoples minds with lies and hate? If we were like them, we could blame Christianity, because maybe the bible of Jesus tells you to behave  this way? Corinthians 6:14 ESV / Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 2 John 1:9-11 ESV / Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 ESV / And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman. 2 Corinthians 4:4 ESV / In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 2 Corinthians 6:14-15 ESV / Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever Deuteronomy 17:1-20 ESV “You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep in which is a blemish, any defect whatever, for that is an abomination to the Lord your God. “If there is found among you, within any of your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an abomination has been done in Israel, then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones. ... Luke 19:27 ESV / But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’” Exodus 22:19 ESV / “Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death. Deuteronomy 7:3 ESV / You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, Leviticus 20:13 ESV / If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. Leviticus 20:27 ESV / “A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” Leviticus 20:10 ESV / “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Leviticus 21:9 ESV / And the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by whoring, profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire.
    1
  16. Usually when something like this happens, a country let's in international orgs to come and investigate and take evidence But ISRAEL did not let anyone come in and document or investigate. Because they changed the whole narrative. This is the clearest evidence they dr.d it all
    1
  17. ​ @emlkl1779 if only you saw the babies sniped by Israel soldier I've seen for decades In 1917 Britain promised the Zionist movement they would help establish a national home for the jewish people, in Palestine, where Palestinian Arab natives made up more than 90 percent of the population. ( Balfour Declaration ) From 1923 to 1948. the British facilitated mass Jewish immigration – using force against the Palestinian resistance to take their homes and lands, killing many in the process. From 1947 to 1949, 15k palistinians killed, 78% of their land taken, 750k lost their homes to the jews. today after defeat after defeat, most of their land is gone, the Palestinians are left in the west bank, and the gaza strip ( biggest open air prison in the world, where Israel control the electricity, water, ins and outs, basically everything ) in an APARTHEID STATE. In 1948 the country of Israel was established. During the years since, many countries have tried to help the Palestinians but US and UK fund Israel and easily defeat them. The small bit of land they have left, has since been slowly taken over day by day, Palestinians have been thrown out of their houses, and their lands stolen, and they have been killed when resisted. International law has recognised these settlements as illegal and Israel of breaking international law, Amnesty international recognises them as an apartheid state, but no one can ever do anything because Israel are backed by the west. Its a strategic move by the west to keep allied with Israel as they then have army bases in the middle east, which they have been using to loot the middle east one country at a time. (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, even Libya) and it keeps them in range of Russia. Many groups were formed in resistance, most notably hamas. Hamas are in Gaza, and are guilty of attacks against Israel, and are the only defence Palestinians have against the occupation, who have been committing genocide for a century. They are powerless, and as Nelson Mandela said, our freedom isn’t complete without the freedom of the Palestinians. Zionist Jews control the media, and the mass population does not know how the Palestinians have suffered. Mainstream news wont cover it, they only cover when the Palestinians defend themselves, via hamas, and are labelled terrorists. They are always shut down. E.g. last year, within Europe, footballers were praised for Ukraine support, but when players showed support for Palestine, they were dropped. Its a tragedy for the Palestinians, that their only defence is globally recognised as a terrorist group, and anyone who tries to defend them are labelled that way. This is the first time in my life I have seen the occupied stage such an attack against Israel, normally we just see weeping mums and dads of another child sniped by their soldiers. Especially at Ramadhan, when they always increase their attacks to disrupt our holy month. I have seen many pictures of Palestinian babies with a bullet to the heart. Former soldiers have revealed they are trained to wipe out whole families so there is no future revenge attack from the kids etc “The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” Malcolm X
    1
  18. In 1917 Britain promised the Zionist movement they would help establish a national home for the jewish people, in Palestine, where Palestinian Arab natives made up more than 90 percent of the population. ( Balfour Declaration ) From 1923 to 1948. the British facilitated mass Jewish immigration – using force against the Palestinian resistance to take their homes and lands, killing many in the process. From 1947 to 1949, 15k palistinians killed, 78% of their land taken, 750k lost their homes to the jews. today after defeat after defeat, most of their land is gone, the Palestinians are left in the west bank, and the gaza strip ( biggest open air prison in the world, where Israel control the electricity, water, ins and outs, basically everything ) in an APARTHEID STATE. In 1948 the country of Israel was established. During the years since, many countries have tried to help the Palestinians but US and UK fund Israel and easily defeat them. The small bit of land they have left, has since been slowly taken over day by day, Palestinians have been thrown out of their houses, and their lands stolen, and they have been killed when resisted. International law has recognised these settlements as illegal and Israel of breaking international law, Amnesty international recognises them as an apartheid state, but no one can ever do anything because Israel are backed by the west. Its a strategic move by the west to keep allied with Israel as they then have army bases in the middle east, which they have been using to loot the middle east one country at a time. (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, even Libya) and it keeps them in range of Russia. Many groups were formed in resistance, most notably hamas. Hamas are in Gaza, and are guilty of attacks against Israel, and are the only defence Palestinians have against the occupation, who have been committing genocide for a century. They are powerless, and as Nelson Mandela said, our freedom isn’t complete without the freedom of the Palestinians. Zionist Jews control the media, and the mass population does not know how the Palestinians have suffered. Mainstream news wont cover it, they only cover when the Palestinians defend themselves, via hamas, and are labelled terrorists. They are always shut down. E.g. last year, within Europe, footballers were praised for Ukraine support, but when players showed support for Palestine, they were dropped. Its a tragedy for the Palestinians, that their only defence is globally recognised as a terrorist group, and anyone who tries to defend them are labelled that way. This is the first time in my life I have seen the occupied stage such an attack against Israel, normally we just see weeping mums and dads of another child sniped by their soldiers. Especially at Ramadhan, when they always increase their attacks to disrupt our holy month. I have seen many pictures of Palestinian babies with a bullet to the heart. Former soldiers have revealed they are trained to wipe out whole families so there is no future revenge attack from the kids etc “The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” Malcolm X
    1
  19.  @AA-Ashley  then you should hate the Israeli apartheid state even more These attacks were a response to a genocide so evil, if you saw how many babies they sniped, how many families wiped out, land stoled, I am confident you yourself would join hamas, because that would be a better moral position than to support the genocide. Look for vide9s of their x soldiers, who confirm they are trained to kil, and to ensure they wipe out every child so they do not grow up and come for revenge. Be sincere and please look into the context
    1
  20.  @mehow357  amnesty International recognises they are an apartheid state. They have illegal settlements in the west bank, ILLEGAL BY INTERNATIONAL LAW, and on a daily basis they steal homes and kil when resisted. The Palestinians in gaza are entirely at the mercy of the cruel regime. It's not surprise that most of the heartless bias comments come from xtians and hindus
    1
  21. There will be NO HUMILIATION when we look up the validity of the famous story of the adult eress woman, one that is the GO TO STORY pointed to, as the most beautiful of teachings of Jesus, and we realise that it is remo ved from modern translations because the story was A CONFIRMED INTER POL ATION, a froidd, AND NOT IN THE EARLY MANUSCRIPTS. Even though this story, is a big part of our faith, which we use to show Jesus was all love 🤦. We will not care. ( I mean the story itself contra bicted our beliefs, because we belive Jesus is si nless, and so should have st0n 3d the woman, but he didn't, meaning he was also a s1nner! But stop it. We don't use our brains and question nonsense. We says it's a mystery and blindly accept it) So what if church and Paul teach DIRECTLY OPPOSITE TO WHAT JESUS TAUGHT. So what if Jesus refers to himself as a prophet, and is called by all those close to him! We will change the meanings of words to remain upon falsehood. GOD is now also a prophet because Jesus bought a message, and multiple ano nee mous authors 4 centuries after Jesus told us Jesus is God ( in gospel of John), and so God can also be a prophet. ( again, don't bother pointing out that if Jesus was indeed God, then that means he was D3C3IV ING THE PEOPLE, letting them believe he was a prophet when he was actually their God!, because we won't care) most of us haven't heard verses like john seven teen .3, 2wenty.7teen, unambiguous clear cut, not open to interpretation statements that clearly d35 troy our whole existence, because church pastors like to keep them quiet. So what if most of the statements we depend on, are metaphorical, and clearly refuted by verses from Jesus, so what if Jesus saying he is " Alpha and omega" is removed from modern translations because its yet another fraudlent insertion. Rev1.eleven john 5ive sev7 is one of our most famous frwdulent insertions, the trinity formula, johanine coma, it is also removed from all modern translations, because it is yet anothwer froid. Even though, all the inter pol ations, fraud and mi15 stranslations seem to be around who God is, and who Jesus is, alarm bells wont go off ringing. We will instead, insist the bible isn't kurpted. We will get angry with the Qur'an and Muslims for daring for suggesting it. Even though God says He doesn't accept human s4c rifice, we will insist Jesus the man, d13d for us. We know God is immortal, so we will reconcile by creating a second dimension of Jesus, where he is 100% man and 100% God, so we have a loophole. When muslims tell us God is immortal, and so Jesus can't be God, we will be able to say "his human nature d1 3d".... and if the Muslims say that God hay 8s uman s4c rifice, we can say "He was God in flesh" and it was a divine s4c ri fice! We appreciate when Jesus was asked the all important question about what was required for salvation, he didnt say believe i will dy for your sins, no, Jesus said to keep the commandments, most importantly that OUR lord God is one,...HOWEVER, we prefer the story paul and church taught us, this is much better for us as we don't have to s4c ri fice anymore, we just belive Jesus paid for our sins, and be sorry and bingo! And as you have seen so far, we aren't very s1n seer, so we see no in just iss when an innocent pays for the s1ns of the guilty, or when children inherit s1ns for krymez that had nothing to do with them. Even though this goes against all the previous messages and teachings, and original s1n is only found in pauls work and the last gospel John, we will accept this 3 vil concept. Again, we don't care that in Eze kiel 8teen .2wenty God tells us he hay 8s ORIGINAL S1N, BECAUSE HE IS JUST, and that we can be saved through repentance, not just forgiven, God says He will forget the sin through his mercy, WITHOUT BLuD. ( WE COMPELTELY IGNORE THIS BECAUSE IT IS ISLAM ) ....also we can point to our false pro pet paul, who said we can do away with the old covenant. ( even though Jesus said that not one JOT shouldn't be kept until heaven and earth disappear ) they don't call us paul followers for nothing. We will insist Jesus is the only begotten son of God, even though David is called begotten of God by God in the Bible. And we will say that the title 'son of man' is a divine title ( don't remind us eze keel is called son of man more times than Jesus ) We will claim Jesus was a willing s4k rifice even though Jesus begs, and cries all day to be saved from the cruc fiction. Jesus 'will' was to be saved, but he said he would accept whatever was God's will. We believe God DID NOT ANSWER Jesus prayers, and our God was stripped n4k3d, bee ten whyppd and kil d by men against his wishes. Even though all the disciples deserted Jesus, and there were no historical eyewitness, we will argue there are ( we only have jos ephus, who wasn't an eyewitness, and reported on rumours ) We will point to eye zayya 53, where Jesus meets absolutely NONE of the criteria, and ignore salm 9one where Jesus is mentioned by name, and says not even a bruise or cut would come to Jesus as God will send angels to protect him and raise him up We will ignore the letters of ignacious which writ to challenge the popular belief that the crucifixion of Jesus was an illusion. This proves in the 1st century, people were unsure if Jesus was crucified. We will insist a plural godhead of 3 fully God's is PURE MONOTHEISM. even we know its absurd, but if we keep insisting, we can be at peace with it. Our bible attributes much bad and f17th to Jesus that we wish it didn't, but we are good at spinning and miss represen tation of text, so we will twist our way out of it. Although we believe Jesus is God and always was, we will run whenever people respond to our critique of Islam, by showing 10x worse stuff our God Jesus commanded in the o.t. And for any of the bad stuff they show us from the n.t., we just say Jesus was teaching a parable 😉 always works 💪 We will continue spreading l13s about Islam, because it is the biggest thret to xtianity, many of our pristes, celebs, and in particular, our woman, are leaving paul anity for Islam by the fastest rate. The conversion rates are the highest, and most ree verts to Islam are white xtian woman! But, as malcolm once said, the media can make the innocent the gylty and the gylty the innocent, and the sion media is on our side, look at how easily we made the world believe they did nine wane wan, look how we lyde about sad damn, ga daf, luted them countries and now we are helping the sionist juws carry out a g3n 0cide on the nay tivs. ( we don't care the ones we help LITERALLY belive our God Jesus is boil ing in x crement and sea men)....
    1
  22. A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive. If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him. Matthew 21:11 And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.” Luke 7:16 Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” and, “God has visited His people!” John 4:19 The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Matthew 21:46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet. John 6:14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” John 7:40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” John 9:17 So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.” Luke 24:19 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, Mark 6:15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” Mark 8:28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” Luke 9:8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again. OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it😇 Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem. Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply offended and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family”. In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet. Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his death and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later.,
    1
  23. So did Jesus' earliest followers consider him to be God? EHRMAN: Well, what I argue in the book is that during his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God and that none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. The way it works is that you do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, our last Gospel. Jesus says things like: Before Abraham was, I am, and I and the father are one, and if you've seen me, you've see the father. These are all statements that you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier Gospels, and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things about him. I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. So this is not an unusual view among scholars. It's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understand of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate. GROSS: Jesus was referred to as the king of the Jews. Did he call himself that, and what did that mean it is time? Do we know? Can we have any idea what that meant in its time? EHRMAN: Yeah, we do know, and actually to be a king of the Jews simply meant literally, being the king over Israel. It is a very difficult question to get to, what Jesus taught about himself because of the nature of our gospels, but one thing is relatively certain, that that the reason the Romans crucified Jesus was precisely because he was calling himself the king of Israel. Now, Jesus obviously was not the king. So what might he have meant by it? Well, what scholars have long thought is that Jesus was talking about not being put on the throne by means of some kind of political show of power, but that Jesus thought the world as he knew it was coming to an end and God was going to bring in a kingdom, a new kingdom in which there would be no more injustice or oppression or poverty or suffering of any kind. And in this kingdom, Jesus appears to have thought that he himself would be the future king. And so Jesus meant this not in the regular political sense but in a kind of apocalyptic sense, that at the end of the age, this is what was going to happen: he was going to be installed as king. GROSS: So Jesus saw himself as the messiah. What else did that mean in its time? EHRMAN: Well, a lot of Christians today have a wrong idea about what the messiah was supposed to be. The word messiah is a Hebrew word that literally means the anointed one. This was used in reference to the kings of Israel. The ancient kings of Israel, when they became king during the coronation ceremony, would have oil poured on their head as a sign of divine favor. And so the king of Israel was called God's anointed one, the messiah. There came a point at which there was no longer a king ruling Israel, and some Jewish thinkers began to maintain that there would be a future king of Israel, a future anointed one, and they called that one the messiah. And so the messiah for most Jews simply referred to the future king of Israel. And so when Jesus told his disciples that he himself was the messiah, he was saying that in the future, when God establishes the kingdom once more, I myself will be the king of that kingdom. And so it's not that the messiah was supposed to be God. The messiah was not supposed to be God. The messiah was a human being who would be the future king, and that's probably what Jesus taught his disciples that he was
    1
  24. Richard Dawkins calls the Bible ‘a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries’. Let’s take the Gospel of John, the fourth Gospel. Is there good evidence to believe that what we read in John’s Gospel is a true account of what Jesus actually said and did? Up until a few hundred years ago, no-one really questioned whether John’s Gospel was historical. But with growing scepticism over the reality of God and the supernatural (a philosophical and cultural movement known as the Enlightenment), scholars began to suggest other explanations for the origins of the Gospel. Against the traditional view of the Gospel having been written by a disciple of Jesus and eyewitness to his life, death and resurrection, they argued that the Gospel was, in reality, written by someone living hundreds of years later, and hundreds of miles away. And the concepts in John, they said, were too Greek, and not Jewish enough (as the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, were). John’s idea that Jesus was ‘God in the flesh’, for example, was said to reflect much later developments in Christian theology. So for these reasons, by around 1900, most New Testament scholars believed that John’s Gospel could not be considered as reliable history.
    1
  25. A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive. If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him. Matthew 21:11 And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.” Luke 7:16 Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” and, “God has visited His people!” John 4:19 The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Matthew 21:46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet. John 6:14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” John 7:40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” John 9:17 So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.” Luke 24:19 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, Mark 6:15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” Mark 8:28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” Luke 9:8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again. OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it😇 Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem. Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply offended and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family”. In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet. Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his death and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later
    1
  26. So did Jesus' earliest followers consider him to be God? EHRMAN: Well, what I argue in the book is that during his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God and that none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. The way it works is that you do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, our last Gospel. Jesus says things like: Before Abraham was, I am, and I and the father are one, and if you've seen me, you've see the father. These are all statements that you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier Gospels, and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things about him. I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. So this is not an unusual view among scholars. It's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understand of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate. GROSS: Jesus was referred to as the king of the Jews. Did he call himself that, and what did that mean it is time? Do we know? Can we have any idea what that meant in its time? EHRMAN: Yeah, we do know, and actually to be a king of the Jews simply meant literally, being the king over Israel. It is a very difficult question to get to, what Jesus taught about himself because of the nature of our gospels, but one thing is relatively certain, that that the reason the Romans crucified Jesus was precisely because he was calling himself the king of Israel. Now, Jesus obviously was not the king. So what might he have meant by it? Well, what scholars have long thought is that Jesus was talking about not being put on the throne by means of some kind of political show of power, but that Jesus thought the world as he knew it was coming to an end and God was going to bring in a kingdom, a new kingdom in which there would be no more injustice or oppression or poverty or suffering of any kind. And in this kingdom, Jesus appears to have thought that he himself would be the future king. And so Jesus meant this not in the regular political sense but in a kind of apocalyptic sense, that at the end of the age, this is what was going to happen: he was going to be installed as king. GROSS: So Jesus saw himself as the messiah. What else did that mean in its time? EHRMAN: Well, a lot of Christians today have a wrong idea about what the messiah was supposed to be. The word messiah is a Hebrew word that literally means the anointed one. This was used in reference to the kings of Israel. The ancient kings of Israel, when they became king during the coronation ceremony, would have oil poured on their head as a sign of divine favor. And so the king of Israel was called God's anointed one, the messiah. There came a point at which there was no longer a king ruling Israel, and some Jewish thinkers began to maintain that there would be a future king of Israel, a future anointed one, and they called that one the messiah. And so the messiah for most Jews simply referred to the future king of Israel. And so when Jesus told his disciples that he himself was the messiah, he was saying that in the future, when God establishes the kingdom once more, I myself will be the king of that kingdom. And so it's not that the messiah was supposed to be God. The messiah was not supposed to be God. The messiah was a human being who would be the future king, and that's probably what Jesus taught his disciples that he was...
    1
  27. Jesus Christ not God. It is clear from the verses below that he was indeed 100% man. John 17.3...jesus says to the father...that they may know you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus whom you sent. John 20.17 Jesus says....I am ascending to my father and your father, my God and your God. Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Romans 5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man (Adam) how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! The Greek word for “man” in these verses is anthropos. The Greek word anthropos means “a human being, whether male or female, generically, to include all human individuals, to distinguish man from beings of a different race or order.” Anthropos is used to describe Adam, the first man. In the same verse (Romans 5:15) it is used to describe Jesus Christ. If words mean anything, one must believe that Jesus Christ was a flesh and blood human being just like Adam. On the other hand, Scripture says “God is not a man.” Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man… Numbers 23:19 (NRSV) God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal… Hosea 11:9 For I am God, and not man— the Holy One among you.
    1
  28. Richard Dawkins calls the Bible ‘a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries’. Let’s take the Gospel of John, the fourth Gospel. Is there good evidence to believe that what we read in John’s Gospel is a true account of what Jesus actually said and did? Up until a few hundred years ago, no-one really questioned whether John’s Gospel was historical. But with growing scepticism over the reality of God and the supernatural (a philosophical and cultural movement known as the Enlightenment), scholars began to suggest other explanations for the origins of the Gospel. Against the traditional view of the Gospel having been written by a disciple of Jesus and eyewitness to his life, death and resurrection, they argued that the Gospel was, in reality, written by someone living hundreds of years later, and hundreds of miles away. And the concepts in John, they said, were too Greek, and not Jewish enough (as the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, were). John’s idea that Jesus was ‘God in the flesh’, for example, was said to reflect much later developments in Christian theology. So for these reasons, by around 1900, most New Testament scholars believed that John’s Gospel could not be considered as reliable history.
    1
  29. Word of God they say 🤦 Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version. The authorship of the Gospel of John, the Fourth Gospel, is widely contested. Scholars have debated the authorship of Johannine literature since at least the third century, but especially since the Enlightenment. the doctrine of Alpha and Omega is a sad and unfortunate example of mankind’s tampering with the Word of God.  It shows how doctrine is contracted by men to justify false beliefs.  The phrase “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” (Revelation 1:11) which is found in the King James Version was not in the original Greek texts.  Therefore, the Alpha Omega phrase is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation.,.,
    1
  30. Word of God they say 🤦 Known as the “Great Commission,” Matthew 28:19 describes Jesus sending his disciples out to preach the Gospel, instructing them, “Teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” In other words, the three persons in one God. This formula is an important piece of scriptural evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity.However, the rest of the New Testament refers to baptism only in the name of Jesus. For example, in Acts 2:38, Peter preaches that believers should “repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” This has led some to suspect that the Triune baptismal formula was added later in order to shore up the doctrine of the Trinity, which was rejected by the Arians and other early Christian sects. The fourth-century Church historian Eusebius quotes the text thus: “Go ye into all the world and make disciples of all the Gentiles in My Name.” Christian Eucharistic celebrations repeat Christ’s words over the cup of wine at the Last Supper: “This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.” But did Jesus really say it? The passage where it appears, Luke 22:20, is not in the fifth- or sixth-century Codex Bezae. Since Bezae is notorious for adding text, rather than subtracting it, the omission has caused some scholars to speculate that the text was not originally part of Luke.The doctrine of atonement conveyed by these words is also alien to Luke. In his Gospel and Acts, Luke portrays Christ’s death as a horrendous miscarriage of justice and nothing more. Christ’s blood is significant only in the sense that his unjust death pricked the conscience of some who called for it, leading to their conversion. The rejection of a vicarious sacrifice was quite conscious on Luke’s part. As Bible scholar Bart Ehrman writes: “Luke eliminated or changed the Markan references to Jesus’ atoning sacrifice; he chose not to quote Isaiah 53 to depict Jesus’ death as an atonement for sins, even though he quoted the passage otherwise . . . it is not at all difficult to account for an interpolation of the disputed words.”Moreover, the wording of the disputed passages is rather non-Lukan. In fact, the passage looks closer to something Paul might have written. Thus, the longer reading may be a scribal attempt to inject I Corinthians 11:24 into Luke’s Gospel.Defenders of the passage maintain that it doesn’t contradict Luke’s theology. While the passage is understood to be about atonement, Luke did not see it that way. Rather, he was drawing a parallel with the Passover lamb whose blood sealed the Old Covenant. The lamb was not itself a sin-offering. In the King James Bible, the Gospel of Mark ends with 16:20, “And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.” Most translations of Mark follow the KJV, with varying verbiage for the verses of chapter 16, which closely follow the Gospel of Luke. They appear to have been added by an unknown author or authors other than the original author of Mark, based on the oldest known manuscripts of the work. The oldest extant copies of Mark end at 16:8, and there are numerous copies which indicate the work ended there. One is the Sinaitic copy, circa 370 CE, another is the Vatican copy, circa 325 CE. There are many theories regarding the gospel stopping abruptly after 16:8, as well as when the additional verses were added. The additional verses describe the Ascension, and are included in the KJV without subsequent commentary, though many newer translations contain notes pointing out the unknown provenance of the subsequent verses after 16:8. Much of the later verses refer to the criteria for salvation (which differ from elsewhere in the Bible), proselytization, and the Great Commission, the command from Jesus to preach the word to all. The Great Commission is to many fundamentalists their Prime Directive, unaware that it was a later addition to the Gospel and of unknown origin. The translators allowed several Hebrew words to be used interchangeably when their meanings in the original were very much different. One of these is the Hebrew word alma, which was translated into Greek as meaning virgin, when in fact it refers to a young woman, betulah being the Hebrew word to refer to a pure woman, that is, a virgin. Isaiah 7:14 prophecies the birth of Emmanuel to a virgin, and is quoted in the first Chapter of Matthew, describing the virgin birth of Christ, one of the bases of Christianity. But Isaiah uses the Hebrew word amah, meaning a young woman, rather than betulah, meaning a pure woman. Matthew quotes the virgin birth as being the fulfillment of the prophet, the delivery of the Messiah. But the translation is wrong. The word amah appears only once in Isaiah (7:14) but the word betulah appears five times in the book, each time clearly in reference to a virgin (23:4, 23:12, 37:22, 47:1, and 62:5). The translation into Greek remains the source of the description of the prophecy of the virgin birth, it is not apparent in the original Hebrew. One of the most frequently quoted verses cited as proof that the entire contents of the Bible is divinely inspired comes from 2 Timothy. Verse 3:16 reads, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” This is a mistranslation and likely a deliberate one in the King James Version, which was written in part to be the only bible available for use in the Church of England, rendering it, and by extension its leader, the King, infallible and incontrovertible. The correct translation from the oldest extant copy of 2 Timothy renders the verse in this manner, “All God-breathed scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” By writing that God-breathed scripture – not all scripture – is profitable Paul implies that there is scripture that is not directly the word of God, while some parts of the scripture are. This mistranslation appears in the King James Version and has been altered in later revisions of the bible, which reject the theory that the entire work is the literal word of God, and thus infallible in its teaching, an outrage to some believers in the King James Version. Matthew 28:19, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," represents a rare biblical reference to the Holy Trinity. However, the trinity did not become church doctrine until the 3rd century CE, and even 4th century citations of this verse by Eusebius of Caesarea mention only baptizing] in the name of Jesus, as do similar biblical passages (e.g. Acts 19:5). The highly nuanced doctrine of the Trinity is a bit hazy in the Bible, so some scholars think scribes might have resorted to fabricating the scriptural proof themselves. Notably, they might have added the famous Johannine Comma to I John 5:7, which reads: “And there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.” This is one passage where the case for inauthenticity is virtually a slam dunk.Only eight extant Greek manuscripts from the 10th century onward contain the Comma. Four of these have the text only on the margin. All appear to be translations of the Latin Vulgate, itself a late text. No Church Father quotes it in debates with anti-Trinitarian heretics like the Arians. It is supposed that the Comma originated as a marginal note in certain Latin versions, eventually making its way into the Vulgate.The few proponents of the Comma accuse the Arians of suppressing the text. They argue that Bishop Cyprian appears to reference the Comma around AD 250. In the late fourth century, St. Jerome was aware of copies with the Comma and raged against scribes who were deleting it, calling them “unfaithful translators . . . who have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition, omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit.”But is it really believable that the Arians could have expunged so many Greek manuscripts, even with their dominance of the Eastern Roman Empire for half a century? Textual critics think not. Modern critical versions of the Bible now usually omit the Comma. For example, the English Standard Version reads: “For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.”
    1
  31. this genoside has really made it clear to me why ell exists. May all the supporters of this dwell there forever...,
    1
  32. wake up! they had to add the trinity later Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version.
    1
  33. the fa.Yke comission matt 28.19 isnt found in any manuscript befire the 3rd century. Not only did they add in that " paulanity was now to be spread to the world" they later, had to add in the trinity to this already added command Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28: “The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church.
    1
  34. The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.” The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275: “It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.”
    1
  35. Bruce Metzger, the premier New Testament textual critic, writes: “Matthew and Luke suppress or weaken references in Mark to such human emotions of Jesus as grief and anger and amazement as well as Jesus’ unrequited love; they also omit Mark’s statement that Jesus’ friends thought he was beside himself”. He explains further, that: “The later gospels omit what might imply that Jesus was unable to accomplish what he willed…and also omit questions asked by Jesus which might be taken to imply his ignorance.”[3] Metzger continues further by enumerating instances where Matthew and Luke soften Mark’s statements which might minimize the majesty of Jesus and replaced it with illustrations of a more alluring and authoritative Jesus. In the story of the fig tree as found in Mark, the disciples did not notice the withering of the tree until next morning. For Matthew, this seemed less dramatic and unimpressive, and hence in his narrative the tree withered at once, leaving the disciples in shock and amazement. Matthew and Luke were adamant in changing the words of Jesus. They wanted to make Jesus say what they wanted people to believe, “reflecting a later stage of theological understanding than that in Mark.” (Metzger, pg 83) It seems quite clear that during both the pre and post gospel stages of the gospel traditions transmission, the available material was molded, filtered and changed in direct correlation to the Christological convictions of those who handled the traditions. It is important to stress that this is not a case of the evangelists’ mere differing in emphasis; rather there are numerous occasions when the later gospel writers go out of their way to modify and alter the earlier version. Therefore, if we wish to come close to the historical Jesus in the gospels, it is a good starting point to compare the stories in the various gospels, to discern where the story has altered.
    1
  36. What about “He who is without s77n, should k4st the f1r5t”? Looking back at John 7:53-8:11, it is clear this story was not in John’s original gospel. Your Bible likely has brackets around this story with a note that says something like “The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53-8:11.” This is because the only manuscript before the ninth century to include this story was one from the fifth century found in western Europe (further from where John wrote) and also deviates from earlier manuscripts in other key areas. Other copies from the tenth century onward that have it, often place it, or variations of it, in different places throughout the gospels. It only became more common in its current form and location in manuscripts dating from the Middle Ages. On the other hand, every other early manuscript omits it, notably including two of the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, called Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 that date from the second or early third century and were found in Egypt (closer to where John wrote). Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete copy of the New Testament (c. 325 CE), does not include it either. No pastor or theologian from the eastern side of the early church references it until the tenth century. In their commentaries and sermons, they go directly from John 7:52 to 8:12 (keep in mind that current chapter and verse breakdowns were added later). Finally, all the earliest translations of the Greek New Testament (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Old Latin, and Georgian) skip this story as well.
    1
  37. wake up! they had to add the trinity later Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version.
    1
  38. the fa.Yke comission matt 28.19 isnt found in any manuscript befire the 3rd century. Not only did they add in that " paulanity was now to be spread to the world" they later, had to add in the trinity to this already added command Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28: “The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church.
    1
  39. The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.” The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275: “It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.”
    1
  40. Bruce Metzger, the premier New Testament textual critic, writes: “Matthew and Luke suppress or weaken references in Mark to such human emotions of Jesus as grief and anger and amazement as well as Jesus’ unrequited love; they also omit Mark’s statement that Jesus’ friends thought he was beside himself”. He explains further, that: “The later gospels omit what might imply that Jesus was unable to accomplish what he willed…and also omit questions asked by Jesus which might be taken to imply his ignorance.”[3] Metzger continues further by enumerating instances where Matthew and Luke soften Mark’s statements which might minimize the majesty of Jesus and replaced it with illustrations of a more alluring and authoritative Jesus. In the story of the fig tree as found in Mark, the disciples did not notice the withering of the tree until next morning. For Matthew, this seemed less dramatic and unimpressive, and hence in his narrative the tree withered at once, leaving the disciples in shock and amazement. Matthew and Luke were adamant in changing the words of Jesus. They wanted to make Jesus say what they wanted people to believe, “reflecting a later stage of theological understanding than that in Mark.” (Metzger, pg 83) It seems quite clear that during both the pre and post gospel stages of the gospel traditions transmission, the available material was molded, filtered and changed in direct correlation to the Christological convictions of those who handled the traditions. It is important to stress that this is not a case of the evangelists’ mere differing in emphasis; rather there are numerous occasions when the later gospel writers go out of their way to modify and alter the earlier version. Therefore, if we wish to come close to the historical Jesus in the gospels, it is a good starting point to compare the stories in the various gospels, to discern where the story has altered.
    1
  41. What about “He who is without s77n, should k4st the f1r5t”? Looking back at John 7:53-8:11, it is clear this story was not in John’s original gospel. Your Bible likely has brackets around this story with a note that says something like “The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53-8:11.” This is because the only manuscript before the ninth century to include this story was one from the fifth century found in western Europe (further from where John wrote) and also deviates from earlier manuscripts in other key areas. Other copies from the tenth century onward that have it, often place it, or variations of it, in different places throughout the gospels. It only became more common in its current form and location in manuscripts dating from the Middle Ages. On the other hand, every other early manuscript omits it, notably including two of the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, called Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 that date from the second or early third century and were found in Egypt (closer to where John wrote). Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete copy of the New Testament (c. 325 CE), does not include it either. No pastor or theologian from the eastern side of the early church references it until the tenth century. In their commentaries and sermons, they go directly from John 7:52 to 8:12 (keep in mind that current chapter and verse breakdowns were added later). Finally, all the earliest translations of the Greek New Testament (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Old Latin, and Georgian) skip this story as well.
    1
  42. GROSS: So Jesus saw himself as the messiah. What else did that mean in its time? EHRMAN: Well, a lot of Christians today have a wrong idea about what the messiah was supposed to be. The word messiah is a Hebrew word that literally means the anointed one. This was used in reference to the kings of Israel. The ancient kings of Israel, when they became king during the coronation ceremony, would have oil poured on their head as a sign of divine favor. And so the king of Israel was called God's anointed one, the messiah. There came a point at which there was no longer a king ruling Israel, and some Jewish thinkers began to maintain that there would be a future king of Israel, a future anointed one, and they called that one the messiah. And so the messiah for most Jews simply referred to the future king of Israel. And so when Jesus told his disciples that he himself was the messiah, he was saying that in the future, when God establishes the kingdom once more, I myself will be the king of that kingdom. And so it's not that the messiah was supposed to be God. The messiah was not supposed to be God. The messiah was a human being So did Jesus' earliest followers consider him to be God? EHRMAN: Well, what I argue in the book is that during his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God and that none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. The way it works is that you do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, our last Gospel. Jesus says things like: Before Abraham was, I am, and I and the father are one, and if you've seen me, you've see the father. These are all statements that you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier Gospels, and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things about him. I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. So this is not an unusual view among scholars. It's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understand of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate. GROSS: Jesus was referred to as the king of the Jews. Did he call himself that, and what did that mean it is time? Do we know? Can we have any idea what that meant in its time? EHRMAN: Yeah, we do know, and actually to be a king of the Jews simply meant literally, being the king over Israel. It is a very difficult question to get to, what Jesus taught about himself because of the nature of our gospels, but one thing is relatively certain, that that the reason the Romans crucified Jesus was precisely because he was calling himself the king of Israel. Now, Jesus obviously was not the king. So what might he have meant by it? Well, what scholars have long thought is that Jesus was talking about not being put on the throne by means of some kind of political show of power, but that Jesus thought the world as he knew it was coming to an end and God was going to bring in a kingdom, a new kingdom in which there would be no more injustice or oppression or poverty or suffering of any kind. And in this kingdom, Jesus appears to have thought that he himself would be the future king. And so Jesus meant this not in the regular political sense but in a kind of apocalyptic sense, that at the end of the age, this is what was going to happen: he was going to be installed as king.
    1
  43. A prophet is someone SENT by God, God is not a prophet by definition, they are mutually exclusive. If this man was GOD, he would never have claimed to be a prophet or called a prophet by those who saw him. Matthew 21:11 And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.” Luke 7:16 Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” John 4:19 The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Matthew 21:46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet. John 6:14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” John 7:40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” John 9:17 So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.” Luke 24:19 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, Mark 6:15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” Mark 8:28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” Luke 9:8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again. OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it😇 Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem. Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family”. In the above two verses, Jesus called himself a prophet. There are also many verses indicating that during his lifetime on earth the people in Judea and Galilee regarded him as a prophet. Regarding the verses in which Jesus says that he is equal to God (mainly in the Gospel of John) most scholars believe that Jesus never said that. It was what people started saying about him after his deaff and put on his lips in the Gospels written at least 4 decades later.,
    1
  44. Jesus Christ not God. It is clear from the verses below that he was indeed 100% man. John 17.3...jesus says to the father...that they may know you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus whom you sent. John 20.17 Jesus says....I am ascending to my father and your father, my God and your God. Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man… Numbers 23:19 (NRSV) God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal… Hosea 11:9 For I am God, and not man— the Holy One among you..
    1
  45. For me, the biggest evidence is that Paul followers ALWAYS QUOTE PAUL, OR THE LAST GOSPEL JOHN, as their evidences And their own scholars say John is the LEAST AUTHENTIC, written by multiple authors, hundreds of miles and years away from Jesus. And this is the book that elevates Jesus, at least tries. They never ever quote Mark or luke, the earlier Gospels, where Jesus is a prophet and messiah, sent only for the lost sheep of Israel, by his own admission. This is the biggest red flag that Paul followers are misguided. ALL THEIR favourite quotes come from the froindulent Gospel of John. Even Mark isn't safe. 16.8 is where Mark ends,as the earliest manuscripts end there.. But the 'long ending' of Mark, 16.9 to 20, has the resurrection, Jesus sitting on right side of God etc Their own academia acknowledge this, that 9 to 20 are later interpolation and its common knowledge except for the blind followers who have not studied what they are basing their salvation on 🤦
    1
  46. Let’s take the Gospel of John, the fourth Gospel. Is there good evidence to believe that what we read in John’s Gospel is a true account of what Jesus actually said and did? Up until a few hundred years ago, no-one really questioned whether John’s Gospel was historical. But with growing scepticism over the reality of God and the supernatural (a philosophical and cultural movement known as the Enlightenment), scholars began to suggest other explanations for the origins of the Gospel. Against the traditional view of the Gospel having been written by a disciple of Jesus and eyewitness to his life, death and resurrection, they argued that the Gospel was, in reality, written by someone living hundreds of years later, and hundreds of miles away. And the concepts in John, they said, were too Greek, and not Jewish enough (as the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, were). John’s idea that Jesus was ‘God in the flesh’, for example, was said to reflect much later developments in Christian theology. So for these reasons, by around 1900, most New Testament scholars believed that John’s Gospel could not be considered as reliable history.
    1
  47. I and my father are one. John 10.30....that they may all be one, just as you, father are in me, and I in you, that they may also be in us....The glory that you have given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one. John 17:20 So are the disciples also God? Because they are one with Jesus and God just as Jesus and God are one? Obviously not. So John 10.30 is not a literal one, but a metaphorical one. When cherry picking goes wrong. Thats why you should read the bible, and not believe whatever church or people have taught you. Whoever has seen me has seen the father. John 14.9. You take it literally and use this as evidence Jesus is God. So that would literally mean Jesus is the Father! In the Christian Creed, is Jesus ever the father? NO. They are 2 separate entities. Jesus is not the father, and the father is not Jesus. So again, you cherry pick a metaphorical statement and claim its literal, but if you think it through you would realise the blunder. If it wasn't cherry picked and it was understood with context, and other verses in the Bible were read, you would see many verses along these lines, that are not literal but metaphorical. Besides, the Bible says no man can see God and live. Every prophet that came was the only way to God during their respective prophet hood. When Abraham had his time, the way to God was only through his teaching, when Moses was here, it was through him, likewise Jesus, likewise Muhammad. He is the last prophet bringing the final revelation from God, and our only way to God is now through his teachings. Before Abraham was, I am. First of all, its a mistranslation. But before we get to that, how is this saying he is God? Being before Abraham makes him God? If you had read and understood the context, you would have realised it was talking about God's foreknowledge. It is saying that the mission of Jesus was predestined before Abraham was on earth. Likewise Muhammad says that he was a prophet when Adam was between water and clay. We don't take that as evidence Muhammad was God! He was a man and prophet of God. The statement 'I am' is in many places in the Bible, the exact words as the above, but its translated as 'I am he', Paul says it, blind man says it, but only in John 8:48 its translated as "I am" copying the translation of the "I am" that was used from OT about the Almighty God. Instead of depending on mistranslation, ambiguous statements, interpolation and fraud, look at the clear cut unambiguous statements from Jesus, like John 17.3, where Jesus says the ONLY TRUE GOD IS THE FATHER, or John 20:17 where he tells us we have the same father as him, the same God as him. Please reflect and study the bible properly. Better yet, read a red letter bible, where the statements of Jesus are in red. See what Jesus says, and not what others have said, and if you are sincere, it will rock your world. Sincerely as the God of Jesus to guide you 🙏
    1
  48. Ttthe doctrine of Alpha and Omega is a sad and unfortunate example of mankind’s tampering with the Word of God. It shows how doctrine is contracted by men to justify false beliefs. The phrase “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” (Revelation 1:11) which is found in the King James Version was not in the original Greek texts. Therefore, the Alpha Omega phrase is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation., This phrase does NOT occur in NA28, UBS5, W&H, Souter, Majority Text, THGNT, SBL, R&P Byzantine Text, Orthodox Text, Jerome's Latin Vulgate, & the Clementine Text. The phrase only occurs in the Textus Receptus. This phrase is not even footnoted in UBS5 and UBS4. The only MSS listed as having this phrase in NA28 is the manuscript of the commentary on Revelation by Andreas of Caesarea. However, "I [am] the first and the last" occurs in P025. Therefore, there appears to be very little dispute that "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" is not part of the original text of Revelation at Rev 1:11. in many places, the trinitaria scribes mistraslate. e.g. they translate words that mean 'revere' or 'homage' into worship. this is truly sad that they mislead many to eternal fiya Matthew 2:11 — The NRSV correctly reads “and they knelt down and paid him homage.” The NIV has the magi worship Jesus instead of merely paying homage, most likely reflecting the piety of the translators and their audience: “and they bowed down and worshipped him.” The NIV does, however, correctly translate the same word (proskuneō) as “pay homage” in Mark 15:19, where the soldiers pay mock homage to Jesus as king. [See BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, pp. 44–45.] John 7:53-8:11, often described as “The Passage of the Woman Caught in Adultery” (passage de adultera), is famous for several reasons. The pleasant reason is that it is one of the most dramatic displays of the grace of God in the Bible. But there is also a more difficult reason that needs to be addressed: this passage was likely not in the original version of the Gospel of John, but was added later at an undeterminable time and for an unknown reason. How should the church treat this passage? The text-critical evidence is overwhelming: this passage was almost certainly not in the original version of the Gospel of John. This is hardly an answer, however, but an entirely new question. For nearly every contemporary Bible, even if the text is given double-brackets or italicized or given a smaller font, contains this passage, thereby declaring to today’s reader that it is part of the Gospel of John
    1
  49. this genoside has really made it clear to me why ell exists. May all the supporters of this dwell there forever...,,.
    1
  50. for t h e al o ry th m. .
    1