Comments by "Fu Uf" (@fuuf7092) on "France rail network crippled by sabotage attacks ahead of Paris Olympics" video.

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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