Comments by "Fu Uf" (@fuuf7092) on "Reform UK's Nigel Farage challenged over his claim that Muslims are against British values" video.
-
3
-
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 🤦
2
-
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.
2
-
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
2
-
Islam didn't invent the fact Jesus wasn't crucified.
In his Trallians, Ignatius, the bishop ofAntioch (who died around 110
CE, and who wrote during the first decade of the second century CE), was
quite eloquent in his attack against the early Christians who denied that
the crucifixion of Jesus was anything more than an illusion. The following quotation from Ignatius (italics added for emphasis by the present
author) is directly to the point:
But if, as some say.. .his suffering was only an appearance, then
why am I a prisoner, and why do I long to fight with the wild beasts?
In that case, I am dying in vain."
80 The Cross & The Crescent
One cannot attack as heresy a belief or doctrine that does not yet
exist. The theology of Ignatius not withstanding, his attack against those
early Christians who believed that Jesus' crucifixion was only illusory,
demonstrates the existence of that belief among the early Christians.
Further, the fact that Ignatius even bothered to attack this doctrine suggests that the belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was quite
widespread by 110 CEo Clearly, the doctrine of or belief in the illusory
nature of the crucifixion was perceived by Ignatius to be a threat to what
would much later become the orthodox position of the Christian church
regarding the crucifixion. As it would take some years for such a belief
to become widespread across the vastness of the Roman Empire, it can
be deduced that the origin of the doctrine of the illusory nature of the
crucifixion must be dated well back into the first century CE, and quite
possibly right back to the time of the crucifixion itself.
When considering the above, it must be remembered that Ignatius
was attacking Christians, not non-Christians, although the particular
Christians being attacked shared a specific belief system at odds with
that of Ignatius when it came to the particulars of the doctrine of the
crucifixion. To millions of Christians raised with a Sunday School interpretation of Christianity, the above may come as something of a shock.
However, for those Christians, the shocks are only just the beginning.
Indeed, the shocks dramatically increase in voltage when one considers
the early Christian scriptures, both apocryphal and canonical. ,,
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1