Comments by "nunya" (@nunya54) on "Valuetainment"
channel.
-
73
-
40
-
21
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
13
-
12
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
@SadMonkeyofficial Why would Islam not still hold the beliefs it had before? If it's a religion from God and the last religion, perfected until the end of time, it should still be practiced the same. A religion from God means it is appropriate for all time and into the future because of course, God knows the future and legislates accordingly.
Christianity not believing that is because it doesn't actually follow the teachings and practices of Jesus, at least not after the third century. Christians before that time DID believe in that as they were Torah-practicing Jews, like Jesus. Jesus believed in and followed Mosaic law which called for killing people for particular crimes. The Bible says to kill those who call to another religion even if they be your own family members. If Jesus is God and that is from God, that is what Jesus said.
You mean Christians today don't spread or believing in killing. Historically, Christians did believe in and use violence with each other, fighting each other bloodily even disagreeing on who Jesus was (why didn't they know, where was the proof?), they spread their religion through violent and coercive means, even almost killing the Jews out of existence due to the hostility of the gospel writers. If Jesus taught non-violence and turning the other cheek, that message was surely lost rather quickly after him. Makes more sense he didn't and seeing as how turning the other cheek is something Matthew said, we can't verify that's true. Matthew was known to invent stories about Jesus. It was only after Christianity was spread around the world through edicts, with threats of violence and death, through coercion, slavery, wars, etc, that they adopted the doctrines of peace, loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek which in reality was really doing nothing at all as they abandoned the religion being Christian in name only with no real practice.
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
There is no reforming away from God's legislation. Perhaps with other religions because they follow the words and ideas of men rather than God but Islam is from God and no one knows creation best than God. In Islam God requires that Muslims love what He loves and hate what He hates and He does not love evil and sin. That being said, He also requires Muslims have good treatment towards others. You can hate that someone does evil things but still treat them with justice and fairness, which is what Islam has always done and why it was a preferred system over other systems historically.
For example, you hate that the Jews reject the prophets of God and killed them but it was Muslim countries that took Jews in and saved them from the Christians who were coercing them out of their religion and almost killed them out of existence. Muslims have never compelled people to become Muslim, it is not allowed, as it is stated in the Quran and when they conquered people they were not allowed to fight anyone that did not fight them, murder was not indiscriminate, the old, young and women were not to be fought (unless they were fighting), they were not to burn crops or cut down trees, destroy synagogues or churches but to allow the people to continue to worship.
When people bring up murder in Islam, they often do so misunderstanding the verses in the Quran where the Muslims were fighting battles and killing people who were trying to kill them. The Quran was revealed over a 23-year period in real time to events that were happening to Muhammad and his companions. This fighting as well, was all commanded by God and not indiscriminate and for all times but decisive times and for good reason. There is no dark side of Islam; only what people misunderstand and haven't learned fully yet. There was also no pedophilia.
Muhammad is considered the most influential man in history. Islam is the only religion with an authentic source revealed by God and that doesn't exist in any other religion. It's also the only religion with the solutions to the problems we have in the world today. Learn more about it and you will see, it's the only way.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Republican_Banana I'm not sure you understand how evidence works but you can't verify something as true if you don't know who is speaking and no one knows who the author of John was to say when he died. No one in all of Christian history knows the John who wrote John. It is believed it was Irenaeus who wrote it. The first couple of hundred years, these manuscripts had no names attached to them. Chapter 21, in the end of John, it says this is the same disciple who is testifying to these things and has recorded them and we know without any doubt that his testimony is true . . . Who is speaking? We know that HIS testimony is third person. The third person is John meaning he's not present. Who's speaking first person? The we? Who wrote it? No one knows. The name they said is the faithful scribe. This gospel has come from this person who is speaking first person; we don't know who that person is but all the big great I Am statements come from him.
The author intentionally remained anonymous. Scholars surmised that if any of the disciples of Jesus qualified as the “beloved disciple”, it would have been Thomas, not John. Since chapter 21 seems to be a later addition and since Thomas is the last disciple mentioned at the end of chapter 20, it follows then he should qualify as the “beloved disciple”, at least in the “original” ending of the gospel. Even if chapter 21 was the original ending, scholars notes that there is simply no specific disciple who is identified as the “beloved disciple”, so that “he remains anonymous, as the evangelist intended”. But if the author really was John the son of Zebedee or any other disciple, why did he go out of his way to remain anonymous? If anything, it would bolster the credibility and authority of the gospel to directly name a specific disciple, but instead, the author deliberately decided to be anonymous.
The Gospel of John is ambiguous at best and often taken out of context and misinterpreted. Remove it and there's very little left to say Jesus is divine. There's no basis for the Trinity. The gospel of John is not a reliable historical account of the life and teaching of Jesus. Some fragments of John are dated well within the third century, 200 years after Jesus. Paleographic dating gives relative, not absolute dates. It doesn't emerge clearly in historical record until the end of the 2nd century. Justin Martyr (100-165CE) doesn't cite John's Gospel. John also wasn't known to Polycarp. His letter to the Philippians (135CE) never quotes or alludes to the Gospel of John but he does quote from the other gospels abundantly. According to church history, Polycarp studied under John but doesn't once quote him in his writings event though he quotes Mark, Matthew and Luke. The one person's gospel he should have written about, he didn't? There's no explicit attestation for John until Irenaeus in the late 2nd century.
It's impossible a disciple of Jesus was the author of John as they would have long since passed away. It's the work of a much later writer, so we must reject it. It's not evidence and to say this is a terrible argument means a person doesn't know what evidence is or they don't follow or care about it. This is exactly why Christian scholars say there is no evidence of Jesus being divine. They know John is not evidence.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3