How do you define āprimary sourceā? The section I quoted was written by someone who knew Jesus personally
Itās a reinterpretation of oral accounts passed down decades after the deaths of the people itās about, and was first attributed to John nearly 180 years later. The gospel of John was first authored anonymously around 90-100ad and attributed to John by Irenaeus in 185ad
That is definitely contemporary for accounts at this point in history.
Not really, contemporary sources are generally limited to people involved with the actual history.
A lot of what we know about other people were written down centuries after.
When combined with other contextual sources.
Okay then, do you have any evidence on the contrary? That those werenāt His motivations?
Iām not the one making the claim that other religions are wrong and Christianity is true. Do you have evidence that Joseph Smith, Muhammad, or Buddha had alternative motives?
What temple did He destroy? The temple was destroyed in 70AD
I meant the first timeā¦ Not literally destroyed, but trashed, fucked dudes up, flipped tables.
Itās a reinterpretation of oral accounts passed down decades after the deaths of the people itās about, and was first attributed to John nearly 180 years later. The gospel of John was first authored anonymously around 90-100ad and attributed to John by Irenaeus in 185ad
90-100ad isnāt decades after the death of people itās about.
And it wasnāt authored anonymously.
John 21:20-25 ESV
[20] Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, āLord, who is it that is going to betray you?ā [21] When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, āLord, what about this man?ā [22] Jesus said to him, āIf it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!ā [23] So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, āIf it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?ā [24] This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true. [25] Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
That this disciple reclined with Jesus and was at the crucifixion and resurrection.
John 13:23 ESV
One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table at Jesusā side,
John 19:25-26 ESV
but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his motherās sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. [26] When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, āWoman, behold, your son!ā
John 20:2-5
[2] So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, āThey have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.ā [3] So Peter went out with the other disciple, and they were going toward the tomb. [4] Both of them were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. [5] And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in.
It also makes sense that somebody would know who wrote the Gospel. The authorship of the Gospels were never disputed in the early Church despite geographic spread. So that doesnāt mean that Irenaeus (A student of Polycarp who was a disciple of John) made it up
Not really, contemporary sources are generally limited to people involved with the actual history.
Which the writer of John clearly was.
When combined with other contextual sources.
There are four detailed accounts of Jesus.
Iām not the one making the claim that other religions are wrong and Christianity is true. Do you have evidence that Joseph Smith, Muhammad, or Buddha had alternative motives?
Mormonism has been debunked by the finding of the āoriginalā papyrus to one of their scriptures. The Qurāan claims to be in agreement with the Bible yet contradicts the hell out of it. Mohammed and JS had numerous wives because āgod told meā and Mohammed was a warlord, JS tried to set up ādeseretā
90-100ad isnāt decades after the death of people itās about.
Iām guessing you are claiming the John lives to be nearly a hundred years old? Even though there is no evidence to support thisā¦
And it wasnāt authored anonymously.
Yesā¦ It was. He did not assign his name or identify himself as the author. Most people believe him to be the author through contextual clues as you suggested. These contextual clues first put forth in 185ad have shaped the ways people reintertpred and translated the Bible every since.
Which the writer of John clearly was.
John did not write itā¦ He may have orally transferred the story to someone who later wrote it down after the time of his death. Youāre working off of assumptions that are highly disputable.
There are four detailed accounts of Jesus.
From his own cadra of followersā¦ Thatās like saying everything scientology claims about L Ron Hubbard is true because it was witnessed by 4 different scientologist.
Mormonism has been debunked by the finding of the āoriginalā papyrus to one of their scriptures. The Qurāan claims to be in agreement with the Bible yet contradicts the hell out of it. Mohammed and JS had numerous wives because āgod told meā and Mohammed was a warlord, JS tried to set up ādeseretā
And all Christian text are non contradictoryā¦? There havenāt been any ancient scripts found about Christianity that the church hasnāt adopted?
Iām guessing you are claiming the John lives to be nearly a hundred years old?
If John was, letās say 16 at the time of Jesusā crucifixion in 33 AD, then heād be 83 years old if it was written in 100 AD. A reasonable age. Iām not disputing the possibility of a scribe.
Even though there is no evidence to support thisā¦
Evidence that John wrote John would be evidence to support this.
These contextual clues first put forth in 185ad
Youāve got no evidence to support this than an argument from silence. That is the earliest RECORDED evidence. And from that time frame, thatās pretty damn close. Historians accept Julius Caesar was born in Suburra, yet the earliest record of that was written by Suetonius, around 200 years after the fact.
Then thereās Alexander the great - born in 300 BC but the records of his biography we use were written in the second century AD, by Arrian and Plutarch.
John did not write itā¦ He may have orally transferred the story to someone who later wrote it down after the time of his death. Youāre working off of assumptions that are highly disputable.
Youāre the one working off of assumptions
From his own cadra of followersā¦ Thatās like saying everything scientology claims about L Ron Hubbard is true because it was witnessed by 4 different scientologist.
So youāre basically asking me to find you sources documenting the resurrection of Jesus Christ from people who didnāt believe it happened? Donāt you realise how silly of a proposition that is? That, and whenever someone were to propose someone like Josephus, youāll just cry āChristian interpolationā, while most people are crying that using circular reasoning that he mustnāt have written about it because āsomeone canāt rise from the deadā. Weād have to throw out almost everything we know about Julius Caesar with that logic as it was either written by him or someone in his country at the time.
And all Christian text are non contradictoryā¦? There havenāt been any ancient scripts found about Christianity that the church hasnāt adopted?
There have been. Are you talking about non Christian sources? stating that the Church was āadopting everything someone wrote about Jesusā
John was, letās say 16 at the time of Jesusā crucifixion in 33 AD, then heād be 83 years old if it was written in 100 AD. A reasonable age. Iām not disputing the possibility of a scribe.
Ahh yes, letās make wild assumptions that fit my own narrativeā¦
Evidence that John wrote John would be evidence to support this.
āIām not disputing the possibility of a scribe.ā
Youāve got no evidence to support this than an argument from silence. That is the earliest RECORDED evidence. And from that time frame, thatās pretty damn close.
Eusebiusās argument was an ongoing debate between scholars in the early church. However itās widely recognized as how the church canonized John the apostle as the author.
Historians accept Julius Caesar was born in Suburra, yet the earliest record of that was written by Suetonius, around 200 years after the fact.
No they largely do not. In most histories they say he was born in Rome, some go as far as saying likely in Suburra, but thatās more of an inference as his family was known to be impoverished.
Suetonius is historically valuable, but known as a bit of a gossip, and prone to hearsay.
Then thereās Alexander the great - born in 300 BC but the records of his biography we use were written in the second century AD, by Arrian and Plutarch.
Yes, but those were written from lost primary and contemporary sources from people like Ptolemy, Aristobulus, and in some cases the kingās journal.
Youāre the one working off of assumptions
Youāre claiming the new testament that the new testament didnāt first get passed down by oral tradition?
So youāre basically asking me to find you sources documenting the resurrection of Jesus Christ from people who didnāt believe it happened?
No, just saying that you canāt use biased sources to make claims about his motivation.
That, and whenever someone were to propose someone like Josephus, youāll just cry āChristian interpolationā, while most people are crying that using circular reasoning that he mustnāt have written about it because āsomeone canāt rise from the deadā.
I have no idea what you are trying to accuse me of?
Weād have to throw out almost everything we know about Julius Caesar with that logic as it was either written by him or someone in his country at the time.
Being in the same country as someone is not the same as being in the same cult as someoneā¦ Also, plenty of people doubt the accuracy of Caesars commentary on the Gaelic wars. Especially like with most ancient commentaries about the size of opposing armies.
There have been. Are you talking about non Christian sources?
Iām saying that just saying that all religions pick and choose their own doctrine. Itās not like the church adopted the gospel of Mary.
Ahh yes, letās make wild assumptions that fit my own narrativeā¦
In your land, an 83 year old dude writing something is a āwild assumptionā. ok.
Evidence that John wrote John would be evidence to support this.
āIām not disputing the possibility of a scribe.ā
You know what a scribe isā¦ Right? Someone who sits with you as you dictate to them? You know a lot of news report articles about people arenāt actually written by that person, but a journalist themselvesā¦ And even then, a scribe is more reliable than a journalist š¤¦
Eusebiusās argument was an ongoing debate between scholars in the early church. However itās widely recognized as how the church canonized John the apostle as the author.
Eusebius was quoting Clement of Alexandria from AD 150ā¦
Yes, but those were written from lost primary and contemporary sources from people like Ptolemy, Aristobulus, and in some cases the kingās journal.
So like what Esebius wrote, and what was likely composed by Luke the Evangelist in his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles.
Youāre claiming the new testament that the new testament didnāt first get passed down by oral tradition?
Yes, because within the timeframe it was written in. The likes of Mark and Luke would have had those aspects, possibly some in Matthew, but even then, oral tradition isnāt unreliable and it takes centuries for supernatural claims and legends to show up.
No, just saying that you canāt use biased sources to make claims about his motivation.
In this case, anything arguing in favour or showing the resurrection of Christ is automatically ābiasedā by your definition. Itās like arguing with someone about global warming who doesnāt trust scientists or the scientific method - Any science you do show them they dismiss as ābiasedā because they donāt trust scientists. In the same way, if anyone believed that Jesus rose again, theyād rationally be a Christian. You dismiss this as ābiasedā because they were a Christian. Or if someone who wasnāt a Christian wrote something that did defend it, then it must be interpolated because of the ābiasā.
If the Gospels were biased, they wouldnāt have had bad stories about their leaders at the time. Such as peter denying Jesus, Peter cutting off a dudeās ear and Jesus rebuking him, or James and John trying to get priority status in Glory.
I have no idea what you are trying to accuse me of?
Irrational thinking. The argument for Christian interpolation is basically āJosephus couldnāt have written it, as Jesus didnāt rise from the deadā
Iām saying that just saying that all religions pick and choose their own doctrine. Itās not like the church adopted the gospel of Mary.
Because those gnostic texts were known forgeries.
What reason would have they had to pick and choose the four Gospels over the gnostic texts anyway?
In your land, an 83 year old dude writing something is a āwild assumptionā. ok.
What makes you assume heās 83? The only thing informing your assumptions are your conclusions. He must be the author, so he must have lived to 100ad, which means he must have been 16 when Jesus diedā¦
You know what a scribe isā¦ Right? Someone who sits with you as you dictate to them? You know a lot of news report articles about people arenāt actually written by that person, but a journalist themselvesā¦ And even then, a scribe is more reliable than a journalist š¤¦
A scribe can also be some writing down an oral traditionā¦
Eusebius was quoting Clement of Alexandria from AD 150
Clement was born in 150adā¦ Eusebius utilized different sources to propose that there were at least two different johns. John the apostle who he supposed wrote the book of John and Presbyter John, who he believed wrote revelations.
Yes, because within the timeframe it was written in. The likes of Mark and Luke would have had those aspects, possibly some in Matthew, but even then, oral tradition isnāt unreliable and it takes centuries for supernatural claims and legends to show up.
āis widely agreed amongst Biblical scholars that accounts of Jesusās teachings and life were initially conserved by oral transmission, which was the source of the written gospelsā
In this case, anything arguing in favour or showing the resurrection of Christ is automatically ābiasedā by your definition.
No, if we had records from the Romans claiming the guy they crusified a couple days ago is backā¦that would be a source from outside his fellowship.
Itās like arguing with someone about global warming who doesnāt trust scientists or the scientific method
Lol, you are comparing magic to the scientific method?
Any science you do show them they dismiss as ābiasedā because they donāt trust scientists. In the same way, if anyone believed that Jesus rose again, theyād rationally be a Christian.
You donāt have to trust science, science is repeatable, itās self explanatoryā¦ If I saw someone who was publicly executed and then I saw them again three days later, I wouldnāt automatically think theyāre the son of God. I would rationally think itās a different dude posing as him, or that they didnāt actually kill him.
the Gospels were biased, they wouldnāt have had bad stories about their leaders at the time. Such as peter denying Jesus, Peter cutting off a dudeās ear and Jesus rebuking him, or James and John trying to get priority status in Glory.
If scientology was biased they wouldnāt have bad stories about their leaders at the timeā¦
Josephus couldnāt have written it, as Jesus didnāt rise from the dead"
Still have no idea what you are babbeling about?
Because those gnostic texts were known forgeries.
How so? The earliest evidence of the gospel of Mary is from the 3rd century and was thought to be written in the 2nd.
reason would have they had to pick and choose the four Gospels over the gnostic texts anyway?
What makes you assume heās 83? The only thing informing your assumptions are your conclusions. He must be the author, so he must have lived to 100ad, which means he must have been 16 when Jesus diedā¦
This is a pretty reasonable assumption? No?
A scribe can also be some writing down an oral traditionā¦
Thatās not what I was referring to at all. It would be silly to think I was in the context I was talking about John writing John.
Clement was born in 150adā¦ Eusebius utilized different sources to propose that there were at least two different johns. John the apostle who he supposed wrote the book of John and Presbyter John, who he believed wrote revelations.
The writer of John still identifies himself as being at the crucifixion and last supper anyway. Thatās a different debate over who wrote revelation.
āis widely agreed amongst Biblical scholars that accounts of Jesusās teachings and life were initially conserved by oral transmission, which was the source of the written gospelsā
Did you just quote Wikipedia? The admins on there are neckbeards such as Tgeorgescu who basically had a āno Christian apologistsā rule which is impossible, because any historian who argues something that is pro Christianity, they are automatically labelled a āChristian apologistā.
No, if we had records from the Romans claiming the guy they crusified a couple days ago is backā¦that would be a source from outside his fellowship.
(63) Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; (64) and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3
From The Works of Josephus,
translated by William Whiston
If scientology was biased they wouldnāt have bad stories about their leaders at the timeā¦
Are these in actual Scientology āscripturesā?
How so? The earliest evidence of the gospel of Mary is from the 3rd century and was thought to be written in the 2nd.
you just quote Wikipedia? The admins on there are neckbeards such as Tgeorgescu who basically had a āno Christian apologistsā
"In one sense the entire Christian message is based on oral tradition and is only augmented by using the written revelation of the Old Testament. From this perspective, perhaps 90 percent of the New Testament is based on authoritative oral tradition " catholic.com
āWhile it might be comforting to imagine that the Scripture was dictated directly from the mouth of God to the hands of the writers, that is just not the way it happened historically. The stories that are collected in our Bible were shared by word of mouth for years, decades, or even centuries before they were written down. This process of telling and retelling these passages from the religious life of Godās people is called oral tradition.ā Ministrymatters.com
The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3
From The Works of Josephus,
Lol, and you have the gall to talk about forgeriesā¦
Again, nothing you have talked about is actual evidence of Christianity being factual. And again, I donāt really care about your personal beliefs. I just donāt think itās okay that you think your make believe time allows you to harsh other peopleās make believe times. If society grants you the right to play make believe, you should have the decency to do unto others.
Itās a reinterpretation of oral accounts passed down decades after the deaths of the people itās about, and was first attributed to John nearly 180 years later. The gospel of John was first authored anonymously around 90-100ad and attributed to John by Irenaeus in 185ad
Not really, contemporary sources are generally limited to people involved with the actual history.
When combined with other contextual sources.
Iām not the one making the claim that other religions are wrong and Christianity is true. Do you have evidence that Joseph Smith, Muhammad, or Buddha had alternative motives?
I meant the first timeā¦ Not literally destroyed, but trashed, fucked dudes up, flipped tables.
90-100ad isnāt decades after the death of people itās about.
And it wasnāt authored anonymously.
John 21:20-25 ESV
That this disciple reclined with Jesus and was at the crucifixion and resurrection.
John 13:23 ESV
John 19:25-26 ESV
John 20:2-5
So this is clearly a primary source.
More reasoning for narrowing it down to John can be found here.
It also makes sense that somebody would know who wrote the Gospel. The authorship of the Gospels were never disputed in the early Church despite geographic spread. So that doesnāt mean that Irenaeus (A student of Polycarp who was a disciple of John) made it up
Which the writer of John clearly was.
There are four detailed accounts of Jesus.
Mormonism has been debunked by the finding of the āoriginalā papyrus to one of their scriptures. The Qurāan claims to be in agreement with the Bible yet contradicts the hell out of it. Mohammed and JS had numerous wives because āgod told meā and Mohammed was a warlord, JS tried to set up ādeseretā
Iām guessing you are claiming the John lives to be nearly a hundred years old? Even though there is no evidence to support thisā¦
Yesā¦ It was. He did not assign his name or identify himself as the author. Most people believe him to be the author through contextual clues as you suggested. These contextual clues first put forth in 185ad have shaped the ways people reintertpred and translated the Bible every since.
John did not write itā¦ He may have orally transferred the story to someone who later wrote it down after the time of his death. Youāre working off of assumptions that are highly disputable.
From his own cadra of followersā¦ Thatās like saying everything scientology claims about L Ron Hubbard is true because it was witnessed by 4 different scientologist.
And all Christian text are non contradictoryā¦? There havenāt been any ancient scripts found about Christianity that the church hasnāt adopted?
If John was, letās say 16 at the time of Jesusā crucifixion in 33 AD, then heād be 83 years old if it was written in 100 AD. A reasonable age. Iām not disputing the possibility of a scribe.
Evidence that John wrote John would be evidence to support this.
Youāve got no evidence to support this than an argument from silence. That is the earliest RECORDED evidence. And from that time frame, thatās pretty damn close. Historians accept Julius Caesar was born in Suburra, yet the earliest record of that was written by Suetonius, around 200 years after the fact.
Then thereās Alexander the great - born in 300 BC but the records of his biography we use were written in the second century AD, by Arrian and Plutarch.
Youāre the one working off of assumptions
So youāre basically asking me to find you sources documenting the resurrection of Jesus Christ from people who didnāt believe it happened? Donāt you realise how silly of a proposition that is? That, and whenever someone were to propose someone like Josephus, youāll just cry āChristian interpolationā, while most people are crying that using circular reasoning that he mustnāt have written about it because āsomeone canāt rise from the deadā. Weād have to throw out almost everything we know about Julius Caesar with that logic as it was either written by him or someone in his country at the time.
There have been. Are you talking about non Christian sources? stating that the Church was āadopting everything someone wrote about Jesusā
Ahh yes, letās make wild assumptions that fit my own narrativeā¦
āIām not disputing the possibility of a scribe.ā
Eusebiusās argument was an ongoing debate between scholars in the early church. However itās widely recognized as how the church canonized John the apostle as the author.
No they largely do not. In most histories they say he was born in Rome, some go as far as saying likely in Suburra, but thatās more of an inference as his family was known to be impoverished.
Suetonius is historically valuable, but known as a bit of a gossip, and prone to hearsay.
Yes, but those were written from lost primary and contemporary sources from people like Ptolemy, Aristobulus, and in some cases the kingās journal.
Youāre claiming the new testament that the new testament didnāt first get passed down by oral tradition?
No, just saying that you canāt use biased sources to make claims about his motivation.
I have no idea what you are trying to accuse me of?
Being in the same country as someone is not the same as being in the same cult as someoneā¦ Also, plenty of people doubt the accuracy of Caesars commentary on the Gaelic wars. Especially like with most ancient commentaries about the size of opposing armies.
Iām saying that just saying that all religions pick and choose their own doctrine. Itās not like the church adopted the gospel of Mary.
In your land, an 83 year old dude writing something is a āwild assumptionā. ok.
You know what a scribe isā¦ Right? Someone who sits with you as you dictate to them? You know a lot of news report articles about people arenāt actually written by that person, but a journalist themselvesā¦ And even then, a scribe is more reliable than a journalist š¤¦
Eusebius was quoting Clement of Alexandria from AD 150ā¦
So like what Esebius wrote, and what was likely composed by Luke the Evangelist in his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles.
Yes, because within the timeframe it was written in. The likes of Mark and Luke would have had those aspects, possibly some in Matthew, but even then, oral tradition isnāt unreliable and it takes centuries for supernatural claims and legends to show up.
In this case, anything arguing in favour or showing the resurrection of Christ is automatically ābiasedā by your definition. Itās like arguing with someone about global warming who doesnāt trust scientists or the scientific method - Any science you do show them they dismiss as ābiasedā because they donāt trust scientists. In the same way, if anyone believed that Jesus rose again, theyād rationally be a Christian. You dismiss this as ābiasedā because they were a Christian. Or if someone who wasnāt a Christian wrote something that did defend it, then it must be interpolated because of the ābiasā.
If the Gospels were biased, they wouldnāt have had bad stories about their leaders at the time. Such as peter denying Jesus, Peter cutting off a dudeās ear and Jesus rebuking him, or James and John trying to get priority status in Glory.
Irrational thinking. The argument for Christian interpolation is basically āJosephus couldnāt have written it, as Jesus didnāt rise from the deadā
Because those gnostic texts were known forgeries.
What reason would have they had to pick and choose the four Gospels over the gnostic texts anyway?
What makes you assume heās 83? The only thing informing your assumptions are your conclusions. He must be the author, so he must have lived to 100ad, which means he must have been 16 when Jesus diedā¦
A scribe can also be some writing down an oral traditionā¦
Clement was born in 150adā¦ Eusebius utilized different sources to propose that there were at least two different johns. John the apostle who he supposed wrote the book of John and Presbyter John, who he believed wrote revelations.
āis widely agreed amongst Biblical scholars that accounts of Jesusās teachings and life were initially conserved by oral transmission, which was the source of the written gospelsā
No, if we had records from the Romans claiming the guy they crusified a couple days ago is backā¦that would be a source from outside his fellowship.
Lol, you are comparing magic to the scientific method?
You donāt have to trust science, science is repeatable, itās self explanatoryā¦ If I saw someone who was publicly executed and then I saw them again three days later, I wouldnāt automatically think theyāre the son of God. I would rationally think itās a different dude posing as him, or that they didnāt actually kill him.
If scientology was biased they wouldnāt have bad stories about their leaders at the timeā¦
Still have no idea what you are babbeling about?
How so? The earliest evidence of the gospel of Mary is from the 3rd century and was thought to be written in the 2nd.
Because it didnāt fit within church doctrine.
This is a pretty reasonable assumption? No?
Thatās not what I was referring to at all. It would be silly to think I was in the context I was talking about John writing John.
The writer of John still identifies himself as being at the crucifixion and last supper anyway. Thatās a different debate over who wrote revelation.
Did you just quote Wikipedia? The admins on there are neckbeards such as Tgeorgescu who basically had a āno Christian apologistsā rule which is impossible, because any historian who argues something that is pro Christianity, they are automatically labelled a āChristian apologistā.
The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3 From The Works of Josephus, translated by William Whiston
Are these in actual Scientology āscripturesā?
So not the firstā¦
And how did they establish doctrine?
Nah, just circular reasoning.
"In one sense the entire Christian message is based on oral tradition and is only augmented by using the written revelation of the Old Testament. From this perspective, perhaps 90 percent of the New Testament is based on authoritative oral tradition " catholic.com
āWhile it might be comforting to imagine that the Scripture was dictated directly from the mouth of God to the hands of the writers, that is just not the way it happened historically. The stories that are collected in our Bible were shared by word of mouth for years, decades, or even centuries before they were written down. This process of telling and retelling these passages from the religious life of Godās people is called oral tradition.ā Ministrymatters.com
Lol, and you have the gall to talk about forgeriesā¦
Again, nothing you have talked about is actual evidence of Christianity being factual. And again, I donāt really care about your personal beliefs. I just donāt think itās okay that you think your make believe time allows you to harsh other peopleās make believe times. If society grants you the right to play make believe, you should have the decency to do unto others.