วีดีโอ

I don’t even know what this means… rambling incoherent. weird comment, to be honest. But thanks for commenting and making sure that more people see our video!

@benesanders I tell you the truth, and I give you simple examples, and you call me an idiot? That doesn't hurt me. It's not my soul.

@@keithdunahay5360 No sir, I didn’t call you an idiot. I said that you were rambling and that what you said made no sense. It’s weird that you would randomly decide to comment in such a way. If this is your way of doing some internet outreach, find a new and effective way please.

It’s a process, bro! Definitely is an intentional focusing every day, because it is easy to change what we are looking at. 🙏🏼🙏🏼

That's Literally what half the Gospels are. Eye Witness testimony. But you don't Just have to trust the Bible because if you look up Outside Evidence of the Gospels you'll find plenty. Look it up!

@@Unknown_Fool REPOST _(TH-cam ate my previous attempt to answer - this one is not identical with it.)_ I don't have to look it up - you do. I'm studying this field for over 40 years. 1 - There is not a single piece of eyewitness account in ALL of the Bible. The gospels have been written at least 40 years after the alleged events, and even Paul's writings date about 25 years after - but he only had a vision, and was no eyewitness, either. 2 - There is NOT 'plenty of outside evidence' of the gospels. All we have is about half a dozen reports of people who wrote about Christians and what they believed, some of these reports written hundreds of years later, some forgeries, but not a single one that actually confirms any of the events, or even mentions the proper NAME of the central figure. 3 - Furthermore, we have numerous for Christianity relevant contradictions in the gospels, like the last words of Jesus on the cross, Jesus' ancestry, Jesus' actions in the temple, many of the details around the empty tomb, and many more. However, no matter which version one would read, none of these events are corroborated outside the Bible by _any_ contemporary historian, not to speak about eye-witnesses. 4 - Several events that _should have_ made headlines outside of Jerusalem never did, for example Matthew's story about hundreds of dead people climbing out of their graves and roaming the streets of Jerusalem. One would think that this would stir the interest of at least one contemporary writer - but it didn't. 5 - The language used to write the gospels, Greek, was unknown to Jesus and his disciples. 6 - Even Christian Bible scholars agree that the gospels were not written by eye-witnesses, because that claim cannot hold up to scrutiny. Overall, your claim is indefensible. If you want to educate yourself on the topic, here are some Bible scholars, from fervent believer to agnostic skeptic, which you can read to see all sides of the topic: Gary Habermas, James Dunn, John Crossan, Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier. Have fun teaching yourself! :)

@@Unknown_Fool REPOST I don't have to look it up - you do. I'm studying this field for over 40 years. 1 - There is not a single piece of eyewitness account in ALL of the Bible. The gospels have been written at least 40 years after the alleged events, and even Paul's writings date about 25 years after - but he only had a vision, and was no eyewitness, either. 2 - There is NOT 'plenty of outside evidence' of the gospels. All we have is about half a dozen reports of people who wrote about Christians and what they believed, some of these reports written hundreds of years later, some forgeries, but not a single one that actually confirms any of the events, or even mentions the proper NAME of the central figure. 3 - Furthermore, we have numerous for Christianity relevant contradictions in the gospels, like the last words of Jesus on the cross, Jesus' ancestry, Jesus' actions in the temple, many of the details around the empty tomb, and many more. However, no matter which version one would read, none of these events are corroborated outside the Bible by _any_ contemporary historian, not to speak about eye-witnesses. 4 - Several events that _should have_ made headlines outside of Jerusalem never did, for example Matthew's story about hundreds of dead people climbing out of their graves and roaming the streets of Jerusalem. One would think that this would stir the interest of at least one contemporary writer - but it didn't. 5 - The language used to write the gospels, Greek, was unknown to Jesus and his disciples. 6 - Even Christian Bible scholars agree that the gospels were not written by eye-witnesses, because that claim cannot hold up to scrutiny. Overall, your claim is indefensible. If you want to educate yourself on the topic, here are some Bible scholars, from fervent believer to agnostic skeptic, which you can read to see all sides of the topic: Gary Habermas, James Dunn, John Crossan, Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier. Have fun teaching yourself! :)

@@Unknown_Fool Nice to see how my lengthy comment for you, including some sources to read, gets deleted every time I post it. Talk about suppression of view points...

@@Unknown_Fool Trying again: _(TH-cam ate my previous attempts to answer.)_ I don't have to look it up - you do. I'm studying this field for over 40 years. 1 - There is not a single piece of eyewitness account in ALL of the Bible. The gospels have been written at least 40 years after the alleged events, and even Paul's writings date about 25 years after - but he only had a vision, and was no eyewitness, either. 2 - There is NOT 'plenty of outside evidence' of the gospels. All we have is about half a dozen reports of people who wrote about Christians and what they believed, some of these reports written hundreds of years later, some forgeries, but not a single one that actually confirms any of the events, or even mentions the proper NAME of the central figure. 3 - Furthermore, we have numerous for Christianity relevant contradictions in the gospels, like the last words of Jesus on the cross, Jesus' ancestry, Jesus' actions in the temple, many of the details around the empty tomb, and many more. However, no matter which version one would read, none of these events are corroborated outside the Bible by _any_ contemporary historian, not to speak about eye-witnesses. 4 - Several events that _should have_ made headlines outside of Jerusalem never did, for example Matthew's story about hundreds of dead people climbing out of their graves and roaming the streets of Jerusalem. One would think that this would stir the interest of at least one contemporary writer - but it didn't. 5 - The language used to write the gospels, Greek, was unknown to Jesus and his disciples. 6 - Even Christian Bible scholars agree that the gospels were not written by eye-witnesses, because that claim cannot hold up to scrutiny. Overall, your claim is indefensible. If you want to educate yourself on the topic, here are some Bible scholars, from fervent believer to agnostic skeptic, which you can read to see all sides of the topic: Gary Habermas, James Dunn, John Crossan, Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier. Have fun teaching yourself! ;)

Ok, let me get this straight. You are either. 1 - Proposing that the writers of the Bible lied about Judas death. 2 - Proposing that Jesus' disciples were pieces of shit. 3 - Both. I have another hypothesis (not theory): None of these events actually happened.

So why is there no book of Judas? I dont know the answer, maybe you can shed some litr on it for me. Why didJesus trust Judas the most?@@MyReligionIs2DoGood

@@Wally-g6b . "Why did Jesus trust Judas the most?" This question only makes sense if you already know about the Gospel of Judas. In the canonical gospels, Jesus does not trust Judas at all. Only in the non-canonical Gospel of Judas he is merely following Jesus' orders. If you're trying to test me, you need to step up your game.

Not a test at all, just an honest question first time I heard of the canonical gospels. Sorry for wasting your time.@@MyReligionIs2DoGood

@@Wally-g6b Apologies if I was wrong. The Bible contains only (up to) 66 books. which make up the official Bible. However, there are 14 more books, called the 'Apocrypha', and the 5 books of the Pseudoepigrapha, which were not included. One of the apocrypha is the Gospel of Judas, which didn't make it into the official canon, and in which Judas is not only not a traitor, but also the only disciple who actually understands Jesus' message. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas I hope this is a good start for your own research. Have a great day.