It’s Sunday! And I’m getting back into a Sunday posting scheduled. The plan is to post original OSC content on Sundays and add a little something from my playlist on the following Wednesday. Still everyone knows I’m a bit of a posting flake and publish things whenever the feeling comes about. Anyway, my upload today is going to be something very special. Unaltered, minimal editorialising, today I’m adding two conversations with professor Stewart (the black militant from the professor bacon bits article). Now, I didn’t watch the first video which Stewart, myself and Rebecca commented underneath. And you don’t need to either. My interest was the messages themselves, besides, much of Stewart’s points were based on swoon theory, which others have deconstructed & debunked decades ago.
There’s a second video which we’re going to cover about halfway though, and if possible you should watch that one (it’s about ten minutes long). And for those of you who’re not into long bickering conversations, really make an effort to get through our prickly phase at the beginning, because later on there’s some excellent teaching done. Really great for the Christian readers. Plus, because Stewart insists he’s not “fully human” (I dunno), we’re also gonna have a game in his honour. Today we’re going to play “who’s that alien?!”
I’ve added five famous aliens (no the professor does not count), are you knowledgeable enough to know who they are or where they come from? So whether you’re pop culture mad or all in for Christ, today there’s something for everyone.
Rebecca Kent: Jesus said that he wasn’t a ghost because he isn’t. Jesus was the man form of God. Jesus ate food because he was still a human being and had to survive just like we do. His disciples didn’t believe that he was really there, saying that he was a ghost and he told them that he had risen from the dead. God is powerful and he can do ANYTHING. Even raise up Jesus and send him back to earth. We know he died because the Bible said that when he died the heavens thundered and God turned his back on the world for a moment out of sadness. The sky blackened as Jesus died, and his last words before he died were “It is finished”. Jesus definitely did die on the cross, and he went to heaven and hell and rose again, hence the empty tomb. Jesus came to earth to save mankind. I hope I make sense. I am slightly buy right now and don’t have the scriptures right off the top of my head but I will give reference to my scripture asap.
Prof. Robert Stewart: Firstly Dear Rebecca, the Bible has been edited – distorted by many sinister demons in skin suits over many millenniums. Hence, without a thorough knowledge of all of the major world scriptures, it is impossible to know what is fact and fiction in the current Bible. Lastly, no human in this day was present at Jesus’ crucifixion to know whether he died or not. So, all humans today merely speculate or believe, nothing more.
OSC: People know fact from fiction in historic documents based upon the historic method, prof. Knowing whether or not a recorded event in the Bible is true is not discovered by the study of comparative religions or their books.
Prof. Robert Stewart: Correction, no one knows any event in ancient history to be irrefutable fact, for you (nor anyone else living today) were not present to witness the events. So, all are relying on documents that could have been fabricated. This is my point in the preceding, sir. However, the more scriptures that you know, the greater scope or pool that you have to find common threads. In court rooms we call it compiling circumstantial evidence.
OSC: So you’re correcting yourself, prof? You’ve written you can know things based upon religious text comparison. I’m simply quoting when you’ve shared “without a thorough knowledge of all of the major world scriptures, it is impossible to know what is fact and fiction in the current Bible.” Therefore, as you attempt to point out, with the knowledge of various fiction books, you feel you can “know” what’s true or false in the Bible. That’s not how history is done, my friend.
Your words: “Hence, without a thorough knowledge of all of the major world scriptures, it is impossible to know what is fact and fiction in the current Bible.”
Your words: “Lastly, no human in this day was present at Jesus’ crucifixion to know whether he died or not. So, all humans today merely speculate or believe, nothing more.”
If you would like to be clearer, so that these incoherent quotes come into harmony, please feel free to. You write both that people can know and that people can’t know.
Nobody is writing on “irrefutable fact”, but rather whether or not something’s historic. The context is clear. Even if a person were, insofar as they could perceive, “present” at an event, you could just as easily punt towards delusion or their being an disembodied brain inside of a vat upon an alien space ship.
“Could be” is not how people do history, my friend. Nobody cares about the could be of historic documents being altered or fabricated, as it’s a “could be” that’s attached to every single document ever to be composed.
Do you know how the historic method works? It’s not based upon “could be” and “you weren’t there.”
OSC: So, by indulging in the suspect religious material of thousands of texts, and reading into thousands of works which you believe could’ve been altered over and over and over again, you think you’ll come to the truth of a totally unrelated text?
Your words: “So, all are relying on documents that could have been fabricated.”
Again your words: “without a thorough knowledge of all of the major world scriptures, it is impossible to know what is fact and fiction in the current Bible.”
That’s like writing I can’t discern truth from error about the life of George Washington without reading Alice in Wonderland.
Prof. Robert Stewart: Please condense your rambling responses for others who may not desire to read an essay. You seem to be delivering a rebuttal of contrariness for the sake of being contrary. However, court cases are won based on circumstantial evidence or putting a puzzle together. Therefore, fact or fiction is established daily in courtrooms based on common threads (timelines and such), logic, reason, and probabilities, which may never be irrefutably proven. Commonalities of scriptures require knowing more than one. Hope you understand. 😉
OSC: I’ll write my message to be as long or short as I please, Stewart. If you or anyone else can’t read anything longer than the piece of paper you find inside of a fortune cookie, then feel at liberty not to read. The adults may read. Writing I should condense for people who don’t want to read is as sensible as me insisting you write longer messages for people who do like to read essays (maybe you should simply not attempt to police people’s message length simply because you’re looking rather foolish). “Rambling” my friend has the characteristic of being incoherent, only your messages thus far have been shown to be incoherent. You clearly don’t understand logic.
You’ve shared how people can’t “know” anything with regards to the crucifixion of Jesus because “they weren’t there”, and yet, you’ve presupposed the entire life of Jesus without “being there” (clearly you’re totally without logic just in terms of argument). Perhaps you would prefer posters to be agreeable around your untruth for the sake of being agreeable, as opposed to being contrary for the sake of being contrary (sounds like Islam for certain).
For you my friend, and for everyone reading, I recommend the Muslim speaker Ahmed Deedat VS. the Christian Josh McDowell (it’s on YouTube), your ideas have been thoroughly debunked in this debate. Your ideas haven’t been cutting edge for decades now, and they’ve never been entertained by real historians. Funnily enough, before being beaten Deedat used the courtroom example too, I imagine the only experience you men have with the courts is when you’re being charged with terrorism.*
Prof. Robert Stewart: A lesson for you: THE SHOTGUN ARGUMENTATION fallacy = The arguer offers such a large number of arguments for a position that the opponent can’t possibly respond to all of them. Consequently, I asked for a condensing of your multitude of scattered opinions here.
Another lesson for you, the only knowledge humanity has about Jesus comes from the Bible, and a few other manuscripts. So, it is mere common sense to use the doctrine of Christianity itself (as flawed as it is) for information regarding Jesus. Your disliking what’s in your own doctrine is completely irrelevant. 😉 Next, the only things in history that are irrefutable fact are that which can be ascertained by the five senses in this day. This is the essence of Empiricism. Example, The Nile River can be seen today, so any documented mention of it historically is irrefutable fact. What George Washington did in battle can only be believed from what is written, for no one can see it for themselves in this day. So, stick to actual facts that are tangible today, and you won’t lose arguments as is the case in your feeble attempt to combat me here. 😉
OSC: I hope you’re not charging anybody for such poor quality “lessons.” If you take an opportunity to reread my two messages from earlier, you’ll only find two arguments made. Only two. Originally you had an issue with the length of the messages, and now you’re upset by how many arguments are being written up (are you simply making this up as you go along?) You’ll find only two arguments, if that’s “SHOTGUN ARGUMENTATION” in your world you’re to be pitied. I’ve pointed out simply how. . .
You don’t learn about the truth of an event or person by doing comparative religion, you learn the truth of an event or person based upon the historic method. How to do history (that’s one).
Secondly I’ve explained how you cannot dismiss things merely because they’re not attested to by the five senses (that’s to do with epistemology). Moral truths aren’t open to the five senses, for example. If you’re an empiricist, and you know what that word means, you’re also amoral. More likely you just don’t know what that word means.
Maybe you’re not a professor of maths, which explains why you find the number two to be such an unbelievable number of arguments.
Attempting to dismiss Bible material shows how deeply prejudiced your viewpoint is on the subject. Even people outside of the Christian faith can use the historic method to confirm events. You don’t know the method. Nonetheless, here’s some reading material for people who’re sensitive to reading from Christians.
Pliny the Younger
Readers aren’t constraint to agree with everything in the material in the above documents, that’s why our use of the historic method’s so invaluable (you don’t seem to know what that is though).
Ah, you’re an “empiricist.” Sadly empiricism refutes itself. If you only believe in the thing you can confirm by the five senses then you’re also forced into atheism/agnosticism with regards to God acting in history. You’ve shared:
“the only things in history that are irrefutable fact are that which can be ascertained by the five senses in this day.”
Congratulations, you’re an unbeliever who can’t know the irrefutable acts of God in history.
OSC: Even your example of the Nile is illogical. Here’s an example to show this, and it’s true for both man-made structures and natural features.
If a man wrote “in 1610 James Kingsbury sailed by the Statue of Liberty.” That in your mind is an “irrefutable fact.” It’s an “irrefutable fact” because you write you can view the Statue today with your five senses. Our hypothetical historic material which teaches how James sailed to the Statue of Liberty isn’t right however, because it’s an anachronism (the Statue wasn’t built in the time frame suggested).
This is just as true for rivers and streams (which dried up to end and/or formed anew), it’s also true for the natural landscape of the world and wildlife which is often changing.
You’ve shared “Example, The Nile River can be seen today, so any documented mention of it historically is irrefutable fact.”
Seeing things today doesn’t make them “irrefutable fact” in history, I’ve just refuted that.*
Prof. Robert Stewart: Here is the Historic Method (which relies on documents & hearsay which are not tangible evidence as I’ve been repeatedly stating) for those who may not know. This t Mac individual’s arguments are utterly incoherent. Nothing that he has relayed refutes the verbatim quotes in the Bible regarding the crucifixion of Jesus. He cannot prove that Jesus died on the cross. He merely believes this which is not evidence, whatsoever. 😉
THE HISTORICAL METHOD When writing or reading history the best approach to use is the historical method. The Historical Method includes the following 5 steps:
STEP ONE: PRELIMINARY RESEARCH -The first step is to decide what issue to study and to research for evidence to provide information about what happened. There are two categories of sources, primary and secondary. Primary sources are recorded at the time in question. Example- a diary entry. Secondary sources are created after the event took place. Example- a biography written 20 years later.
STEP TWO: FORMULATING A WORKING HYPOTHESIS -Based on the preliminary research a tentative hypothesis is created on what one may believe happened.
STEP THREE: RESEARCH FOR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT OR REJECT THE WORKING HYPOTHESIS -Continue to study primary documents. While examining these sources the historian must respond to a number of questions. a) Authenticity- Is the source real? Is it a forgery? Has it been tampered? b) Competence- Does the source provide accurate information? Who is the witness or source? Was the source an eyewitness? c) Credibility- How honest is the source? What is the purpose of the document? Does the witness present a particular point of view?
STEP FOUR: FORMULATING A THESIS STATEMENT -Once the evidence has been carefully examined then the hypothesis can now become a thesis statement. STEP FIVE: RECONSTRUCTING THE PAST- WRITING THE HISTORICAL ESSAY -The essay usually begins with the thesis statement and followed by the evidence. The approach and style is up to the historian.
OSC: That’s an interesting copy & paste, Mr. Empiricist. Is this how you teach classes at the bacon bits university? Google search copy and paste. The criteria of historicity is the method by which events within ancient materials are either confirmed/discounted as being truth/fiction to the historian. It’s not done by comparative religion nor their false scriptures (albeit you’re running from your earlier comments in an incredible show of selective reading). Copying and pasting such an inadequate definition just goes to harm your messages further. Off you pop to google search “criteria of historicity.”
Here’s the summation based upon our conversation, prof. I write the following with no malice towards you (you’ve shown everything I’m about to compose in your messages). You’re an unbelieving empiricist who insists because you’re able to see something today, it’s “irrefutable fact” historically. So when someone writes about an internal combustion engine in the sixth century, just so long as somebody can showcase one today, you’re convinced it’s an “irrefutable fact” in history past. You commit non-sequiturs on a regular basis, then complain about logical fallacies.
You’re an illogical man who uses words like logic and reason to appear as something you’re clearly not. You make basic logic blunders then ignore your failing. You’re emotional and have an unhealthy fixation upon race. You’re an amoral empiricist who can’t defend his charges of “your messages are too long”, for which you dishonestly switch your complaint into “you’re using shotgun arguments!” both of which have been refuted. Illogical, emotional & dishonest. According to both of our views you’re (as things stand) going to be cast into hell (Qur’an 19:71). I’ll pray this doesn’t happen to you, I’ll sincerely pray this for you. You’re being used by something very dark. You pervert scripture to your own destruction (2 Peter 3:16), failing even to read in context.
You use google as an excuse for an education, and are most likely so deprived of creativity you’re going to rewrite my message back to me while making minor (inaccurate) accusations to do with myself.
You’re no professor and should repent, that’s all.
Prof. Robert Stewart: When a human resorts to the Ad Hominem Fallacy of argument (attacking the person rather than the argument) that person has lost the debate in the world of the sane. He cannot prove that Jesus died on the cross, and has been throwing a 50,000 rambling words tantrum ever since I exposed the verbatim verses of his own Bible. The Holy Qur’an simply bolsters what the Bible stated, nothing more. Sorry to have to bust his childhood fantasy bubble, but Jesus didn’t die on the cross according to the Bible itself, period. 😉
I didn’t feel anything in the professor’s response was worth replying to, so going about my business I’d decided to get our exchange later, do a copy and paste, share some thoughts on the entire thing. Well, to my surprise Stewart had made another video, one on the subject of Jesus’ “I come not to bring peace, but a sword” statement. Now I’ve had a lot of experience with handling this misuse of scripture, I’ve written and had at least four online articles on this one verse in the last three years. Let’s watch the misuse before jumping right back into the action:
OSC: If only the professor could read in context, and if only they could read the words surrounding the words he’s quoting and be honest with himself. If only he could read the earliest material in context. If they had this ability they wouldn’t have said during minute two “Jesus definitively declares he did not come to deliver peace to the world, save the world, remove sin from the world.” Sadly he ignores the words of Jesus, John the baptist, angels, apostles and the Father. Because he loves bold texts, I’ll add a little for him. 🙂
“She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
“For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.”
“If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day.”
“For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”
“Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man too is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” While the people were listening to this, Jesus proceeded to tell them a parable,”
“When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
“The next day he [John the Baptist] saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”
“I am the good shepherd; I know my own sheep, and they know me, just as my Father knows me and I know the Father. So I sacrifice my life for the sheep. I have other sheep, too, that are not in this sheepfold. I must bring them also. They will listen to my voice, and there will be one flock with one shepherd.”
It was especially interesting to hear the professor mockingly give a partial quotation of “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;” It’s interesting because he’s been quoting Matthew for the entire video, yet clearly he’s cherry picking verses in light of his current viewpoint. If the young man [#whisper# he’s not really young] in the above video won’t read in context, of course he will falsely believe there are contradictions present, for example, if someone reads the Psalm which says “the fool says in his heart there’s no God.” But then they choose only to read “there is no God”, of course they’ll feel like King David was an atheist. This is why learned people don’t read like the professor, because he’s confusing himself terribly.
I do hope you’ll stop leading people into hell professor, just because you’re on the road to that destination.*
Prof. Robert Stewart: This one always has elongated rambles and consistently guilty of Ignoratio Elenchi or simply the Red Herring fallacy of argument: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. These are the verses of my primary (not sidebar paraphrasing) charge:
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Will the real Jesus please stand up!? 😉 The Jesus loved by this t Mac is a fairy tale to subdue uprisings. The verses avoided by this t Mac above, is the REAL JESUS who had to be crucified to shut him up and stop any uprising by the oppressed Jews of that day. I empathize with t Mac’s pain of this real truth, however. Lastly, does anyone of sanity see no more sin committed (cleansed) by humans in this day?
Proof of lies & case closed indeed.
[This message got deleted by Stewart, then after I reposted it with a notice saying I expect my message to go unaltered he backed off]: My material is perfectly relevant. You made three claims which I’ve decided to interact with, and you’ve been proven wrong. If you truly believe in the mistaken things you’ve posted, I’d have to ask that you reconsider them in light of; Matthew 1:21, Matthew 18:11, John 12:47-48, John 3:16-18, Luke 19:10-11, Matthew 9:11-13, John 1:29, John 10:16.
Much like the false accusation of “shotgun fallacy”, you’re misapplying this charge of red herring. I’ve made the claim you’re cherry picking verses, distorting the author’s intention and refusing to interpret an isolated text in light of the extended literary context. Hopefully you can see how that’s totally relevant.
Your style of reading [is] an exegetical nightmare because it’s so obviously false. Rather than “would the real Jesus please stand up” it seems as though people should be saying “would the professor please learn to read.” If you would like me to dismantle your use of Matthew chapter ten, that’s an incredibly easy chore [a bit of the below material is from my OAP with attitude conversation, still it’s an original overall, so you’ll get some fresh insight out of it].
To read Matthew rightly, in context, as its original author and speaker intended, can be properly done by reading the nearby material, in addition to other methods of good hermeneutics, and that’s not merely true insofar as Bible studies are concerned, rather that’s true for simply reading online messages or cards wishing you a happy birthday (you’ve got to read in context).
Before jumping into Matthew 10:34-36 or the like, let’s read Matthew 10:16-20 together: “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.”
Even simple teachings (e.g. “Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me”) are understood in proper context as to do with Christian suffering, notice how seamlessly Christ teaches about His people being sent amidst wolves, they’re going to be flogged, imprisoned and betrayed by family (Matthew 10:18, 21). Yet they’re innocent as doves.
Jesus even teaches from 10:21-23 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another.”
Your words go “Jesus was a ferocious soldier”, that’s simply confused.
These points about fleeing to other cities and being brought before wicked governments are certainly in harmony with “turning” one’s cheek against abuse. They’re in total disharmony however with your misinterpretation of the material (as any serious truth seeker would be able to read).
The above, which is in context to be read as prophetic, plainly reads as referring to wrongful imprisonment, martyrdom (Acts 7:59), and judicial murder (2 Timothy 4 6-8) in the first century. Christ even goes so far as to teach in the very same chapter “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
So how do people (people who read) understand Jesus’ “Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me” teaching? Or teachings about divided households? They read in the plain sense, neither are related to ghetto gang bangers or an uncontrollable generation X (who could come to such absurd conclusions without coming to the material with bias). Notice how Jesus “took up His cross” in the crucifixion, as will other true believers because of an evil world, it’s not related to an oddball interpretation to do with generation X & modern thugs (how bizarre).
Christ’s teaching about the persecution of the Christians continues in Matthew: “Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?”
If you worry about avoiding the horrors of hell, you might want to get out of your racist sub cult of Islam….because Islam says you’re going to hell. If you would like to continue reading and gain more understanding of the earliest material, and how to read, I suggest you head to your local church. 🙂
He’s like a head trip to listen to, because he’s only giving us things he talks about with friends inside his living room. The only difference is he’s so daft as to say it in front of us all and he don’t gotta be forced to sugar coat it at all. He just gets on the mic and spits it, and whether he’d like to admit it, he’s worse than 90% of the YouTubers out there.
At the rate he’s going when he’s thirty, he’ll be the only alien on the mother ship flirtin’.
OSC: God bless, prof. 🙂 I really hope you consider this.
Prof. Robert Stewart: Peace to you as well, sir. We simply disagree; no problem. 🙂 (he then deletes my message, so there’s some problem).
OSC: That’s a win for team Jesus, the real Jesus. 😉
[Elsewhere, in a galaxy far far away]: Prof. Robert Stewart: All can read my over 400 page book on world religions here:
[^^^ This is the guy who calls giving to church charities “demonic”]: And all can read my blog for FREE, no fees, no tithes, no extortionists preying upon your hard earn monies. It’s all FREE and all REAL! 😉
Prof. Robert Stewart: our videos here are free of course. Publisher has rights to the book. 😉
BTW, I’m flattered that you think I’m in my twenties, but this skin suit was born in the 1960’s. The REAL GOD makes one look younger. Ma Sha llah! You simply don’t know enough to combat our wisdom young one. You have no idea who we really are. We indulge your dogma for the sake of others who may be deluded regarding the Bible as well. We have a host of indictments coming so stay tuned! 😉
OSC: I wrote you look like you’re in your twenties?
Honestly apart from the odd well wishings, I wouldn’t expend much more time on correction, nor staying tuned to your points, points I’ve found to be weak (with respect). I prefer to think simple points of mine like “this is how to read in context” and “Qur’an 19:71 says you’re going to go to hell” are really plain. They’re open to people with ears for hearing and eyes for seeing.
Internet “combat” and “my messages are wise because they’re short and can’t counter yours”, that’s not serious communication, that’s just pride and posturing.
So blessings, if you have any serious questions I’m happy to reply, until then however Christ’s kingdom continues to advance. Other people need to know Him, it’s an offer and a change in people’s lives. No compulsion, no killing apostates or fighting them (Sahih Bukhari 83:37, Sahih Bukhari 52:260, Quran 2:217) simply Jesus, the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8).
Prof. Robert Stewart: You and every other human are entitled to your preferred beliefs – philosophies. As stated in the video, I’m going to be delivering the whole of what Jesus said. People need to know that there is a fabricated or false Jesus, and the real Jesus. All can do what they want with the information after delivery. That’s not my business. Thanks for sharing your views here. All are welcome indeed.
OSC: Until you’re prepared to meet my thorough exegesis of Matthew chapter 10, I have to imagine readers can only come to the conclusion that your understanding of Jesus is the inaccurate understanding.
Prof. Robert Stewart: All you did was assist me in proving my point that there are two separate Jesus characters in your Bible. Contradictions are lies, sir. So thanks for pointing out that there’s a real and fake Jesus in your Bible. Thank You sir!
OSC: In context, as we’ve seen together, your understanding of Jesus as a ferocious soldier was inaccurate. My explanation hasn’t been challenged in any meaningful way. Although you did complain that you felt I’d been mean to you. It’s not that there are two separate characters, rather, there’s one Jesus depicted, and there’s your refusal to read the book in any sensible way.
You can see how those two things are very different.
Prof. Robert Stewart: In typical human fashion (I thank God that I’m not completely one of you!) [he’s part turnip don’t ya know] you keep passing judgements in haste or impatience. I said that I have a large amount of evidence left to relay to definitely prove my claim, yet you’re still whining about the tidbit that I’ve delivered thusfar. So, be patient grasshopper. I could destroy any of your misunderstandings regarding the Bible right now being a scholar of the Bible & world religions who has taught on 6 of the 7 continents of the Earth for decades now. But, I’ll wait to do this in the near future. stay tuned! 😉
OSC: Notice you’re claiming that you’ll share “the whole of what Jesus said”, but you’re not even sharing the chapter. You’ve picked a single portion of the chapter, isolated the portion and misapplied the material. The author wrote in order to explain these are words impacting first century people, unfortunately you’ve misapplied everything you have shared and then wrongly attributed an inaccurate & violent character to Jesus. That’s not particularly appropriate.
That’s certainly an interesting promise, an interesting promise that’s seeming rather unlikely in that you’re not able to defend your claims today.
Most would say “put up or shut up.” 🙂 It’s like listening to someone on a phone saying “Ah, I’ll whip your ass, buddy! Let’s fight. You just come on down here.”
The other man very politely replies “Okay. Where are you?”
“Ah, ah, patience grasshopper! I’ll whip you soon enough!”
Again, these aren’t hard questions/requests. You’re simply being asked to read the immediate material and comment. You’re refusing to read the material and comment as of now?
Prof. Robert Stewart: All of what you relayed is already known to the masses, for you teach these constantly by putting the nice fairy Jesus words on bumper stickers, greeting cards, and so on. However, I’ve never in my decades of living seen: “ye are of your father the devil! Or, ye serpents, ye generation of VIPERS, how can he escape the damnation of hell! Or, I’m not here for peace but a sword, on a hallmark card or bumper sticker. Hmmm, wonder why? LOL Yeah, you people have an agenda of keeping the dark races fooled with the fake Jesus, while you maintain global domination free from uprising. Keep the people docile for deception. Good job so far indeed! 😉
[This message was deleted too. I did post it again but it got removed for a second time. I knew it was time to wrap everything up by now]: Dark races are fools. Light races are fools. In fact, every people group is made up largely of foolish men and women. You might believe the solution to ignorance/our problems is “global uprising”, although that’s not an original idea. Consider how many people have attempted and failed to set aright global problems with belligerent & unruly behaviour (just relive violent communism). Scripture however teaches it’s in what outsiders consider the foolishness of preaching where God’s chosen He’ll redeem some.
“Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.”
Christ’s sacrifice my friend isn’t applicable to everyone, rather its extent is so super meritorious that it’s extended over your life (not applied). However, and because in the integrity of my heart I believe you haven’t been taught this belief, the extent of the atonement of Christ is unlimited, while God has chosen in His wisdom to limit the application of Jesus’ saving blood to those who believe.
The application of the blood isn’t the same as the extent. 1 Timothy 4:10 can help in this point.
“That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.”
Do you believe how you’ve gathered your misinformation and the kinds of response you’re demanding of people comes from an inhuman/divine/otherworldly source? Consider some of your words, just in paraphrase:
“I could destroy your misunderstandings!”
“My messages are wise!”
“I’m a Bible scholar!”
“I’ve taught on six continents!”
“I’ll annihilate your points!”
“I look like I’m in my twenties!” 😛
Certain things are “of God”, my friend. Others are “of the world.” Do you feel your arguments & demand of an uprising are so different from our own violent world as to be rooted in God’s life saving truth?
OSC: I don’t believe the things I’m sharing are known to people. I’m a street preacher, sir. I know people don’t know these things. I’m out there teaching them, and if they knew they wouldn’t need the lessons. I think you’re confusing pop Christianity with a full blooded Christian faith.
[This was added away from our conversation, still it’s gotten removed. I’m most proud of this message]: Obviously I’ve taken much of your comments section hostage, Stewart. 🙂 So I’d like to add some round-up thoughts for your benefit. I don’t mean to add anything in the proceeding message to overpower or undermine you by use of my arguments, rather I’ve always believed God judges in righteousness, and that you won’t ever know unless somebody preaches to you (Romans 10:14):
“But how can they call on him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear about him unless someone tells them?”
I believe your words of “You and every other human are entitled to your preferred beliefs” aren’t Islamic in nature, they’re something else. Because Islam denies us the right to choose our own views. Islam forces people into choosing between Islam or death because it’s scared. It’s a frightened faith, and its believers aren’t prepared for their views to face scrutiny (because they’d fall apart like a wet paper towel). I’ve seen it on the streets. Let’s touch upon your final use of scripture together.
Jesus taught in Matthew 23:33-34 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.”
Believers are going to be flogged, crucified and have many awful actions perpetrated against their bodies. Then Christ teaches (Matthew 23:36) “Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.” We’re not writing on some kind of future situation in which young people are causing division in the household and the ideas you’ve been insisting upon.
Remember “How will you escape being condemned to hell?” That’s not merely confined to the 1st century, for example in the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:46): “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Brief side note, Muslim plagiarized that parable and added it upon the lips of Muhammad ^^^ (loads of word for word plagiarism in Islam). “No eye has seen”, “blessed is he who hasn’t seen me yet believes”, Jesus’ “prayer to the Lord”, stories of Cain burying Able stolen from the Talmud, “he who takes a life kills the whole world” taken from the Talmud. Islamic word for word plagiarism attached itself onto almost everything. Test me, check their records yourself.
“How will you escape being condemned to hell?” How? Islamism can’t be your answer, because Islam teaches you’re going to be cast into hell fire (Qur’an 19:70-72): “Then, surely it is We who are most knowing of those most worthy of burning therein. And there is none of you except he will come to it. This is upon your Lord an inevitability decreed. Then We will save those who feared Allah and leave the wrongdoers within it, on their knees.”
Notice “there is none of you except he will come to it”, yet Muslims who’ve composed the Qur’an wrote “Then We will save those who feared Allah”, they’re “saved” only because they’re cast into hell fire in the first place. Are you going to be left in hell upon your knees?
Nobody really knows, there’s no assurance of salvation, Muslims even wish peace upon Muhammad of all people, rather if you’re a false convert (or false Muslim) you’re doomed by Allah’s command (Qur’an 1:188): “Say, “I hold not for myself [the power of] benefit or harm, except what Allah has willed.”
“How will you escape being condemned to hell?”! God’s given an answer, professor. He taught (Galatians 4:4-7): “But when the time was right, God sent his Son, and a woman gave birth to him. His Son obeyed the Law, so he could set us free from the Law, and we could become God’s children. Now that we are his children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts. And his Spirit tells us that God is our Father. You are no longer slaves. You are God’s children, and you will be given what he has promised.”
Could God be so generous to white racists, black militants and everyone in between? He’d be an awesome God to be so mighty to change people (Ezekiel 18:23, Ezekiel 33:11): “Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?” This means the Gospel’s not just for black men, or white men, or Arabs or Jews, rather as God taught Abraham (Gen 22:18): “and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed,” every nation blessed because Jesus is the saviour of everyone, especially those who believe (1 Timothy 4:10). Could anybody be so perfect morally?
Jesus taught (Matthew 23:37-39): “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”
So He’s waiting on you, Stewart. How often He’s longed to gather Muslims and Hindus and atheists, but they won’t allow for it. They’d sooner believe in Qur’an 19:71 and that they’re evolved pond life. It’s your choice pal. The answer to how you can escape the horror of hell is Jesus, He offers new life and the gift of the Holy Spirit, He’s the same person who taught ““Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.” God bless everyone reading. 🙂 I’ve enjoyed the conversation and hope anyone passing by enjoys reading [This was deleted never to be allowed again, probably because it contains the Gospel].
Prof. Robert Stewart: I’ve kindly asked you to CONDENSE your elongated rambling for courtesy to others here. Others have complied in the past, but you (in your egocentricity & obsession) continue to defy my rule. Hence, I erased your rambling. Now you are welcome to post ONE OR TWO THOUGHTS / SUBJECTS / VERSES at a time. Let someone answer those, then post the next thought. But, no longer will you just hijack this site with (by my last count) 129 sentences, averaging 8 to 9 words per sentence, coming to 1,161 words! That’s the SHOTGUN FALLACY blatantly manifest indeed. This link will help you in your future writing endeavors. I teach my students this method as well:
OSC I’m sorry to be the bearer of this news professor, but you’re not in charge of how long a message other people want to read online. If you believe message size is a matter or courtesy you’re sorely mistaken. Now, you may decide upon their behalf how much they want to read, as you’ve tried to do, however any honest seeker of truth would simply allow comments to be comments. In addition, as I’ve explained already, the shotgun fallacy would only be applicable based upon how many arguments are made.
So no matter how many sentences, words, words per sentence (or any other irrelevant thing to do with message length) that’s not the shotgun fallacy. 🙂 I’ve had to correct you on this before.
It’s a great shame you felt the need to hide and destroy parts of the conversation, and it’s also a shame you’ve been so upset by these comments and questions of mine. I know writing about my supposed egocentricity & obsession is a convenient and useful cover, it’s sadly not an assessment you are able to make. You do not know me, sir. Over time I predict you will remove more of these comments, which will go to show the missing depth and lack of transparency that’s so common in things which aren’t of God.
God bless you and change you from this proud, scared man I’ve written to.
Prof. Robert Stewart: If you mention a verse in Bible, Then go to Qur’an, adding Talmud, then two more Bible verses, adding your views between each, then back to Islam is frightened, then back to Bible. This is worse than Shotgun Fallacy. It’s called SCATTER-BRAINED – ALL OVER THE MAP. So pick your question or comment. Let it be answered. Then go to next topic or comment. This way you won’t look like a rambling egomaniac. Just advice to help, sir.
Prof. Robert Stewart: Last time I checked, I didn’t ask for your opinions in the first place. So, you are welcome to stay away from my videos anytime that you desire. I only indulged you for the sake of others. I don’t care what you think or believe about anything in the Cosmos and never will. You’re not on my mind until I see you here, but I’ve obviously consumed yours indeed. 😉
^^^ Ad Hominems!!! 😥 My brain, my brain insulted! Yyyyyyy?!
God bless and merry Christmas everybody 🙂
― T. C. M