Jesus declares "death do you part" is literal during his interrogation with the Sadducee Jews in Luke. Nobody is married in Heaven.
St. John the Baptist is the Last Prophet of Israel. Jesus fulfills a prophecy with this. Hence there has not been any prophets since not Muhammed nor the buffoons in Salt Lake City. There will NEVER be another prophet because God has sent The Advocate.
And lastly, "apostasy" means "to fall".
Jesus says, "The Church" will NEVER fall.
In Greek at the time of writing, there were no capital letters nor lower case letters.
He didn't say, "some church", "all churches" nor even "the church".
What he said was a proper noun or "The Church".
And Jesus is on a 2,000yr hot streak as The Holy Catholic Church is the longest standing, uninterrupted organized institution on planet Earth.
Now, this is not to say Jesus says only Catholics go to Heaven, of course not!
Luke 12:48, "For those who are Ignorant and deserve a severe beating, will instead receive a light beating".
Luke 16 also differentiates Hades from the place where light beatings take place.
Light beatings take place in Purgatory, Limbo or Abe's Bosom.
Also, see Romans 3:23, no group is sacred for "All have sinned". He is not talking about personal sin but groups of people see verse 28. Not the Jews, Not the Catholics and certainly not some goofy false teacher teaching 'once saved always saved" are all going to Heaven. God created nuance for a reason!
It's personal not about a group!
In fact, the closer you are to God, the more likely you go to Hades hence Luke 12:48.
We see this play out with the Apostles when they had "Faith Alone" and scattered like cockroaches to when The Church Jesus "built" was born.
It's "for God so loved the World" not "for God so loved the faithful" you buffoon.
NOTHING is required from the Ignorant. Not even Faith! Because that is what "love" is you moron. It's unconditional.
What did I not say? I didn't say all are saved like Titus 2:11 says, of course not, reread what I said. There is no literal "all". It's personal!
There is no prophet after St. John the Baptist. Steer clear of any liars declaring a false prophet after Jesus.
If you want Scripture on The Last Prophet being St. John the Baptist, all you got to do is seek and ask.
God will provide!
If you believe there is a prophet after Jesus, you are like Adam who WANTED to be deceived. Yes, that's how it works, you want to be deceived. God will give NO QUARTER to those who are deceived by stupid lies. Hence he calls the moron "Faith Alone" Apostles "orphans" at The Last Supper.
So, what did we learn?
Jesus is on a 2,000yr hot streak and there is no latter day church.
There is no prophet after Jesus muslim or Salt Lake City.
And nobody is married in Heaven per Jesus during his interrogation. Death do you part is literal. The false teachers in Salt Lake declare you are married eternally.
And a 4th thing, but not a main teaching point, you don't have to be Catholic, have faith or be in a group to go to Heaven. For God so loved the world!

SHARE EVERYWHERE
I am Shaheer Cassim (pronounced Shuh-HER Kuh-SEEM), editor of Arctic News blogspot. I write on the threat of runaway global warming caused by methane hydrates. Some esteemed scientists I confer with are Peter Wadhams, world leading expect on Arctic Sea ice at the University of Cambridge and Guy McPherson, emeritus professor at the University of Arizona. In 2011 I founded the Arctic Methane Emergency Group, which included esteemed scientists John Nissen and Paul Beckwith, professor of climatology at the University of Ottawa.
In 2011 scientists discovered 100 methane seeping structures on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, and estimated there may be many thousands of them. There are more than 1700 billion tonnes of hydrate in the ESAS. Methane hydrate has been liked to four of the five major extinctions in earth history. Scientists Natalia and Igor told that 50 billion tonnes of methane hydrate could be released at any time, which Peter Wadhams calculated would cause a 1.2 degrees Celsius rise in global temperatures in a matter of years. This would cause localized warming which would release more methane hydrate causing runaway global heating. In 2012 I applied an exponential best fit line to Arctic Sea ice and predicted that the sea ice would disappear around 2016. Peter Wadhams agreed with this conclusion.
Yet here we are, 12 years later and no news at all from the Arctic. I believe the government is secretly geoengineering the Arctic to prevent the collapse of the sea ice and catastrophic release of methane hydrates.
The ESAS contains 1700 Gt (Giga-tonne, billion tonnes) of methane hydrate. Since methane hydrate is about 10% pure methane, the ESAS has about 170 Gt methane. What would be the effect of a release of 1 Gt methane? Since methane has 105 times the warming effect over 10 years than CO2, that would be the equivalent of adding 105 Gt of CO2. Humans now emit about 36 Gt CO2 annually.
Methane is decomposed in the atmosphere by hydroxyl. The level of methane we have been emitting in the atmosphere has significantly reduced atmospheric hydroxyl. Large releases of methane will further decrease it until there is no more. Methane in the atmosphere will not decompose anymore.
The IPCC, the International Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. body, says we must at net-zero emissions in just a few decades. Net-zero is the carbon we can emit that will not increase the emissions. Net-zero is about 8 Gt, about 1 tonne of CO2 per person. This number may be too high.
The IPCC is lying to us when they say temperatures will only rise by 3 degrees Celsius by 2100. They are killing us.
There is more carbon in methane hydrate than in all the coal, oil, and gas in the world. In 2009 James Hansen, former director of the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies, told if we burn all the coal, oil, and gas, we will cause runaway heating turning Earth into Venus. He told it is a certainty. Now when you add in methane hydrate, it is a dead certainty.
If we pass this tipping point in the next year, 2026, in a decade humankind will be extinct.
In 2012 I came up with the idea we should have not an Earth Hour or Earth Day, but an Earth Year. A year to solve our problems. This is the list of what we must do.

1. Abandon the cities and return to the farmland, build yourselves homes and grow food.

Cities cause carbon emissions. They require enormous amounts concrete, which need coal. There is not enough land to grow food. Food grown outside must be trucked in.

1. End all weapons and live in peace.

Weapons kill and cause carbon emissions. Killing creates hatred and a desire for revenge.

1. Have only one child. After 200 years you may have two.

When Jesus Christ died 2000 years ago world population was 200 000 000. At the start of the industrial revolution population was 1 000 000 000. Today it is 8 000 000 000 and climbing by 80 000 000 a year. This is due to fossil fuels. Oil and gas will run out by 2050, coal later.

1. Eat only plants. Fish is allowed on Fridays.

When you hurt an animal, it feels as we do. Farming is suffering. For an egg, you need a male and female chicken. The baby boy chicken is killed. Milk needs a male, female, and baby cow. All are killed. Do not eat shrimp. Why kill 100 lives for one meal when you can kill one. Do not eat shellfish, for they are boiled alive. Wild fish offers B12, essential oils, and fulfills the human need for flesh.

1. Technology is not allowed. Electric bicycles and phones powered by solar panels are allowed.

All technology breaks down and must be replaced. Electric cars use huge amounts of metals and oil, and the battery weighs 1000 lbs. Nuclear power plants use concrete, takes years to build, and uranium supplies are running low. Nuclear plants on tectonic zones must be shut down immediately. Wind turbines use concrete, metal, and oil, and must be torn down after forty years. Batteries are less energy dense than fossil fuels. Ships, planes, and freighters will never be electrified

1. Timekeeping is not allowed. Live by the cycles of the sun and moon.

Humans cannot live by the clock. Timekeeping creates anxious behaviour and effects mood. Only students and professionals must live by the clock.

1. Pay all an equal wage.

The labourer working in the field did not have opportunity and education growing, and deserves more than 12 cents an hour. The doctor had education, and the business owner had capital.

1. Give all the right to a home, food, medicine, and education.
   
2. Sit, eat, and sleep on the floor.
   

Too many trees are killed by furniture

1. Grow hemp.

Hemp grows fast on marginal soil, the seeds provide protein and oil, the stalks textiles, and the residues can be burned for cooking.

1. You may use the body of a deceased animal, but you must not eat it.

Meat is a drug. If you give drugs again, you will become addicted.

1. Cats and dogs must be pescatarian.
   
2. Plastic is not allowed.
   

By 2050 there will be more plastic in the ocean then fish. There are micro plastics in the rain and drinking water.

1. Tobacco is not allowed.

Tobacco kills. Nicotine is more addictive than heroin. Butts destroy nature.

1. Coffee is not allowed.

Coffee affects the sleep-wake cycle.

1. Sugar is not allowed.

Sugar is the most damaging crop to nature. It's causing a dentistry, obesity, and diabetic crisis.

1. A man and a lady must use their hands and mouths on their partners sensual organs, and avoid normal lovemaking to prevent the creation of new life.

Vaginal love making risks the creation of new life. Every year billions of condoms are thrown into landfills. Condoms must be kept for those with STDs.
What happens when you smoke?
Smoke is composed of tar, carbon, and chemicals, some which are cancerous. Tar clogs up the passageways of the lung and alveoli. These are microscopic sacs that exchange oxygen and carbon. Carbon cuts up the alveoli. Eventually they collapse, and respiration becomes impossible. Chemicals and small carbon pass into the bloodstream and are distributed through the body. Blood cells try to remove the carbon from the body, and are cut up and killed. Another blood cell tries to remove the carbon, and this continues. Small carbon enters the brain and becomes lodged in the brain cells. To be removed from the body, carbon needs to bond with oxygen. Carbon from smoke cannot bond so remains in your body
.Jesus Christ wants you to stop killing yourself. Jesus Christ ❤️
What does it mean to kill someone?
When you take land, and cause someone to die, you have killed them.
When you destroy nature, and cause someone to die, you have killed them.
When you pollute and cause someone to die, you have killed them.
When you deny knowledge, you kill.
When you deny food, water, shelter, or medicine, you kill.
Giving drugs, tobacco, and alcohol kills.
Buildings that collapse, catch fire, or are destroyed by rain.
Enabling weapons.
Why quit motion video?
Flashing lights affects the brain. Motion video is rapidly moving lights. Children viewing motion video become dramatic. Too much of certain wavelengths of light can affect the brain. Sunlight has the perfect light. Go out and enjoy sunlight.
Believe in Jesus Christ and you will Live Forever. See Jesus Christ. Love Jesus Christ. Forever Jesus Christ ❤️

From my time debating I can gather the most popular and strongest proofs Christians offer of Jesus's very existence outside of the Bible are mentions from 1st century historians named:

1. Tacticus, a dude literally describing the beliefs of Christians of his time, decades after when Jesus's death was said to take place.
2. Josephus, whose works mentioning Jesus were at least half forgery so I'll put him below Tacticus on this ranking (no historian thinks that what was written from him is 100% unaltered by Christians later, he realistically probably only wrote the same as Tacticus did, simply describing Christians decades after when Jesus's death was said to take place).

How is two historians writing down the beliefs of a growing small group in their area based on what they heard and could've only possibly heard and not been given proof for evidence that the figure did walk the earth? I have no idea.

1. The fact that "modern historians agree" Jesus existed even though they only reach this conclusion with the above two details to work with and a little bit of logic which makes it seem like there probably being a Jesus figure since it wouldn't make sense for Christianity to start off without a central leader if we think of it like modern cults, but we can't be sure the likelihood at all - with 0 other proofs at all of him from his time he just as easily as being a real dude could've been made up completely for reasons such as being a character to fulfill the Old Testament messiah. I'd say a magic man from a book with 0 proof besides two mentions from historians stating the beliefs of its followers decades later is far more likely to have been an idea, then based on a real person or multiple people (there were many false "messiahs" at the time) than a single real person that did all it said.

Some try to push absolute lies which I guess are common amongst Christians who don't even know the names of the historians Tacticus and Josephus to bring up, which are that there is physical proof of Jesus or the resurrection and anything else beyond his existence has any proof at all. Then there's the "500 eyewitnesses" to his resurrection - which flat out don't have any proof of existing.. Seriously, not a single one of them wrote about it or caused a ruckus which is if anything proof they didn't exist and are as mythical as Jesus walking on water. The last is the deaths of the Apostles, whom we have no proof to say most existed (all except for Paul, Peter, James and John) and no proof to say any of them died under Roman authority, which undermines the stories. There's no outside-Bible proof a single one of the 12 apostles were ever killed by the Romans and that all but 4 even existed, period.
Ultimately there is no way for us to know whether he existed or not and with all we have it seems Christians have their right to tip what we have to say he did and when they give the evidence, any rational person has the right to say that isn't sufficient proof he did.
Now onto the most popular "proofs" I've seen for God, which work a lot like the proof we have for Jesus: information that can only result in uncertainty and absolute bogus.
The best is the question of "What created the universe?" which can be answered with the big bang, and then "What created the big bang?" which can only be answered with we don't know as our understanding of anything breaks down before the big bang, there's no reason to believe the laws of physics or time existed and were the same before. We just can't know what was before the big bang ultimately so it doesn't make sense to ask questions that revolve around a before the big bang situation like "What created the big bang?". Then there's the long line of gibberish arguments in increasingly more cringe order:
"Something can't come from nothing" - this assumes that atheists think there was nothing before the big bang while the truth is no one knows or can know what was.
"Everything is in a such precise position for humans to exist, this can't all be luck" - laws of physics and the fact that we are probably sitting in the best time for life to arise in the universe, its not too chaotic now as it was billions of years ago or will be billions of years later. Basically, how things just simply unfolded play a huge part but it's not as impossible or special without a god jumping in as this argument makes it out to be.
"God made life evolve/life can't come from non-life" - Again, no reason for a god to jump in for the first replicating cells to form as its expected given the right conditions and just not all that unlikely for these conditions to be there if it happened in the deep sea vents of Earth.
"Humans have to get their morality from a source to all know if something is right or wrong objectively" - Humans all have brains, brains that evolved to work similar and tell apart right from wrong effectively. Objective morality, like all other human concepts, crumble to exist without humans but do in our societies and minds.
"Miracles happen!" - No, no they don't. In fact no evidence of anything supernatural has ever been recorded.
Any lower arguments are not worth mentioning but sadly are frequently used by religious people..
A good reality check timeline is:

• No one knows anything
• Universe exists and is unimaginably dense & hot

big bang expansion

• solar system gets into place
• earth forms
• first replicating cells form
• early fish-like creatures crawl onto land and evolve to adapt to it
• mammals evolve
• great apes evolve
• homo erectus evolves
• homo sapiens evolve
• homo sapiens make up goofy gods in their books to explain away how everything was made in goofy, furthest from accurate ways

To start - the photo album - https://photos.app.goo.gl/m816j6qm54nRQ5uw8
I'm a little bit late writing this up, some things won't be relevant any more, apologies. This itinerary is for someone who likes to be out doing stuff all day every day, most people will find it way too full on. If you are also like this, though, I'd say it was well-planned, I never felt overly rushed, though I could've maybe done with an extra half hour here and there (this is more a problem with Paris' need to book everything a month in advance with a specific timeslot than my planning). I found the people to be very friendly, and never had any trouble communicating - though my French is passable, most people switched to English quite quickly, and not just customer-facing staff but even people I stopped to ask for directions from.
Wednesday 25th October Finished work slightly early to get the Eurostar at 18:01 from London St Pancras. 2.5 hour train (and lose an hour to time zones). The hotel was near Place de la Republique, so walkable from Gare du Nord (Hotel Mimosa - cheapest hotel available when we booked. No complaints, nice staff, really clean, didn't try the breakfast). Only had time to check into our hotel and have a quick drink nearby (the end of the PSG game was on).
Thursday 26th October Disney! I wasn't sure about it since it was the middle of French school holidays, and there were certainly some long queues, but my friend insisted and I'm glad we did (although only because I went twice as a kid, if you don't have the nostalgia I don't think it's worth it on a busy day - one year I spent Christmas eve/day here with my mam and had Christmas dinner at the Cinderella inn). We went to Gare du Nord early to buy Navigo Decouverte passes (even though the week runs Mon-Sun and we arrived midweek it's still the best option, no faff with the little paper ticket booklets, covers as far as Disney/Versailles, and is pretty cheap), got the metro over and made it for almost gates opening. Got really lucky and managed to book a table for 2 at Bistrot Chez Remy (the Ratatouille themed restaurant) for the evening whilst on the train there (do this on the Disneyland app), even then the restaurant is only about a 6.5/10 but it's amazing compared to your walk-up options, I'd suggest trying to book one of the better ones a few weeks in advance (be aware of prices though!). The main park is exactly as I remember with one or two Star Wars things shoehorned in, the Studios park is completely different though - before it was all "behind-the-scenes" type stuff, now it's "everything we own that isn't Disney" (so half the park is painted Marvel, half of it is painted Pixar). Particularly sad the Armageddon experience is gone, as well as the statue of Mickey holding Walt Disney's hand. Last time I was here, Crush's Coaster had just opened so was 2 hour queues and I never got to ride it, and somehow 17 years later they haven't shortened. Maybe next time? Rides close at 10 but we stayed for the fireworks, was quite late getting back.
Friday 27th October Slightly later start, easy morning finding somewhere for breakfast, didn't have to be at the Louvre until 11:30. We tried the side entrance that I've seen mentioned on here a few times, don't think it works any more though. The queue to get in even for timed tickets is enormous, thought we'd be stuck there for hours but dead on 11:30 it started moving, and we were past security and into the main hall in about 20 minutes. Made a beeline for the Mona Lisa, having read about a lengthy queue we'd discussed just getting a drive-by/glimpse of it rather than waste the day, but actually there were about 50 people in the pen ahead of us (which is about 10 people wide) and we were at the front in maybe 5 minutes? My photo of it is timestamped 12:02. Saw the Winged Victory, didn't see Liberty Leading the People as it was down for restoration, but it should be back by the time you're reading this. The place is huge and I definitely missed loads (forgot to try and find Napoleon's apartment). I do like art but I found lots of this to be a drag - I like colourful/interesting stuff, but find portraits of old generals and paintings of Jesus incredibly tedious after a while. Glad I went, not sure I'll return though. I budgeted 3 hours which was pretty much perfect for me. Next stop Saint-Chapelle - the windows are as beautiful as you imagine. I've seen a lot of people saying it's a waste of time and money - it is very expensive for what it is, it is just the one room, depending on your budget it might not be for you, but if like me you're happy to chuck money at stuff when on holiday it's absolutely worth the time. I think we stopped at a cafe at this point? One of the typical Parisian ones, where you sit facing out onto the street. Afterwards we walked over to see Notre Dame (still closed due to the fire) and then down into the Latin Quarter. We stumbled upon a free street art exhibition just across from the Pantheon which I really enjoyed, then started looking around for an early dinner - which turns out to be quite challenging in Paris, nowhere opens before 7 it seems, but we did find an Italian place nearby. We needed to get to the Stade de France for 9 so the plan was to be south of the city to make sure we get onto the metro before it gets into the centre and fills up - needn't have bothered though, lots of trains, never got too packed, as organised as any other modern stadium, just aim to be at least 30 minutes early and you can't go wrong. Rugby World Cup 3rd place game - England beat Argentina 26-23, looked like it might be a walkover early on but it turned into a really tight game, great warmup for the main event. Second dinner at Au Pied du Cochon, the 24hr restaurant that gets mentioned on here a lot.
Saturday 28th October Started at Musee d'Orsay, 10:30 entry. This museum is much more to my taste, and a manageable size. The impressionist stuff is all up on the 5th floor and is spectacular, I have never before (and will probably never again) go to a gallery where I instantly recognise so many things! This was a particularly incredible experience as they also had a Van Gogh exhibition on at the time (focused on his works at the end of his life, when he was living in France and his work was becoming very sinister - sadly no longer on) and I'd just recently taken my mam to the immersive Van Gogh experience in Edinburgh as part of her 60th. The other exhibition was Louis Janmot's Poem of the Soul (a really long poem and a load of paintings to accompany each segment) which I can't claim to have heard of before, I wish I'd had a bit more time to enjoy it fully but I had other plans so only had time to look at the pictures. Catacombs were booked for 14:30 - interesting experience, I'd say worth doing but not a must. It's good to have something planned other than museums. Afterwards, had time to see Jardin du Luxembourg and Montparnasse cemetery (didn't take any pictures in here, feels wrong somehow, didn't find anyone famous anyhow), before finding dinner in Montparnasse. Then the World Cup final - South Africa v New Zealand, another very tense game! I seem to have a habit for picking rugby finals with early red cards.
Sunday 29th October Trip to Versailles, 12:00 ticket, full access. This is the one place where, even with a timed ticket, you have a long wait to get in. I got in at 12:40, and I was fairly early so near the front of the queue for my timeslot. The palace itself is fine, bit nicer than my house but not worth the trip on its own, the gardens are stunning though, I spent over 2 hours in them, and still pressed on to see the other areas. My favourite was Marie-Antoinette's hamlet, the pictures don't really do it justice but it felt like I was in a fairytale. I headed back to Paris and got to the Eiffel tower just in time to see it twinkle at 7pm (it does so every hour on the hour after dark). Walked over to Trocadero (the best place to view the Eiffel tower), then along to the Arc de Triomphe and down the Champs Elysee. Took the metro up to Montmartre to go into Basilica Sacre-Coeur (free entry, and by this time no queue at all - they ask for no photographs so there's nothing in my album from inside, but there's plenty online). Ate nearby then had tickets for Moulin Rouge at 11.30 - like Saint-Chapelle, it's quite expensive, but a good time if you do decide to go. This was my most tiring day, over 35000 steps.
Monday 30th October Final day in Paris. I'd managed to get a spare ticket for Musee de l'Orangerie on an site called Headout (usually you would have to book this a while in advance, like most things in Paris, I guess someone returned one last minute? Could only get one, don't think my friend particularly wanted one anyway), 12:00 entry. I picked a route to pass a couple of landmarks - Opera Garnier, Madeleine, Obelique du Louxor. Monet's water lillies are, as you'd expect, absolutely gorgeous, and the only reason this museum exists really. There's some good stuff in the permanent collection in the basement though - I think I remember seeing a Picasso down there? I don't remember what the temporary exhibitions were at the time but I remember being unimpressed. Went back to the Eiffel tower to see it in the daylight, and stumbled upon Musee du Quai Branly. I'm not sure exactly how to describe it, it's a collection of objects created by humanity when in a loosely "tribal" period? Which happened at vastly different time periods for each continent. And also there's some samurai stuff, even though Japan had a fairly well developed civilisation by the time they came around. The more you think about it the more it falls apart really, basically it's a museum full of really cool stuff. Had to rush this a little bit to catch the Eurostar (train at 17:00), was also panicking because I couldn't make contact with my friend, who had my luggage.

(Putting this in ERP just in case, bc it does mention that, but nothing explicit!)
Okay, this is pretty standard BS, but it happened three times in a row and it's driving me nuts.
So I made an account on a popular booru site (so I could place my art there, instead of having others randomly do it), and they had an RP/ERP request thread. So I was like yeah, sure, sounds fun!
I'm a para/multipara (third person past tense) player who really enjoys character dynamics over everything else. I have a pretty detailed "roleplay" segment on my website that goes over some basics; how I play, that I do NOT use IMs (Discord), where I do play (Dreamwidth, gdocs, email, rpnow, etc.), and the stupid "I don't condone what bad guys do in fiction" disclaimer. Pretty standard for people who do multi-para, I think? But I haven't met many in quite a while, so maybe I am kind of odd.
First person approaches me, we chat, seems like a fun idea! I ask them to write up the starter because I'd be busy until later and they're like, sure, no problem.
The starter was: "Wow, I need to go deeper into the forest to find herbs!"
Like. That's it. I asked what part of my RP post made it seem like I was that kind of player, and they responded "I guess I'm just not good enough for you" or some other passive-aggressive shit. Cut them off, whatever, I've had that happen before.
Second person contacts me. Very well-spoken, but asks me if I use Discord. I don't, as it states in my post. They then ask where else we could RP. Which is also written in my post, as follows: "RPNow > Dreamwidth > gDocs > RP email." They ask if that means I'm converting the RP from one thing into GDocs like a story. I explain what ">" means (jesus christ). They continue to ask me the same question: "Where else can we RP?" Buddy just get over that I won't use Discord, please! IMs stress me out!
Third person. All lowercase. "want 2 rp"
"Did you read my info?" "yeah"
"Okay, what did you have in mind?" "18+ shipping rp"
"....you sure you read my info?"
Anyway, I just stopped responding to them, but at least they didn't get passive-aggressive like the first one.
I've encountered a LOT of wild stuff with RP these days, like people getting mad if you play a villain as a villain, people being really up in arms about certain kinks, but more than that I've just had this overwhelming deluge of... low effort, typing-with-one-hand-ERP type stuff.
I miss RPing! I don't have a lot of energy to do it anymore, and this just always puts a damper on things D: Have any of you noticed this? Is it more unique to SFW or NSFW RP? Or fandom vs nonfandom? I'm really curious, since I played both on Furcadia (lol) and Tumblr (before 2018 obvs) and rarely had this issue.

PLAYBOY Interview With Conan O'Brien Interview by Kevin Cook For Playboy Magazine February 1998
A candid conversation with the preppie prince of "Late Night" about his rocky start, his show's secret one-day cancellation and how David Letterman saved the day.
He was polite. He was funny. He gave us a communicable disease.
At 34 Conan O'Brien is hotter than the fever he was running when we met in his private domain above the "Late Night" sound stage. A gangly freckle-faced ex-high school geek he is "one of TV's hottest properties" according to "People" magazine. The host of "Late Night With Conan O'Brien" has become his generation's king of comedy.
Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown. Congested too, but O'Brien has far more to worry about than his head cold. A perfectionist who broods over one bad minute in an otherwise perfect hour of TV, he worries he might be anhedonic, "I have trouble with success," he says, "I was raised to believe that if something good happens something bad is coming." Sure things look good now "Rolling Stone" calls "Late Night" "the hottest comedy show on TV." Ratings are better than ever, particularly among 18- to 34-year-olds, the viewers advertisers crave.
But O'Brien only works harder. Despite his illness he taped two shows in 26 hours on three hours' sleep. He smoothly interviewed Elton John then burst into coughing fits during commercials. Later in his crammed corner office overlooking Manhattan traffic Conan the Cool gulped Dayquil gel caps. He coughed spewing microbes.
"Sorry, sorry," he said. Of course O'Brien can't complain. He came seriously close to falling to being banished behind the scenes as just another failed talk show host.
At his first "Late Night" press conference he corrected a reporter who called him a relative unknown, "Sir I am a complete unknown," he said. That line got a laugh, but soon O'Brien looked doomed. His September 13, 1993 debut began with O'Brien in his dressing room preparing to hang himself only to be interrupted by the start of his show. Before long his career was hanging by a thread. Ratings were terrible. Critics hated the show. Tom Shales of "The Washington Post" called it as "lifeless and messy as roadkill." Shales said O'Brien should quit.
Network officials held urgent meetings discussing the Conan O'Brien debacle. Should they fire him? How should they explain their mistake?
In the end of course he turned it around. The network hung with him long enough for the ratings to improve and the host of the cooler-than-ever "Late Night" now defines comedy's cutting edge just as Letterman did ten years ago.
Even Shales loves "Late Night" these days. He calls O'Brien's turnaround "one of the most amazing transformations in television history."
O'Brien was born on April 18, 1963 in Brookline, Massachusetts. His father, a doctor, is a professor at Harvard Medical School. His mother, a lawyer, is a partner at an elite Boston Law firm. Conan, the third of six children became a lector at church and a misfit at school. Tall and goofy, bedeviled with acne, he tried to impress girls with jokes. That plan usually bombed, but O'Brien eventually found his niche at Harvard where he won the presidency of the "Harvard Lampoon" in 1983 and again in 1984 - the first two-time "Lampoon" president since humorist Robert Benchley held the honor 85 years ago.
After graduating magna cum laude with a double major in literature and American history he turned pro. Writing for HBO's "Not Necessarily The News." O'Brien was earning $100,000 a year before his 24th birthday. But writing was never enough.
He honed his performance skills with the Groundlings, a Los Angeles improv group. There he worked with his onetime girlfriend Lisa Kudrow, now starring on "Friends." But Conan was not such a standout. In 1988 he landed a job at "Saturday Night Live" - but as a writer, not as on-air talent. In almost four years on the show O'Brien made only fleeting appearances, usually as a crowd member or security guard. His writing was more memorable. He wrote (or co-wrote) Tom hanks' "Mr Short-Term Memory" skits as well as the "pump you up" infosatire of Hanz and Franz and the nude beach sketch in which Matthew Broderick and "SNL" members played nudists admiring one another's penises. With dozens of mentions of the word that hit was the most penis-heavy moment in TV history. It helped O'Brien win an Emmy for comedy writing.
In 1991 he quit "SNL" and moved on to "The Simpsons" where he worked for two years. His urge to perform came out in wall-bouncing antics in writers' meetings. "Conan makes you fall out of your chair" said "Simpsons" creator Matt Groening. O'Brien's yen to act out was so strong that he spurned Fox's reported seven-figure offer to continue as a writer. He was driving for the spotlight.
By then David Letterman had announced he was turning shin - leaving NBC taking his ton-rated act to CBS. Suddenly NBC was up a creek without a host. The network turned to Lorne Michaels, O'Brien's "Saturday Night Live" boss. Michaels enlisted Conan's help in the host search planning to use him in a behind-the-scenes job. But when Garry Shandling, Dana Carvey and almost every other star turned down the chore of following Letterman, Michaels finally listened to Conan's crazy suggestion, "Let me do it!" Michaels persuaded the network to entrust it's 12:30 slot which Letterman had turned into a gold mine to an untested wiseass from Harvard.
O'Brien was working on one of his last "Simpsons" episodes when he got the news. He turned "paler than usual," Groening recalled. The Conan moseyed back to where the other writers were working, "I'll come back with the Homer Simspon joke later. I have to go replace Letterman," he said.
NBC executives now get credit for their foresight during those dark days of 1993 and 1994. They snared the axe and now reap the multimillion-dollar spoils of that decision. In fact, the story is not so simple. We sent Contributing Editor Kevin Cook to unravel the tale of O'Brien's survival, which he tells here for the first time. Cook reports:
"His office is chock-full of significa. There's a three-foot plastic pickle the Letterman staff left behind in 1993 - perhaps to suggest what a predicament he was in. There's a copy of Jack Paar's 'I Kid You Not' and a coffee-table book called 'Saturday Night Live: The First 20 Years.' His bulletin board features letters from fans such as John Watters and Bob Dole and an 8" x 10" glossy of Andy Richter with the inscription: "To Conan - Your bitter jealousy warms my black heart. Love and Kisses Andy."
"Of course it's all for show. From the photos of kitch icons Adam West and Robert Stack to the framed Stan Laurel autograph, from the deathbed painting of Abraham Lincoln, to the ironic star taped to Conan's door - they're all clever signals that tell a visitor how to view the star. Lincoln was his collegiate preoccupation: stardom is his occupation. Somewhere between the two I hoped to find the real O'Brien.
"As a Playboy reader he wanted to give me a better-than-average interview. I wanted something more - a definitive look at the guy who may end up being the Johnny Carson of his generation."
"Here's hoping we succeeded. If not I carried his germs 3000 miles and infected dozens of Californians for no good reason.
O'Brien: Yes, this is how to do a Playboy Interview -- completely tanked on cold medicine. I'll pick it up and read, "Yes, I'm gay."
Playboy: We could talk another time. O'Brien: (coughing) No, it's OK. I memorized Dennis Rodman's answers. Can I use them?
Playboy: You sound really sick. Do you ever take a day off? O'Brien: No. The age of talk show hosts taking days off is over. Johnny Carson could go to Africa when he was the only game in town -- "See you in two weeks!" But nobody does that now. I will give you a million dollars on the first day Jay takes off for illness.
Playboy: Do you ever slow down and enjoy your success? O'Brien: If anything, the pace is picking up. Restaurateurs insist on giving me a table even if I'm only passing by, so I'm eating nine meals a night. Women stop me on the street and hand me their phone numbers.
Playboy: So you have groupies? O'Brien: Oh yes. And other fans. Drifters. Prisoners. Insomniacs. Cab Drivers, who must watch a lot of late night TV, seem to love me lately. They keep saying, "You will not pay, you will not pay, you make me happy!"
Playboy: How happy did your new contract make you? O'Brien: Terrified. The network said, "We're all set for five years." I said, "Shut up, shut up! I can't think that far ahead." Tonight, for instance, I do my jokes, then interview Elton John and Tim Meadows. We finished taping about 6:30. By 6:45 my memory was erased and my only thought was, Tomorrow: John Tesh. And I started to obsess about John Tesh. Sad, don't you think?
Playboy: Not too sad. You got off to a rocky start but now you're so hot that People magazine recently said, "that was then, this is wow." O'Brien: I try not to pay much attention. Since I ignored the critics who said I should shoot myself in the head with a German Luger, it would be cheating to tear out nice reviews now and rub them all over my body, giggling. Though I have thought about it.
Playboy: Tell us about your trademark gag. You interview a photo of Bill Clinton or some other celeb, and a pair of superimposed lips provide outrageous answers. O'Brien: We call it the Clutch Cargo bit, after that terrible old cartoon series. They saved money on animation by superimposing real lips on the cartoons. I wanted to do topical jokes in a cartoony way -- not just Conan doing quips at a desk. TV is visual; I want things to look funny. But we're not Saturday Night Live; we couldn't spend $100,000 on it. Hence, the cheap, cheesy lips, You'd be surprised how many people we fool.
Playboy: Viewers believe that's really the president yelling, "Yee-haw! Who's got a joint?" O'Brien: It's strange. You may know intellectually that Clinton doesn't talk like Foghorn Leghorn. Ninety-eight percent of your brain knows the president wouldn't say, "Whoa Conan get a load of that girl!" But there are a few brain cells that aren't sure. When Bob Dole was running for president we had him doing a past-life regression: "My cave, get away." And then back further, "Must form flippers to crawl on to rocky soil," he says. There may be people out there who believe that Bob Dole was the first amphibian.
Playboy: Do you ever go too far? O'Brien: The fun is in going too far. It's a nice device because you get Bill Clinton to do the nastiest Bill Clinton jokes. We'll have Clinton making fart noises while I say "Sir! Please!"
Playboy: Are you enjoying your job now, with your new success? O'Brien: Well, there are surprises. I hate surprises. Like most comics, I'm a control freak. But I am learning that the show works best when things are out of control. Tonight I ask Elton John if he likes being neighbors with Joan Collins. He says he isn't neighbors with Joan Collins. He lives next door to Tina Turner. So I panic -- huge mistake! But Elton saves the day. "Joan Collins, Tina Turner, it doesn't matter. Either way I could borrow a wig," he says. Huge laugh, all because I fucked up. Later he surprised me by blurting out that he's hung like a horse. The camera cuts to me shaking my head: That crazy Elton. What can I do? Of course, I'm delighted that he went too far.
Playboy: That "What can I do?" look resembles a classic take of Jack Benny's. O'Brien: There's an old saying in literature: "Good poets borrow; great poets steal." I think T.S. Eliot stole it from Ezra Pound. Comics steal, too. Constantly. When I watched Johnny Carson, I noticed that he got a few takes from Benny and Bob Hope. When a comedy writer told me how much Woody Allen had borrowed from Hope, I thought, What? They're nothing alike. Then I went back and watched Son of Paleface, and there's Hope, the nervous city guy backing up on his heels, wringing his hands and saying, "Sorry, I'll just be moving along." Now look at early Woody Allen. You see big authority figures and Woody nervously saying, "Look, I'll just be on my way." Of course Woody made it his own, but he must have watched and loved Bob Hope.
Playboy: Who are your role models? O'Brien: Carson. Woody Allen. SCTV. Peter Sellers. When Peter Sellers died I felt such a loss, thinking, There won't be anymore of that. There's some Steve Martin in my false bravado with female guests: "Why, hel-lo there!" And I won't deny having some Letterman in my bones.
Playboy: You were surprise as Letterman's successor. At first you seemed like the wrong choice. O'Brien: I didn't get ratings. That doesn't mean I didn't get laughs. Yes, I had a giant pompadour and I looked like a rockabilly freak. I was too excited, pushed too hard, and people said, "That guy isn't a polished performer." Fine! But it isn't my goal to be Joe Handsomehead cool, smooth talk show host. Late Night with Conan O'Brien is supposed to be a work in progress, and now that we've had some success there's a danger of our getting too polished and morphing into something smoothly professional. Which would suck.
Do you know why I wanted this show? Because Late Night with David Letterman played with the rules and it looked like fun. Here was a place where people did risky comedy every night for millions of people. We had to keep this thing alive. There should be a place on a big network where people are still messing around.
Playboy: How bad were your early days on the show? O'Brien: Bad. Dave left here under a cloud: his fans and the media were angry with NBC. Then NBC picks a guy with crazy hair and a weird name. And the world says, "Harvard? Those guys are assholes." I sincerely hope that the winter of December 1993, our first winter, was the worst time I will ever have. I'd go out to do the warm up and the back two rows of seats would be empty. That's hard to look at. I would tell a joke and then hear someone whisper, "Who's he? Where's Dave?"
Playboy: You had trouble getting guests. O'Brien: Bob Denver canceled on us. We shot a test show with Al Lewis of The Munsters. We did the clutch cargo thing with a photo of Herman Munster. Unfortunately, Fred Gwynne, who played Herman, had recently died, and Al Lewis kept pointing at the screen, saying, "You're dead! I was at your funeral!"
Playboy: For months you got worried notes from network executives. What did they say? O'Brien: They were worried. The fact that Lorne Michaels was involved bought me some time. But Lorne had turned to me at the start and said, "OK, Conan. What do you want to do?" Now television critics were after me and the network was starting to realize what a risk I was. Suggestions came fast and furious. I kept the note that said, "Why don't you just die?"
Playboy: Did they suggest ways to be funnier? O'Brien: They were more specific and tactical. The network gets very specific data. Say there was a drop in ratings between 12:44 and 12:48 when I was talking to Jon Bon Jovi. I'll be told, "Don't ever talk to him again" Or they'll want me to tease viewers into staying with us: "You should tease that -- say, 'We'll have nudity coming up next!'"
Playboy: You did come close to being cancelled. O'Brien: We were cancelled.
Playboy: Really? You have never admitted that. O'Brien: This is the first time I've talked about it. When I had been on for about a year, there was a meeting at the network. They decided to cancel my show. They said, "It's cancelled." Next day they realized they had nothing to put in the 12:30 slot, so we got a reprieve.
Playboy: Were you worried sick? O'Brien: I went into denial. I tried hard not to think, Yes, I'm bad on the air and my show has none of the things a TV show needs to survive. We had no ratings. No critics in our corner. Advertisers didn't like us. Affiliates wanted to drop us. Sometimes I'd meet a programming director from a local station where we had no rating at all. The guy would show me a printout with no number for Late Night's rating, just a hash mark or pound sign. I didn't dare think about that when I went out to do the show.
Playboy: Are you defending denial? O'Brien: How else does anyone get through a terrible experience? The odds were against me. Rationally, I didn't have much chance. Denial was my only friend. When I look back on the first year, it's like a scene from an old war movie: Ordinary guy gets thrown into combat, somehow beats impossible odds, staggers to safety. His buddy say, "You could have been killed!" The guy stops and thinks. "Could have been killed?" he says. His eyes cross and he faints.
Playboy: How did you dodge the bullet? O'Brien: There were people at NBC who stood up for me. I will always be indebted to Don Ohlmeyer, who stuck to his guns. Don said, "We chose this guy. We should stick with him unless we get a better plan." He was brutally honest. He came to me and said, "Give me about a 15 percent bump in the ratings and you'll stay on the air. If not, we're going to move on."
Playboy: Ohlmeyer started his career in the sports division. O'Brien: Exactly, his take was, "You're on our team." Of course, it wasn't exactly rational of Don to hope I'd be 15 percent funnier. It was like telling a farmer, "It better rain this week or we'll take your farm away."
Playboy: What did you say to Ohlmeyer? O'Brien: There wasn't time. I had to go out and do a monologue. But I will always be indebted to Don because he told me the truth. Wait a minute -- you have tricked me into talking lovingly about an NBC executive. Let me say that there were others who were beneath contempt -- executives who wouldn't know a good show if it swam up their asses and lit a campfire.
Playboy: Finally the ratings went your way. Hard work rewarded? O'Brien: Well, I also paid off the Nielsen people. That was $140,000 well spent.
Playboy: Ohlmeyer plus bribery saved you? O'Brien: There was something else. Just when everyone was kicking the crap out of the show, Letterman defended me.
Playboy: Letterman had signed off on NBC saying, "I don't really know Conan O'Brien, but I heard he killed someone." O'Brien: Then I pick up the paper and he's saying he thinks I am going to make it. "They do some interesting, innovative stuff over there," he says. "I think Conan will prevail." And then he came on as a guest. Remember, this was when we were at our nadir. There was no Machiavellian reason for David Letterman, who at the time was the biggest thing in show business, to be on my show.
Playboy: Why did he do it? O'Brien: I'm still not sure. Maybe out of a sense of honor. Fair play. And it woke me up. It made me think. Hey, we have a real fucking television show here.
Of six or seven pivotal points in my short history here, that was the first and maybe the biggest. I wouldn't be sitting here -- I probably wouldn't even exist today -- if he hadn't done our show.
Playboy: The Late Night wars were hardly noted for friendly gestures. O'Brien: How little you understand. Jay, Dave and I pal around all the time. We often ride a bicycle built for three up to the country. "Nice job with Fran Drescher!" "Thanks, pal. You weren't so bad with John Tesh." We sleep in triple-decker bunk beds and snore in unison like the Three Stooges.
Playboy: You talk more about Letterman than your NBC teammate Leno. O'Brien: I hate the "Leno or Letterman, who's better?" question. I can tell you that Jay has been great to me. He calls me occasionally.
Playboy: To say what? O'Brien: (Doing Leno's voice) "Hey, liked that bit you did last night." Or he'll say he saw we got a good rating. I call him at work, too. It can be a strange conversation because we're so different. Jay, for instance, really loves cars. He's got antique cars with kerosene lanterns, cars that run on peat moss. He'll be telling me about some classic car he has, made entirely of brass and leather, and I'll say, "Yeah, man, I got the Taurus with the vinyl." One thing we have in common is bad guests. There are certain actors, celebrities with nothing to say, who move through the talk show world wreaking havoc. They lay waste to Dave's town and Jay's town, then head my way.
Playboy: You must be getting some good guests. Your ratings have shown a marked improvement. O'Brien: Remember, when you're on at 12:30 the Nielsens are based on 80 people. My ratings drop if one person has a head cold and goes to bed early.
Playboy: Actually, you're seen by about 3 million people a night. Your ratings would be even higher if college dorms weren't excluded from the Nielsens. How many points does that cost you? O'Brien: I told you I'm an idiot. Now I have to do math too?
Playboy: Do you still get suggestions from NBC executives? O'Brien: Not as many. The number of notes you get is inversely proportional to your ratings.
Playboy: What keeps you motivated? O'Brien: Superstition. We have a stagehand, Bobby Bowman, who holds up the curtain when I run out for the monologue. He is the last person I see before the show starts, and I have to make him laugh before I go out. It started with mild jabs: "Bobby, you're drunk again." Bobby laughs, "Heehee."" Then it was, "Still having trouble with the wife, Bobby?" But after hundreds of shows, you find yourself running out of lines. It's gotten to where I do crass things at the last second. I'll put his hand on my ass and yell, "You fucking pervert!" Or drop to my knees and say, "Come on, Bobby, I'll give you a blow job!"
"Ha-ha. Conan, you're crazy," he says. But even that stuff wears off. Soon, I'll be making the writers work late to give me new jokes for Bobby.
Playboy: Did you plan to be a talk show host or did you fall into the job? O'Brien: I was an Irish Catholic kid from St. Ignatius parish in Brookline, outside of Boston. And that meant: Don't call attention to yourself. Don't ask for too much when the pie comes around. Don't get a girl pregnant and fuck up your life.
Playboy: Were you an alter boy? O'Brien: I wanted to be an alter boy, but the priest at St. Ignatius said, "No, no. You're good on your feet, kid," and made me a lector. A scripture reader at Mass. He was the one who spotted my talent.
Playboy: What did you think of sex in those days? O'Brien: I was sexually repressed. At 16 I still thought human reproduction was by mitosis.
Playboy: How did you get over your sexual repression? O'Brien: Who says I got over it? My leg has been jiggling this whole time.
Playboy: What were you like in high school? O'Brien: Like a crane galumphing down the hall. A crane with weird hair, bad skin and Clearasil. Big enough for basketball but lousy at it. My older brothers were better. I would compensate by running around the court doing comedy, saying, "Look out, this player has a drug addiction. He's incredibly egotistical."
I was an asshole at home, too. My little brother Justin loved playing cops and robbers, but I kept tying him up with bureaucratic bullshit. When he'd catch me, I'd say, "I get to call my lawyer." Then it was, "OK, Justin, we're at trial and you've been charged with illegal arrest. Fill out these forms in triplicate." Justin was eight; he hated all the lawsuits and countersuits. He just cried.
Playboy: Were you a class clown? O'Brien: Never. I was never someone who walked into a room full of strangers and started telling jokes. You had to get to know me before I could make you laugh. The same thing happened with Late Night. I needed to get the right rhythm with Andy and Max and the audience.
Playboy: So how did you finally learn about sex? O'Brien: My parents gave me a book, but it was useless. At the crucial moment, all it showed was a man and a woman with the bed covers pulled up to their chins. I tried to find out more from friends, but it didn't help. One childhood friend told me it was like parking a car in a garage. I kept worrying about poisonous fumes. What if the fumes build up? Should you shut off the engine?
Playboy: For all your talk about being repressed, you can be rowdy on the air. O'Brien: The show is my escape valve. When I tear off my shirt and gyrate my pelvis like Robert Plant, feigning orgasm into the microphone, that shows how repressed I am -- a guy who wants to push his sex at the lens but can only do it as a joke.
Playboy: Aren't you tempted to live it up? O'Brien: I always imagined that if I were a TV star I would live the way I pictured Johnny Carson living. Carousing, stepping out of a limo wearing a velvet ascot with a model on my arm. Now that I have the TV show, I drive up to Connecticut on the weekends and tool around in my car. I could probably join a free-sex cult, smoke crack between orgies and drive sports cars into swimming pools, and my Catholic guilt would still be there, throbbing like a toothache. Be careful. If something good happens, something bad is on the way.
Playboy: Yet you don't mind licking the supermodels. O'Brien: At one point a few of them lived in my building, women who are so beautiful they almost look weird, like aliens. To me, a woman who has a certain approachable amount of beauty becomes almost funny. It's the same with male supermodels. They look like big puppets. So while I admire their beauty I probably won't be "romantically linked" with a model. I'd catch my reflection in a ballroom mirror and break up laughing.
Playboy: The horny Roy Orbison growl you use on gorgeous guests sounds real enough -- O'Brien: Oh, I've been doing that shit since high school. It just never worked before.
Playboy: Your father is a doctor, your mother an attorney. What do they think of their son the comedian? O'Brien: My dad was the one who told me denial was a virtue. "Denial is how people get through horrible things," he said. He also cut out a newspaper article in which I said I was making money off something for which I should probably be treated. So true, he thought. But when I got an Emmy for helping write Saturday Night Live, my parents put it on the mantel next to the crucifix. Here's Jesus looking over, saying, "Wow, I saved mankind from sin, but I wish I had an Emmy."
Playboy: Ever been in therapy? O'Brien: Yes. I don't trust it. I have told therapists that I don't particularly want to feel good. "Repression and fear, that's my fuel." But the therapists said that I had nothing to worry about. "Don't worry Conan you will always be plenty fucked up."
Playboy: When a female guest comes out, how do you know whether to shake her hand or kiss her? Is that rehearsed O'Brien: No, and it's awkward. If you go to shake her hand and her head starts coming right at you, you have to change strategy fast. I have thought about using the show to make women kiss me, but that would probably creep out the people at home. I decided not to kiss Elton John.
Playboy: Do you get all fired up if Cindy Crawford or Rebecca Romijn does the show? O'Brien: I like making women laugh. Always have, ever since I discovered you can get girls' attention by acting like an ass. That's one of the joys of the show -- I'm working my eyebrows and going grrr and she's laughing, the audience is laughing. It's all a big put-on and I'm thinking. This is great. Here is a beautiful woman who has no choice but to put up with this shit.
But it's not always put on. Sometimes they flirt back. Sometimes there's a bit of chemistry. That happened with Jennifer Connelly of The Rocketeer.
Playboy: One guest, Jill Hennessy, took off her pants for you. Then you removed yours. Even Penn and Teller took off their pants. O'Brien: Something comes over me. It happened with Rebecca Romijn -- I was practically climbing her. Those are the times when Andy and the audience seem to disappear and it's just me and this lovely woman sitting there flirting. I keep expecting a waiter to say, "More wine, Monsieur?"
Playboy: Would you lick the wine bottle? O'Brien: It's true, there's a lot of licking on the show. I have licked guests. I have licked Andy. Comedy professionals will read this and say, "Great work, Conan. Impressive." But I have learned that if you lick a guest, people laugh. If I pick this shoe off the floor, examine it, Hmmm, and then lick it, people laugh. I learned this lesson on The Simpsons, where I was the writer who was forever trying to entertain the other writers. I still try desperately to make our writers laugh, which is probably a sign of sickness since they work for me now. Licking is one of those things that look funny.
Playboy: Johnny Carson never licked Ed McMahon. O'Brien: We are much more physical and more stupid than the old Tonight Show. Even in our offices before the show there's always some writer acting out a scene crashing his head through my door. A behind-the-scenes look at our show might frighten people.
Playboy: One night you showed a doctored photo of Craig T. Nelson having sex with Jerry Van Dyke. Did they complain about it? O'Brien: I haven't heard from them. Of course I'm blessed not to be a part of the celebrity pond. I have a television show in New York, an NBC outpost. I don't run with or even run into many Hollywood people.
Playboy: You also announced that Tori Spelling has a penis. O'Brien: I did not. Polly the Peacock said that.
Playboy: Another character you use to say the outrageous stuff. O'Brien: Polly is not popular with the network.
Playboy: You mock Fabio, too. O'Brien: If he sues me, it'll be the best thing that ever happened. A publicity bonanza: Courtroom sketches of Fabio with his man-boobs quivering, shaking his fist, and me shouting at him across the courtroom. I'm not afraid of Fabio. He knows where to find me. I'm saying it right here for the record: Fabio, let's get it on.
Playboy: Ever have a run-in with an angry celeb? O'Brien: I did a Kelsey Grammar joke a few years ago, something about his interesting lifestyle, then heard through the network that he was upset. He had appeared on my show and expected some support. At this point my intellect says, "Kelsey Grammar is a public figure. I was in the right." Then I saw him in an airport. Kelsey didn't see me at first: I could have kept walking. But there he was, eating a cruller in the airport lounge. I thought I should go over. I said hello and then said, "Kelsey, I'm sorry if I upset you." And he was glad. He looked relieved. He said, "Oh, that's OK." We both felt better.
....See my other post with the last third of the interview

Just a thought experiment here, but could the gospels have been written to contradict the influence and position of Paul’s letters?
Meaning, the early church leaders were ok handing down the stories of Jesus in verbal tradition, but the rise in and distribution of Paul’s letters forced them to be aggressive and seek out scribes to write and circulate their order of events, because many Paul’s teachings ran into conflict of their understand and oral traditions of Jesus?

Hey everyone. Basically I’m terrified of what’s to come for me. I was an atheist for almost five years up until a few months ago. I had left Christianity because I saw numerous issues with the Bible, and didn’t think there was any evidence of the resurrection. A few months ago I realized that the circumstances surrounding the resurrection accounts made it so that those who wrote about the resurrection at least weren’t lying, and that it was more likely that the resurrection really did occur. So I switched teams.
Anyway, I realized I had sinned a shit ton while I was an atheist. Particularly blasphemy. I even had an upside down cross tattooed on my body. I would mock god and call him a monster. I might have even turned someone away from Christianity. It was pretty bad. I accumulated a pretty big debt to god. Since then I’ve gotten my tattoo covered up, proclaimed that I’m a Christian now and try to present my case to anyone who’s willing to listen. Also I’m trying to get that person I might’ve turned away back into the fold.
Now that sounds great, except for one thing. I really do think I’m going to hell. And I’m terrified. I understand that John 3:16 says that all that’s required to go to heaven is to believe that Jesus died and rose again, and I do, but there’s so many other conditions for getting into heaven throughout the gospel and in Paul’s writings. Things like Mark 3:28-29. Will I really NEVER be forgiven for the eternal sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Nobody seems to know what exactly that even means. Verses like Matthew 7:21 are concerning as well. So many verses that say “if you do this behavior, you WILL NOT go to heaven.” I’m doubting that having faith in Jesus is the only way I can get to heaven because there’s just so many other verses that seem to contradict that it’s by faith alone.
I’ve also read that in order to actually repent, I need to be genuinely sorry for wronging god, and not just trying to avoid going to hell. Here’s the problem. I’m not sorry for many of the sins I’ve committed. I want to be, desperately, but it’s not in my heart right now. And I think ill of God. I don’t want to, but I can’t help but feel like I’m morally superior to him. When I think of God I don’t think of a just, loving God. I think of a cruel God that commits atrocities and causes suffering on a massive scale. I’m even damning myself right now by saying that, but God already knows my heart and I can’t hide that from him. He knows I’m not sorry and that I’m just petrified of going to hell, he knows I don’t agree with his morals, and he knows I’m just in this for me. I have a rotten heart.
I pray to him every night asking for him to do these things in this order: I ask for him to change my heart so I can actually be sorry and repent, I ask him to give me guidance so I can understand his good character and his love, then I BEG for forgiveness, and finally ask him to give me peace. But peace hasn’t come. I feel like I’m gonna go to hell. I don’t know what I have to do. It’s not clear in the Bible what I have to do exactly. I was raised Protestant, but maybe since what I have in my heart is imperfect contrition, maybe I should go be a catholic and go to confession so I can be forgiven. I have genuinely no idea what I’m supposed to do now or where I’m going :(
That was long AF thank you guys for reading. Any advice is welcome

Hi and thanks in advance, I have learned Muslims respect Jesus (Isa) as a great prophet who also did miracles but also that some of his teachings were manipulated after his death (for example about salvation or being the son of God).
What I don't know (and Googling has been inconclusive) is what do Muslim people think about the moral and social teachings of Jesus? For example what we call the "Sermon on the Mount"? (In the book of Matthew Chapters 5-7 or summarized briefly here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z43f3k7/revision/4)
Do Muslims think these writings accurately summarize the teaching of Jesus and are worth studying? Do they think these teachings are in sync with those of the Prophet Muhammad or if not how so?
I'm also curious about how Muslims view his other teachings, for example his parable stories, but to simplify maybe it's best to focus on the above passages in particular. (Although if there is a kind of Muslim approved guide to the teachings of Jesus I would love to read it.)
To be clear I absolutely have no intention of arguing or converting Muslim people by asking this question, I just sincerely would like to know.
Blessings.

It's not just Paul who taught God's Faith Alone truth. Both John and JESUS CHRIST actually taught Faith Alone extensively too.

Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes on Me has eternal life." (John 6:47)
Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes Him who sent me has eternal life. He shall not come into condemnation, but has passed from death to life." (John 5:24)
Every one who has believed on Jesus the Christ is born of God. And he who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him. (1 John 5:1)
Jesus said, "For God so loved the world that He gave his only-begotten Son, that whoever believes on Him shall not perish but has eternal life." (John 3:16)
Jesus, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes on Me, though he dies, yet shall he live; and whoever lives and believes on Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" (John 11:25-26)
Jesus said, "Believe only, and she will be saved." (Luke 8:50)
Jesus said, "He who believes on Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed on the name of the only-begotten Son of God." (John 3:18)
Then they said to Jesus, "What must we do, that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God: That you believe on Him whom He has sent." (John 6:28-29)
He who believes on the Son has eternal life; and he who has not believed the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. (John 3:36)
Jesus said, "This is the will of My Father who is in Heaven: That every one who sees the Son and believes on Him has eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:40)
Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from Heaven; My Father gives you the true bread from Heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from Heaven, and gives life to the world." They said to Him, "Lord, give us this bread always." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes on Me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will by no means ever cast out." (John 6:32-37)
For whatever is born of God has overcome the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. Who is it that has overcome the world? Every one who has believed on Jesus the Son of God. (1 John 5:4-5)
If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son. He who believes on the Son of God has the testimony in himself. He who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given of His Son. And this is the testimony: That God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who has not had the Son of God has not life. I write these things to you who have believed on the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life. (1 John 5:9-13)

Christianity & the Roman Empire vs Homosexuality.
Understanding the Term "Arsenokoitai" in Biblical Context
‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------
The term "arsenokoitai," (Greek origin) often translated in modern Bibles as "homosexuals" or "men who bed men," appears in the New Testament, specifically in the letters of Paul, written during the first century AD. Understanding its historical and cultural context can shed light on its meaning and implications.
Summary of Linguistics and Paul's Use of "Arsenokoitai" ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------
Paul’s Use of "Arsenokoitai":

• Broad Application:

The term was likely intended to cover a broad range of sexually immoral activities, particularly those involving exploitation and abuse, rather than consensual same-sex relationships. Paul could have used more precise words in Greek to describe the roles of male on male sexual contact which are highlighted below:
Alternative Greek Terms:

• Cinaedus:

Used to describe effeminate men or those who took on a passive role in sexual relationships, often derogatory.

• Pathicus:

Another term for men in passive sexual roles, also used pejoratively.

• Catamitus:

Referred to boys in pederastic relationships with older men.

• Erastes and Eromenos:

Terms describing the active (older) and passive (younger) partners in pederastic relationships.
Reasons for Using "Arsenokoitai":
Paul wrote in Greek to reach a broad audience across the Roman Empire, including both Jews and Gentiles. The Greek language allowed him to communicate effectively with diverse communities.

• Jewish Ethical Background:

Paul’s teachings were influenced by Jewish law and ethics, which condemned exploitative sexual behaviors. The term "arsenokoitai" may have been derived from the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) to address behaviors seen as immoral.

• Broad Ethical Guidelines:

By coining a new term, Paul could address various forms of sexual immorality without getting entangled in the specific cultural nuances and roles emphasized by existing terms. This allowed him to focus on ethical behavior broadly, aligning with Christian values of justice and protection of the vulnerable.
Time Frame and Historical Context ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------

• New Testament Writings**:

The term "arsenokoitai" appears in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. These letters are generally dated to around 53-54 AD for 1 Corinthians and the late first century AD for 1 Timothy.

• Roman Empire:

This period falls within the early Roman Empire, which began in 27 BC and continued through the first few centuries AD. The Roman Empire was characterized by its vast influence over the Mediterranean region and beyond.
Roman Practices and Power Dynamics ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------

• Roman Society:
  Roman culture included various sexual practices, some of which were socially accepted but involved significant power imbalances. Relationships between freeborn males and slaves, for example, were common and often non-consensual due to the inherent power dynamics.
  
• Public Bathhouses:
  

Bathhouses were social spaces where various interactions, including sexual encounters, took place. These settings often saw exploitative and coercive behaviors, especially involving slaves and lower-status individuals.
Exploitation and Violence ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------

• Slavery and Prostitution:

Many slaves and prostitutes in Roman society faced sexual exploitation and violence. Slaves, having little to no autonomy, were particularly vulnerable to abuse from their masters.

• Lack of Consent: The concept of consent as understood today was largely absent in many of these relationships, making them inherently exploitative.

Early Christian and Jewish Ethics ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------

• Protecting the Vulnerable:

Early Christian and Jewish teachings emphasized the protection of vulnerable individuals. This ethical stance contrasted sharply with many practices in Roman society.

• Biblical Condemnation:

The condemnation of "arsenokoitai" in the New Testament can be seen as a critique of exploitative sexual practices rather than a blanket condemnation of consensual same-sex relationships. Early Christian ethics sought to promote justice and protect those who were marginalized and exploited.
Translation Challenges and Modern Psychology ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------
Modern Interpretations:
Translating "arsenokoitai" as "homosexuals" in modern Bibles can be misleading. The term originally addressed specific exploitative behaviors prevalent in the Roman context.
Cultural Misunderstandings:
Modern readers often project contemporary understandings of sexuality onto ancient texts, which can distort the original meanings and intentions. The ancient concern was more about justice and protecting the vulnerable than about regulating consensual sexual relationships.
Influence of Modern Psychology ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------

• 1946 Bible Translation:

The term "homosexual" first appeared in an English Bible translation in the Revised Standard Version (RSV) in 1946. This change was part of an effort to modernize and clarify the language of the Bible.

• Social Conservatism:

The mid-20th century was a period of heightened social conservatism, especially in the United States. This cultural backdrop influenced how sexual behaviors were viewed and classified.
Homosexuality as a Mental Disorder ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------
In 1946 and 1947, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). This classification reflected contemporary psychological theories and societal attitudes, viewing homosexuality as a deviation from the norm.
Different Types of Relationships ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------
While the term "arsenokoitai" focuses on specific sexual acts, it does not address the broader and more nuanced aspects of relationships. Understanding the different facets of relationships is crucial to recognizing the limitations of this term.

• Loving Relationships:

Emotional Bonds: Many relationships are built on deep emotional connections, mutual respect, and love. These aspects are not explicitly addressed in the term "arsenokoitai."

• Support and Companionship:

Relationships often involve support, companionship, and shared experiences, which are fundamental to human connection and go beyond mere physical interactions.

• Romance and Affection:

Romantic relationships involve expressions of love, care, and affection. These elements contribute significantly to the depth and richness of the relationship.

• Commitment:

Many romantic relationships are characterized by commitment and a shared vision for the future, aspects not considered in the term "arsenokoitai."

• Consensual Same-Sex Relationships:
  Modern understandings of same-sex relationships recognize that they encompass much more than just sexual acts. They include emotional, romantic, and supportive dimensions that are integral to the relationship.
  
• Lack of Biblical Coverage:
  

The Bible does not provide detailed accounts of consensual same-sex relationships that reflect the complexities and multifaceted nature of these bonds. The focus on specific sexual acts, like those implied by "arsenokoitai," fails to capture the entirety of such relationships.
Intimacy ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------
Intimacy in relationships goes far beyond physical acts; it encompasses emotional closeness, trust, and deep personal connection. The biblical texts, particularly those using terms like "arsenokoitai," often fail to address this broader understanding of intimacy. In healthy relationships, intimacy is about sharing one's innermost thoughts, fears, and dreams with another person, creating a bond that is both profound and nurturing. This kind of intimacy fosters mutual respect and understanding, essential components of any loving relationship.
One crucial aspect of intimacy that is often overlooked and overshadowed by the focus on "arsenokoitai" is emotional intimacy—the deep sense of acceptance and validation one receives from being truly known and loved. This emotional intimacy is weaponized when biblical texts are used to condemn and marginalize individuals based on their sexuality. Instead of fostering acceptance and emotional closeness, these interpretations create barriers and promote exclusion. True intimacy, rooted in emotional acceptance, is about affirming each other's worth and creating a safe space for vulnerability and genuine connection. When this form of intimacy is ignored or denied, it undermines the foundational principles of love and compassion that should guide our relationships.
Love ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------
Love is the cornerstone of all meaningful relationships and a central theme in Christian teachings. Jesus emphasized love above all else, teaching us to love our neighbors as ourselves and to show compassion and kindness to everyone. In the context of relationships, love manifests as unwavering support, care, and dedication to the well-being of the other person. The term "arsenokoitai" and its traditional interpretations often miss this crucial aspect of relationships. Love is not just about physical attraction or acts; it is about forming a deep, abiding connection that transcends superficial differences and challenges societal norms. True love, as taught by Jesus, is inclusive and unconditional, celebrating the uniqueness of each individual and their right to love and be loved authentically.
Judgment ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------
Judgment is a significant theme in both religious teachings and societal interactions, often influencing how individuals are perceived and treated. In the context of biblical texts, particularly those like "arsenokoitai," judgment is frequently wielded as a tool for exclusion and condemnation. Jesus taught us to refrain from judging others, emphasizing that judgment is reserved for God alone. In Matthew 7:1-2, He clearly states, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
When interpretations of terms like "arsenokoitai" are used to judge and condemn individuals based on their sexuality, they stray from the core message of love and acceptance that Jesus preached. This kind of judgment creates divisions and fosters a culture of exclusion, where people are marginalized and denied the dignity and respect they deserve. True Christian teachings call us to embrace others with compassion, understanding, and an open heart.
Judgment, when misused, can be a powerful weapon that inflicts deep emotional and psychological harm. It stands in stark contrast to the values of love, intimacy, and acceptance that form the foundation of healthy, meaningful relationships. By moving away from judgment and towards a more inclusive, compassionate approach, we honor the true spirit of Jesus's teachings and create a more loving and just world for everyone.
Historical Misinterpretations and Their Consequences ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------

1. The Crusades (11th to 13th Centuries)

Initiated by Pope Urban II in 1095, the Crusades were a series of religious wars aimed at reclaiming the Holy Land from Muslim control.
Impact: Led to widespread violence, loss of life, and long-lasting animosity between Christians and Muslims. The Crusades also had significant impacts on Jewish communities, which were often targeted by crusaders.

1. The Inquisition (12th to 19th Centuries)

Established by the Catholic Church to root out heresy and enforce orthodoxy. The most famous was the Spanish Inquisition, beginning in 1478.
Resulted in the persecution, torture, and execution of thousands of people accused of heresy, witchcraft, and other religious crimes. Jewish and Muslim converts to Christianity (conversos and Moriscos) were particularly targeted.

1. The Thirty Years' War (1618-1648)

A complex and destructive conflict involving many European powers, rooted in religious disputes between Protestant and Catholic states within the Holy Roman Empire.
Impact: Caused immense suffering and loss of life, with significant political and territorial changes in Europe. The war ended with the Peace of Westphalia, which established principles of religious tolerance in Europe.

1. Salem Witch Trials (1692-1693)

A series of hearings and prosecutions of people accused of witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts, driven by Puritan religious beliefs and interpretations of the Bible.
Impact: Led to the execution of 20 people and the imprisonment of many others, creating an atmosphere of fear and hysteria.

1. Colonialism and Missionary Activity

European colonial powers often justified their expansion and domination of indigenous peoples through a religious mandate to spread Christianity.
Impact: Led to the suppression of indigenous cultures, forced conversions, and significant social disruption. Examples include the Spanish colonization of the Americas and the British colonial activities in Africa and Asia.

1. Anti-Semitism

Biblical interpretations and teachings have historically contributed to anti-Semitic attitudes and policies. Notably, Jews were often blamed for the death of Jesus and portrayed negatively in Christian teachings.
Impact: Led to widespread persecution of Jewish communities, including pogroms, expulsions from various European countries, and ultimately contributing to the Holocaust.

1. Slavery and Racism

Certain interpretations of the Bible were used to justify the enslavement of African people, particularly in the United States. Verses from the Old and New Testaments were cited to argue that slavery was a divinely sanctioned institution.
Impact: Justified the transatlantic slave trade and the systemic exploitation and oppression of African Americans, leading to deep social and racial divides that persist to this day.

1. Wars of Religion in France (1562-1598)

A series of conflicts between Catholics and Huguenots (French Protestants) in France, rooted in religious and political disputes.
Impact: Resulted in significant violence and upheaval, including massacres such as the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in 1572, and ended with the Edict of Nantes, which granted limited tolerance to Protestants.

1. Northern Ireland Conflict (The Troubles) (Late 20th Century)

A violent conflict between primarily Protestant unionists who wanted Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom and Catholic nationalists who wanted it to join the Republic of Ireland.
Impact: Led to decades of violence, terrorism, and social division, resulting in significant loss of life and lasting political tension.
These examples illustrate how interpretations of the Bible and religious authority have been used to justify conflicts, persecutions, and social disharmony throughout history. Understanding these events highlights the importance of careful and compassionate interpretation of religious texts to prevent their misuse and promote peace and understanding.
Conclusion ‐--------------------‐--------------------‐--------------------
Understanding the term "arsenokoitai" requires a deep dive into the historical and cultural context of the Roman Empire and early Christian teachings. This term likely referred to exploitative sexual behaviors common in Roman society, characterized by significant power imbalances and a lack of genuine consent.
Early Christian ethics, rooted in Jewish traditions, emphasized protecting the vulnerable and promoting justice, which helps explain the biblical condemnation of such practices.
The translation of "arsenokoitai" to "homosexuals" in the mid-20th century was influenced by the social and psychological context of that time, including the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder.
This historical perspective highlights the importance of considering cultural and temporal contexts when interpreting ancient texts.Moreover, the biblical texts focus primarily on specific sexual acts rather than the broader aspects of relationships, such as emotional bonds, romantic love, and mutual support. Recognizing these dimensions is crucial for a more compassionate and comprehensive understanding of relationships.

Thou shalt not judge.
This seems like an easy thing to unpack and maintain. However, there are contradictions in the Christian faith that suggest we must judge in order to abstain from certain behaviors.
‭2 Corinthians 6:14 CSB‬ [14] Do not be yoked together with those who do not believe. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness?
‭1 Corinthians 6:9-11 CSB‬ [9] Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or males who have sex with males, [10] no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom. [11] And some of you used to be like this. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
(I'm using CSB because this is what people use)
If I am to prevent myself from being yoked, I am making judgements that others are therefore not believers. I do not know their hearts, yet I am called to make judgements as to another's character or standing with God. How am I to know if I do not first judge someone?
Now, perhaps you say that I'm missing the point. Take the following from Matthew, for instance:
‭Matthew 7:1-3 CSB‬ [1] “Do not judge, so that you won’t be judged. [2] For you will be judged by the same standard with which you judge others, and you will be measured by the same measure you use. [3] Why do you look at the splinter in your brother’s eye but don’t notice the beam of wood in your own eye?
This seems to indicate that the purpose is to ensure oneself has repented. If I don't take care of my own problems, how am I expected to take care of someone else's? Okay, sure... but, much of Paul's gospels are very "finger pointy." This seems contradictory, and his writing in the New Testament is what causes a lot of discourse between non believers and believers. A lot of the self righteousness seems to be born from Paul's writings. At the very least, many Christians use Paul's gospels to judge non believers.
You will tell me that the Holy Spirit gives you discernment and allows you to see those who aren't righteous, but that just sounds like justification for judgement. And Paul's gospels back up that judgement. We create laws for humans to use to judge with and we enact laws in an attempt to uphold God's principles from the Bible. Is that not the literal, official meaning of judgement? We shouldn't judge as if we are God, I thought?
How can Christians justify judicial actions from biblical teachings? How is it justified to put biblically based rules in place anywhere if humans are not to be the judges of God's word?

(sorry its long haha)
I (17F) hate my father. theres so many things I want to say but theres just no word to describe it
we grew up going to church every sunday. it was very important to my father that we didnt miss it. i dont think i ever believed in god but i went because i had no choice obviously. this is where the title comes in. its very literal. i prayed? to god asking if my father could just die so i could be happy. looking back on it now.. jesus i cant believe it was so bad that as a child this is how i felt :(
when I was around 10, he sexually abused me. he would frequently come into my bedroom naked, undress me and get on top of me.
thats not even the worst though, I vividly remember my mother standing in the doorway once when it happened. she wasnt worried or angry or confused. this was normal behavior apparently in her eyes
how it started with my father was he would act like it was a game. he would tickle me so i would laugh and he would start taking off my clothes. i remember laughing too. I didn’t understand it. I was just a kid.
fastforward years later I’m 17, still living here. writing this just now because we just had an arguement that reminded me of what a disgusting fucking person he is
I feel betrayed. A father is supposed to care for their child, not belittle them, treat them like property and so much more
he says things that fill me with so much rage . “I’m the man of this house’ , FUCK YOU
something I feel like i should mention is that he was also abused as a child. he grew up as the eldest of two in a poor family. his father I’m guessing was also not a great person because sometimes he says stuff that makes me think like wow.
i know thats not an excuse for abusing your own children but sometimes we have sweet moments where i would regret typing out something like this. he would do something as small as bring me home a fucking sandwich and i would be thinking like i WISH i had a good relationship with him.
i talk about things i would love to do places i’d love to go, and he’d be like ha you’ll never do that youll never go there. the negativity is like build inside of him.
i do alot of research on the topic of abuse and stuff just out of interest so i try to explain it sometimes to him but he flares up like a toddler having a tantrum and i just want to cry
i used to go to my friends home all the time and seeing her family function like normal and how i could tell they genuinely loved each other and everything .. how they radiated so much joy. it made me so sad. i cried when i came home.

Here’s part 4 and the finale of my posts on forgery in the New Testament. Today I’m looking at the letters of James and Jude. These letters seem to be written under the names of Jesus’ brothers, mentioned in Mark 6:4. But were they really by them?
First off is the letter of James, which has some pretty terrific teachings. For example:
“What use is it, my brothers, if a person says he has faith but has no works? Is faith able to save him? If a brother or sister is naked and has no daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and be filled,” without giving them what their bodies need, what use is that? So also faith, if it does not have works, is dead, being by itself.” (James 2:14-17)
Many scholars have noticed that James seems to be opposing Paul at several points. For example, in Galatians Paul writes:
“We know that a person is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ; so we ourselves have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because no one will be justified by works of the law…. Thus Abraham “believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.” You see therefore that those who have faith are the children of Abraham.” (Galatians 2:16; 3:6-7)
The author of James says:
“But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from works and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one? You do well: even the demons believe, and they shudder. But do you wish to know, O shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? Wasn’t Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works and faith was completed by the works. And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” And he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works, and not by faith alone.” (James 2:18-24)
Both James and Paul cite Genesis 15:6 to make their point. Interestingly enough, the letter of James seems to be challenging a misunderstanding of what Paul means by “works of the law,” a misunderstanding that also occurs in Ephesians. When Paul talks about works of the law, he means following Jewish customs- observing the Sabbath, keeping kosher, etc. He doesn’t mean not working to help other people. However, later followers thought that was what he meant and so James writes to counter that view.
So, could James the brother of Jesus have written this? For one, the James of the letter doesn’t claim to be that James but it certainly seems like he wants the reader to believe so, as James was a major figure in the early Jerusalem church. It was accepted into the canon because the early church believed James the brother of Jesus wrote it. But did he?
For one, the letter of James was written in Greek, while James himself was a lower class peasant from Galilee. If he had learned to read, it would’ve been in Hebrew, and he probably didn’t write. He would’ve spoken Aramaic. We also know from Galatians that James was particularly concerned with followers of Jesus keeping Jewish law, and he and Paul had disagreements about it. Those concerns are completely absent from the letter, which is strange if the writer is countering Paul’s views on things.
Next up we have Jude. One of the brothers of Jesus mentioned in Mark 6:4, Jude claims to be written by “Jude, the brother of James.” This is a more clear cut claim of authorship by a brother of Jesus. This book is written in opposition to false teachers in the early Christian community:
“Beloved, …I found it necessary to write to you in order to exhort you to struggle for the faith that was delivered to the saints once and for all. For some people have secretly snuck in who were written about long ago as being subject to this condemnation. They are unholy people who corrupt the grace of our God, changing it into licentiousness, denying our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Jude:3-4)
While this passage certainly is relavent to certain Christians today, could it be written by Jude, the brother of Jesus? Probably not. We don’t know too much about Jude’s position in the early Church, or if he came to believe in Jesus as his brother James did. But the reasons for him not writing this are similar to James- he simply probably could not write and if he could it would not be in highly effective Greek. The author also speaks of “remembering the predictions of the apostles” (Jude:17) as if he is living after their time.
So that concludes this series! I’m hoping to post on more on what I’ve learned from studying the Bible if anyone is interested!

Hello, everyone.
I wanted to share with you an article written by Professor Juan Cole regarding the term Islam, and the possible translations in which the early Muslim/Believer community had meant of the word Islam. According to Professor Cole, he argues that the term islam may have meant something different than the usually pressumed translation of "submission".
To read the full article, please go to this link: Paradosis and monotheism: a late antique approach to the meaning of islām in the Quran
To summarize, Cole makes a few points regarding the early association of islam as tradition rather than submission. He points toward John bar Penkaye, a seventh-century Christian living under the Umayyads, who spoke of the Umayyad authorities enforcing a tradition (mashlmānūtā) of Muhammad. A century later, Cole notes, it would become the common Syriac Christian term for Islam.

"The Syriac word derives from the trilateral Semitic root shlm, a cognate of the Arabic slm from which aslama comes. Late antique Christian authors used the Syriac term to mean tradition or a teaching that is passed on.¹² It can mean “scripture” itself. Cyriacus of Nisibus composed a work on the tradition (mashlmānūtā) of Paul. Rabbis spoke of the Mosaic mashlmānūtā or tradition, and also made the term synonymous with the Mishna, the oral scripture commentary, and hence an ongoing, living tradition.¹³ Dictionaries of Syriac give the verb from which this noun derives a wide range of meanings, including handing down, capitulating, betraying, succeeding and commenting.¹⁴"

The term "loanshift" is meant to describe a process in which within bilingual communities or societies a term or word in one language takes a new meaning or connotation because of the influence of a word in another language. The diverse meanings of the Syriac mashlmānūtā, Cole writes, "derive from it being a loanshift of the Greek term παράδοσις (paradosis), which has a similarly wide range of meanings having to do both with surrender and with the passing on or acceptance of a tradition."
The model of Alan Race and John Hick offers in the way which religions view the prosect of salvation toward other faiths and beliefs conform to three possibilities: exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism. The Quran itself seems to ridicule the exclusivist policies of the Jews and the Christians in *the Cow (2:135): "*They say: 'Become Jews and Christians and be guided.' No, the word (millah) of Abraham, the pious gentile. He was no polytheist." The word "millah" is vowled in Arabic by the Aramaic loan, "meltā", and "this concept was in turn underlain by the Greek Logos.¹⁶".
Cole writes: "The wide range of meanings of Logos included the cosmic principle of reason generating the universe and a religious path to that truth. The early Christian thinker Justin Martyr put forward the Logos as an agent of religious pluralism. He responded to those Roman critics who berated Christians as hardhearted for dooming to hellfire all human beings born before Jesus of Nazareth. Justin Martyr held that Christ is the Word or Logos, the principle of universal reason "of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians."¹⁷ They included ancient Greek philosophers such as Heraclitus and Socrates as well as the patriarch Abraham. In contrast, the first-century CE Jewish philosopher Philo spoke of the Logos of Abraham himself, which he described as a God-given combination of eloquence and faith.¹⁸ The Qur’an in this passage rejects the idea that salvation is exclusively limited to those who believe in Moses and the Torah, or in Jesus and the Gospel. Rather, adoption of the monotheistic word of Abraham suffices, and Judaism, Christianity and the religion of Muhammad are all manifestations of it. That the Qur’an deploys a Greek concept, Logos, via its Aramaic loanshift, strengthens the argument that its use of islām might also be underlain by Aramaic and Greek technical terms."
He continues: "It is even possible that among the Arabic-speakers of Syria, Palestine and Transjordan the Arabic islām had for centuries been used informally to translate paradosis, and that millah or kalimah (the Arabic for “word”) had rendered the Logos." Which in itself is not too surprising - historical evidence points to substantial Arabic-speaking Christians throughout the Near East, and there were substantial Christian communities in Najran, Hira, Petra, Nessena, and Jabiya"
Now, onto Islam in the Qur'an section.
Cole notes that the Qur'an conceives of monotheism as a "perennial and ecumenical tradition, in which Jews, Muslims, and other monotheists all particpated.³⁸ He points to the Ranks 61:6 where the Quran criticizes Jews for rejecting the later prophets:"

And when Jesus the son of Mary said to the children of Israel, I am the messenger of God to you, confirming the Torah that you possess, and giving good tidings of a messenger who will come after me, called 'the Praised one' But when he came to them with clear signs, they said, 'That is manifest sorcery.'" The Quran continues, "And who does a greater wrong than one who fabricates lies about God, even while God is called him to islam? And God never guides evildoers.'

By translating islam as "submission to God", it becomes confused, since the first-century Jews worshipped the one God. Instead, Cole claims, the Quran "implies that first-century Jews, by rejecting Jesus, declined the summons to the fullness of the serial prophetic tradition (and here Jesus not only announces himself but points to a future successor.)"
This sin, however, is not depriving them of God's salvation. Cole classifies the denial of the succeeding Prophet's as a "venal rather than a moral sin".

"The Qur'an is inclusivist with regard to doctrine, holding that it has the whole truth of monotheism and that the revelation through the Prophet Muhammad is an essential continuation of the Abrahamic tradition, and that past religions have forgotten some essentials of prophetic monotheism. It is, however, pluralist with regard to salvation, accepting many monotheistic faiths as paths to salvation.⁴⁰"

In The Pilgrimage 22:78, Cole writes that "accepting the tradition is associated with Abraham, but also with Muhammad: '

"Strive strenuously for the sake of God. He chose you and has laid no hardship on you in religion. It is the Logos (millah) of your father Abraham. He named you monotheists (muslimīn) aforetime, so that the messenger might bear witness to this for you, and you might bear witness to the people. So pray and give charity regularly. Hold fast to God. He is your lord, the best of patrons and the best of succorers.' Here, Abraham himself is depicted as coining the term muslim, to describe one who subscribes to his primal Word (millah). Ages after Abraham, The Pilgrimage 22:78 says, Muhammad bore witness to this same Logos, and, it is implied, was enabled to do so because Abraham began the tradition or paradosis. The Qur’an views the Logos of Abraham as a universal monotheistic principle at the heart of each of the true religions."

The Family of Amram 3:19 declares:

"According to God, religion (dīn) is islām. Those who had been given scripture only differed out of covetousness, after knowledge came to them. God is quick in calling to account anyone who denies the verses of God." Again, the issue addressed by this verse is not the oneness of God or submission to him. Rather, the Qur'an is saying that in principle, Jews. Christians and Muhammad's followers all share in the monotheistic tradition and so participate in authentic religion, in implicit contrast to the false religion of polytheists. They therefore ought not to quarrel with one another over the details, since they share in a common core. The difference is that Muhammad's Believers recognized Judaism and Christianity as participating in the Abrahamian tradition whereas some members of the previous religions denied that recognition to the newer teaching. The Qur'an in 3:19 has brought together a Persian and a Greek concept. From Middle Persian it derives the word dēn, which came to mean "a religion.” ⁴¹ (It should not be confused with the Semitic word dīn, meaning judgment or service, which is also used by the Qur’an). In 3:19 the Qur'an is not saying that Muhammad's religion is called Islam and is the only true faith. Nor is the verse saying that Muhammad’s is the true and full islām, which the previous religions foreshadowed and to which they are ex post facto subordinated, which is how triumphalist Muslims read the verse.⁴² It is saying that the monotheistic paradosis goes back to Abraham, and that subsequent prophets all preached a version of it, even if their adherents decline to recognize this unity (cf. 3:84, which says God makes “no distinction” among the prophets)."

As I often write, and agree with Professor Cole and Professor Fred Donner, that the usage of the term muslim as the identifying marker for the followers of the Prophet Muhammad is anachronistic. The Quran identifies, and uses, the term "those who have believed" for the community of the Prophet, often being named Believers or Mu'minun. But Cole also points out an interesting facet in 39:22:

"One problem with reading islām here as "submission" is that God is the agent, not the believer. God would have to be seen as having imposed submission on these individuals, which logically speaking is no kind of submission. Moreover, the two lines of the verse are parallel, with those whose hearts have been opened to islām opposed to those whose hearts have been hardened against the mention (dhikr) of the divine, suggesting that the two words are synonyms. “Submission” is not a synonym of “mention.” But if islām means “the tradition of monotheism,” then the parallelism of “tradition” and “mention” would make sense."

I think this entire article is fascinating, given the Quran's clear universalism regarding the monotheistic traditions provided by the pervious prophets, of whom came to correct but perhaps more importantly confirm the past scriptures and traditions of their predecessors (of whom Prophet Muhammad is considered the last, according to Islamic tradition). I cannot do the article full justice here, so I highly recommend others to go ahead and read it (I believe it should be available for all on the website I linked).

I don't really know what I expect to get out if this, I just know I have no emotional attachments to any of you and you don't cross into other sections of my life. My friends don't browse reddit to the best of my knowledge. If they do and you know who I am.. Hi, please don't read any further.
I guess just to start, I'm 30 and my three best friends are online only. We've been friends for going on like 6 years now. And honestly I trust then implicitly. And up until 2 months ago we have never had any problems. Then there was a big miscommunication between friend A and friend B. I, unfortunately, was the person friend A vented to. It really was just a miscommunication and it got resolved (I think). But I got a good healthy taste of what my life could be like without these lovely people. We voice chat almost every day, sometimes we do stuff and sometimes we just enjoy each other's company. It's a very relaxed friendship, but these are my chosen few, you know?
The fact that I could lose these people who I sincerely love has absolutely scared me shitless. And that anxiety has turned into something that I don't even know how to explain. All of a sudden I'm hyper aware of my interactions with all 3 of them. I'm scared that Im annoying or pathetic or not good enough. Or that I'm the leftover friend who is just there because it's more effort exclude or ignore me.
Logically I know that's far from the truth. Friend B even took time out of their vacation to talk to me and thought of me when taking photos. I know I'm loved and appreciated and all of that. I've talked to all three of them individually about what's been going on, and Ofc they've reassured me that no, I'm loved and included and I'm not any of the things my anxiety is telling me. I even have it in text so I can go back and re-read it when I need.
And it worked. For a week but then all those those not-good-enough feelings and third wheel anxiety. And even a little jealousy... That I didn't even realize I had until now.
Again, I've been reassured that I'm loved and they're not going anywhere and even they're happy to reassure me any time I need.. But Jesus fucking christ I'm 30.
I don't any anyone else to talk to about this. I've already talked to them all about it, I'm afraid to bring it up again. I don't want to seem pathetic or whiney or needy. But I was reassured and told that I could tell them anything and they can't help if they don't know what's going on in my head. And I've been told that they'll let me know if I get to be too much.
Plus A and B just went on week-long vacations with no internet and C is sick. I've talked to these people almost every day for the past 6 years and now.. I'm all alone with my thoughts. If the vacations happened like 3 months ago I think I would have been fine. Bored, but fine. But now I'm just.. Drowning in my own thoughts. Which is fucking stupid because I know better than what they're telling me.
I just got insurance for the first time in many years and I've been unable to establish care with a pcp to get a referral for therapy.. Which is a scary thought. Usually I can logic myself out of these types of feelings but this is extraordinarily sticky. Anytime I think I've gotten over it and start to feel better something makes me scared and upset again. And.. I don't even know what that something is! Argh I'm so frustrated!
Anyway. Sorry for the rant, I already feel a little better by writing everything down. Listing (and thinking about) the things they have done to show me their love helped .

My study today was spent defending Jesus as a law-giver and law-keeper. I learned that Jesus' interpretations of justice and mercy were always in existence. We were not made privy to them because of our human frailty, and our hearts hardened by sin. (Matthew 19:8, Mark 3:1-5, Romans 5:13) Even now, the parables reveal things to us that we were not ready to receive when our Lord walked the earth. (John 16:12-15)
We're made in God's image. Every lesson of life we learn, makes us more like Him. As we grow spiritually, we leave behind logic that no longer seems reasonable. (Psalm 17:15, Matthew 10:25, 1 Corinthians 13:11-13)
Jesus, the prophesied Messiah, came to give us a greater, and more glorious law. (Deuteronomy 18:15, Acts 3:22, Jeremiah 31:31-34) Mankind was not ready to receive, much less live out, the fullness of the law when it was given on Mt. Sinai. Even now, we are being perfected and learning, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19, 1 John 2:27) Jesus explained, "I did not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill." He also explained how vital it is to keep the whole law. (Matthew 5:17-20)
Throughout the Hebrew scriptures, we are warned not to "turn to the right hand or the left" in keeping the law. (Deuteronomy 5:32, Deuteronomy 17:1, Deuteronomy 28:14, Joshua 23:6) It means not to do more or less than what it says. The way Jesus kept the law (including the Sabbath law) was a correction of the rulers' current practices. Jesus used scripture, creation, and divinely appointed miracles to show people that they were the ones in the wrong.
Most of the laws Jesus explained to us are more easily broken than the law of Moses. We are no longer even allowed to hate, much less murder. (Matthew 5:43-45, Psalm 139:21-22) We can only keep these laws by the power of the Holy Spirit who changes our hearts. God's Holy Spirit makes us people of truth and love.
All Jesus' corrections of the commandments were scorned in his day. Don't you find it strange that Jesus, the Author of Life, is constantly condemned for promoting life and love in the Bible? (Matthew 12:1-24) The Word of God says, "When my father and mother forsake me, the Lord shall take me up." (Psalm 27:10) Jesus, the Word of God made flesh, kept his promises, even on the Sabbath. (John 1:1, John 1:14, Numbers 23:19, Isaiah 40:8) This is the greatest complaint against him among our Jewish brethren today.
In this study, I learned that God has always worked on the Sabbath he gave us. (John 5:17, Mark 2:27) It was God that kept manna from spoiling and breeding worms every Sabbath day in the wilderness. (Exodus 16:24) Jesus used King David, and those who served in the Temple as examples and proof of God's will. We are to serve God and support life every day, including the Sabbath. I finished this study wondering if, "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years," was a literal statement. (2 Peter 3:8, Psalm 90:4) I hope that God will be finished making us into our final form when Jesus is ready for his Sabbath rest with his bride. (Psalm 95:6-11, Hebrews 4:1-12, John 3:26-36)
In Jesus' day, it went against Jewish tradition to fast on the Sabbath. Jesus' disciples did not have food to eat. They were not offered a meal by their peers. Instead they accused Jesus' disciples of breaking the Sabbath because they made produce fit to eat by using their hands to take and rub clean the food God gave them. (Deuteronomy 23:25, Matthew 12:1-7)
I believe the only accusation anyone can have against Jesus is over whether or not he really was one with God. There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus spoke the truth of who he was, and it cost his life. (Matthew 26:65, Isaiah 53:12)
I spent quite a bit thinking on this passage, where Jesus was nearly stoned to death before his crucifixion. The scene takes place during Hanukkah, which is also a time when fasting and mourning are not lawful... yet hate and envy seem to be allowed? No wonder we needed a Messiah to change our hearts! (Zechariah 12:10, John 19:34-37)
John 10:22-33 NLT
22 It was now winter, and Jesus was in Jerusalem at the time of Hanukkah, the Festival of Dedication, 23 He was in the Temple, walking through the section known as Solomon's Colonnade. 24 The people surrounded him and asked, "How long are you going to keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly." 25 Jesus replied, "I have already told you, and you don't believe me. The proof is the work I do in my Father's name. 26 But you don't believe me because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them away from me, 29 for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than anyone else. No one can snatch them from the Father's hand. 30 The Father and I are one." 31 Once again the people picked up stones to kill him. 32 Jesus said, "At my Father's direction I have done many good works. For which one are you going to stone me?" 33 They replied, "We're stoning you not for any good work, but for blasphemy! You, a mere man, claim to be God."
How can anyone save people who can't discern between their friends and their enemies? How could people bent on causing death appreciate the life-supporting logic of Jesus?
Jesus' logic made sense to those who realized that "an eye for an eye" would make the whole world blind. They had learned enough about judgment to see their need for mercy.
It was God's love for mercy that drove him to sacrifice for us, Jews and Gentiles alike. May we show one another mercy, by resisting our judgmental, sinful nature. (Hebrews 12:2-4, 1 Corinthians 10:13, Hosea 6:1-6)
Acts 17:30-31 NLT

30 "God overlooked people's ignorance about these things in earlier times, but now he commands everyone everywhere to repent of their sins and turn to him. 31 For he has set a day for judging the world with justice by the man he has appointed, and he proved to everyone who this is by raising Him from the dead."

Scripture references:
Jesus' interpretations of justice and mercy were always in existence. We were not made privy to them because of our human frailty, and our hearts hardened by sin.
Matthew 19:8 NLT

8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended.

Mark 3:1-5 NLT

1 Jesus went into the synagogue again and noticed a man with a deformed hand. 2 Since it was the Sabbath, Jesus' enemies watched him closely. If he healed the man's hand, they planned to accuse him of working on the Sabbath. 3 Jesus said to the man with the deformed hand, "Come and stand in front of everyone." 4 Then he turned to his critics and asked, "Does the law permit good deeds on the Sabbath, or is it a day for doing evil? Is this a day to save life or to destroy it?" But they wouldn't answer him. 5 He looked around at them angrily and was deeply saddened by their hard hearts. Then he said to the man, "Hold out your hand." So the man held out his hand, and it was restored!

Romans 5:13 NKJV

(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Even now, the parables reveal things to us that we were not ready to receive when our Lord walked the earth.
John 16:12-15 NLT

12 "There is so much more I want to tell you, but you can't bear it now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own but will tell you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future. 14 He will bring me glory by telling you whatever he receives from me. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine; this is why I said, 'The Spirit will tell you whatever he receives from me.'

We're made in God's image. Every lesson of life we learn, makes us more like Himself. No person stays a child forever.
Psalm 17:15 NKJV

15 As for me, I will see Your face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied when I awake in Your likeness.

Matthew 10:25

“It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they call those of his household!

1 Corinthians 13:11-13 NKJV

11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. 13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Jesus, the prophesied Messiah, came to give us a greater, and more glorious law.
Deuteronomy 18:15 NKJV

15 "The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear,

Acts 3:22 NKJV

22 "For Moses truly said to the fathers, 'The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 NKJV

31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

Mankind was not ready to receive the complete law when it was given on Mt. Sinai. Even now, we are being perfected and learning, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit
**Deuteronomy 18:15-19 NLT - 15 Moses continued, "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. 16 For this is what you yourselves requested of the LORD your God when you were assembled at Mount Sinai. You said, 'Don't let us hear the voice of the LORD our God anymore or see this blazing fire, for we will die.' 17 "Then the LORD said to me, 'What they have said is right. 18 I will raise up a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites. I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell the people everything I command him. 19 I will personally deal with anyone who will not listen to the messages the prophet proclaims on my behalf.
1 John 2:27 NLT - 27 But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true--it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.
Jesus explained that He didn't come to destroy God's Laws. He also explained how vital it is to keep them.
Matthew 5:17-20

17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to complete them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God's law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. 19 So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. 20 "But I warn you--unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven!

Scripture warns us not to "turn to the right hand or the left" from following God's commands. This means not to do more or less than what it says.
Deuteronomy 5:32 NLT

32 So Moses told the people, "You must be careful to obey all the commands of the LORD your God, following his instructions in every detail.

Deuteronomy 17:1 NLT

1 "Never sacrifice sick or defective cattle, sheep, or goats to the LORD your God, for he detests such gifts.

Deuteronomy 28:14 NLT

14 You must not turn away from any of the commands I am giving you today, nor follow after other gods and worship them.

Joshua 23:6 NLT

6 "So be very careful to follow everything Moses wrote in the Book of Instruction. Do not deviate from it, turning either to the right or to the left.

The way Jesus kept the law was a correction of traditions. Jesus used scripture, creation, and miracles to show people the truth.
Under Jesus' glorified laws, we are no longer even allowed to hate, much less murder. We can only keep these laws by the power of the Holy Spirit who changes our hearts.
Matthew 5:43-44 New Covenant: love your enemies, hate their sin.

43 "You have heard the law that says, 'Love your neighbor' and hate your enemy. 44 But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! 45 In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike.

Psalm 139:21-22 Old Covenant: hate those who hate God.

21 O LORD, shouldn't I hate those who hate you? Shouldn't I despise those who oppose you? 22 Yes, I hate them with total hatred, for your enemies are my enemies.

Jesus' corrections of the commandments were scorned in his day. The Sabbath corrections were only well-received by those who knew they needed mercy.
Matthew 12:1-24 NLT

1 At about that time Jesus was walking through some grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, so they began breaking off some heads of grain and eating them. 2 But some Pharisees saw them do it and protested, "Look, your disciples are breaking the law by harvesting grain on the Sabbath." 3 Jesus said to them, "Haven't you read in the Scriptures what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He went into the house of God, and he and his companions broke the law by eating the sacred loaves of bread that only the priests are allowed to eat. 5 And haven't you read in the law of Moses that the priests on duty in the Temple may work on the Sabbath? 6 I tell you, there is one here who is even greater than the Temple! 7 But you would not have condemned my innocent disciples if you knew the meaning of this Scripture: 'I want you to show mercy, not offer sacrifices.' 8 For the Son of Man is Lord, even over the Sabbath!" 9 Then Jesus went over to their synagogue, 10 where he noticed a man with a deformed hand. The Pharisees asked Jesus, "Does the law permit a person to work by healing on the Sabbath?" (They were hoping he would say yes, so they could bring charges against him.) 11 And he answered, "If you had a sheep that fell into a well on the Sabbath, wouldn't you work to pull it out? Of course you would. 12 And how much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Yes, the law permits a person to do good on the Sabbath." 13 Then he said to the man, "Hold out your hand." So the man held out his hand, and it was restored, just like the other one! 14 Then the Pharisees called a meeting to plot how to kill Jesus. 15 But Jesus knew what they were planning. So he left that area, and many people followed him. He healed all the sick among them, 16 but he warned them not to reveal who he was. 17 This fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah concerning him: 18 "Look at my Servant, whom I have chosen. He is my Beloved, who pleases me. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations. 19 He will not fight or shout or raise his voice in public. 20 He will not crush the weakest reed or put out a flickering candle. Finally he will cause justice to be victorious. 21 And his name will be the hope of all the world." 22 Then a demon-possessed man, who was blind and couldn't speak, was brought to Jesus. He healed the man so that he could both speak and see. 23 The crowd was amazed and asked, "Could it be that Jesus is the Son of David, the Messiah?" 24 But when the Pharisees heard about the miracle, they said, "No wonder he can cast out demons. He gets his power from Satan, the prince of demons."

Psalm 27:10

10 Even if my father and mother abandon me, the LORD will take care of me.

God keeps his promises, even on the Sabbath.
John 1:1, 14 NKJV

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ... 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Numbers 23:19 NKJV

19 "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

Isaiah 40:8 NKJV

8 The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever."

God has always worked on the Sabbath he gave us.
John 5:17 NKJV

17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working."

Mark 2:27 NKJV

27 And He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.

Exodus 16:24 NKJV

24 So they laid it up till morning, as Moses commanded; and it did not stink, nor were there any worms in it.

The rulers of Jesus' day made Sabbath laws that conflicted for the poor. They falsely accused Jesus' followers of harvesting on the Sabbath when they legally took what God provided.
Deuteronomy 23:25 NKJV

25 "When you come into your neighbor's standing grain, you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not use a sickle on your neighbor's standing grain.

Matthew 12:1-7 NKJV

1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, "Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!" 3 But He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: 4 "how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 "Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? 6 "Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple. 7 "But if you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless.

Some people say Jesus deserved to die for breaking the law. I know that Jesus spoke the truth of who he was, and paid for it with his life.
Matthew 26:62-65 NKJV

62 And the high priest arose and said to Him, "Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?" 63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, "I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!" 64 Jesus said to him, "It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, "He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!

Isaiah 53:12 NKJV - 12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, And He shall divide the spoil with the strong, Because He poured out His soul unto death, And He was numbered with the transgressors, And He bore the sin of many, And made intercession for the transgressors.
Jesus was nearly stoned to death before his crucifixion. The account takes place during Hanukkah, a time when fasting and mourning are not lawful... yet hate and envy seem to be allowed? We needed a Messiah to change our hearts!
John 10:22-33 NLT

22 It was now winter, and Jesus was in Jerusalem at the time of Hanukkah, the Festival of Dedication, 23 He was in the Temple, walking through the section known as Solomon's Colonnade. 24 The people surrounded him and asked, "How long are you going to keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly." 25 Jesus replied, "I have already told you, and you don't believe me. The proof is the work I do in my Father's name. 26 But you don't believe me because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them away from me, 29 for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than anyone else. No one can snatch them from the Father's hand. 30 The Father and I are one." 31 Once again the people picked up stones to kill him. 32 Jesus said, "At my Father's direction I have done many good works. For which one are you going to stone me?" 33 They replied, "We're stoning you not for any good work, but for blasphemy! You, a mere man, claim to be God."

Zechariah 12:10 NKJV

“And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.

John 19:34-37 NKJV

34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. 35 And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe. 36 For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, "Not one of His bones shall be broken." 37 And again another Scripture says, "They shall look on Him whom they pierced."

Jesus' logic made sense to those who had seen enough judgment to realize their need for mercy.
God's love drove him to sacrifice for us, Jews and Gentiles alike. May we show one another mercy, by resisting our judgmental, sinful nature.
Hebrews 12:2-4 NKJV

2 looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3 For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls. 4 You have not yet resisted to bloodshed, striving against sin.

1 Corinthians 10:13 NKJV

13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.

Hosea 6:1-6 NKJV

1 Come, and let us return to the LORD; For He has torn, but He will heal us; He has stricken, but He will bind us up. 2 After two days He will revive us; On the third day He will raise us up, That we may live in His sight. 3 Let us know, Let us pursue the knowledge of the LORD. His going forth is established as the morning; He will come to us like the rain, Like the latter and former rain to the earth. 4 "O Ephraim, what shall I do to you? O Judah, what shall I do to you? For your faithfulness is like a morning cloud, And like the early dew it goes away. 5 Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets, I have slain them by the words of My mouth; And your judgments are like light that goes forth. 6 For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Acts 17:30-31 NLT

30 "God overlooked people's ignorance about these things in earlier times, but now he commands everyone everywhere to repent of their sins and turn to him. 31 For he has set a day for judging the world with justice by the man he has appointed, and he proved to everyone who this is by raising Him from the dead."

May God's truth and love permeate our lives and make us more like Him.

While my amanuensis (my eyes) was browsing Reddit, she was reading me the forbidden text (only Christians) on latterdaysaints. However, for myself I am a mere humanist of the old order, who is older than most on this blog-site. It was an interesting read, as were the comment on the subject of John of Patmos vs John the Apostle. One commentator commented: “It's possible that there was a second apostle named John, despite none of the early Christian fathers mentioning him. Improbable, but possible.” Well, I have news, and I have had this information since my college days back in the early 1950s, that there was, in fact, a THIRD John. And not one of these Johns wrote or had anything to do with the Gospel of John, aka the fourth gospel. Not only that, John the disciple was illiterate (Acts 4:13) and he and his brother James, the sons of Zebedee, had been executed back in the year 43 CE.
The New Testament is full of biblical figures having the same first name, like Mary, for instance. Mary Magdalen, Mary mother of James and Joseph and Mary the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Two Marys in the same family, who would have guessed! It gets perplexing! The same can be said of the name John. The scholar Schonfield writing about the third John, as well as the deaths of John the son of Zebedee, and his brother James, wrote: We have testimony that both the sons of Zebedee, John as well as James, had been executed in Palestine in the early days of Christianity; and the words Jesus quoted by Mark confirm that both had suffered by the time the Gospel was written. When Paul wrote to the Galatians there were three eminent leaders in Jerusalem, James, Peter, and John. But the James of Paul was not the son of Zebedee, but the brother of Jesus, and we cannot therefore assume that John in this case was the son of Zebedee. The John who is associated with Peter in Acts could have been the son of Zebedee; but by the time of the Council of Jerusalem (c. 48-50*) he was ceased to be mentioned. The Beloved Disciple of the fourth Gospel was also associated with Peter, and his name appears to have been John. But this disciple had a house in Jerusalem and was known to the high priest. On the cross, Jesus entrusted his mother to his care. It is brought out that he lived to a great age, so that it came to be believed that he would not die before Jesus returned from heaven to inaugurate his kingdom. Of this John, it was reported that he had been a Jewish priest, and even that he had worn the high priest’s golden frontlet. In his later years he resided in Asia Minor and was buried at Ephesus. The information comes from a reasonably reliable source, a letter from Polycrates bishop of Ephesus at the end of the second century addressed to Victor, bishop of Rome.
The real issue is only obscured by dragging in John, the son of Zebedee. What we need to know is whether the dynamic personality who flourished in Asia Minor at the beginning of the century; was the venerable Jewish priest who had been the Beloved Disciple of Jesus or some other man, the third John.
That there was a third John playing a very active part in Christian affairs at this time is no speculation. He was known as John the Elder (presbyter) and is mentioned in a well known passage found in the Exposition of the Dominical Oracles by Papias of Hierapolis, another Asian Christian, published about A. 140. [Hugh J. Schonfield (1968), Those Incredible Christians, Ch. 12, pp. 180/1, Hutchinson of London]. The (*) emphasizing the date is mine.
The time-honoured question is who wrote the Gospel of John, it certainly was not any of the Johns being mentioned above, the consensus of scholars say it was written by anonymous Greek scholars. But what of the Johns mentioned, well, most Christian factions, especially the more conservative, clump the ~Johns~ together into one, you can see this on any internet search.
What do you say?
Sue for Jero

I have seen this argument before and I've decided to lay it out in a more formal and with a more philosophical approach starting with an assumed premise and ending with the argument.

The Premise (P)

1. The LOA is real and is just like the laws of nature/physics.
2. When you do certain actions to manifest your desire, that desire ultimately ends up manifesting in the real physical world in a way that is verifiable by everyone. Let's term this LOA Actions' from now on. As an example of this argument: you do self hypnosis to get $500 and you get it, everyone can verify the existence of the $500.
3. Certain actions may consist of any form of technique. Be it "Act as if", "SATS", "SH", "Mental Diet", etc...
4. LOA being another law of physics, cannot override those laws of physics until and unless certain amount of belief is present to override those laws. For e.g., Jesus is said to have walked on water and some people attribute LOA and Jesus' faith being the reason he was able to override the laws of physics.
5. An LOA master is someone that is a master at LOA to the point that whatever he desires, he can manifest into reality even if it goes against the laws of nature. Jesus is a good example of this.

The Argument (A)

1. Two LOA masters want the same SP.
2. They both do the LOA Actions correctly.
3. One of them will receive the SP and the other won't.
4. Conclusion: The LOA doesn't work all the time, even if done correctly.
5. It is not a law.

I have tried to make the premise to be as steelman as possible which is to say, I have done what I can to be very charitable to the other side. If anyone finds that my arguments are flawed or that I have missed something, please write to me immediately, I am open to feedback.
I will try to make a post on LOA, Quantum Entanglement, and physics later where I'll try to prove that the LOA cannot rely on science AT ALL to prove its existence. Also would like to go into what makes it so that only humans have this innate ability and not other animals and species, so Biology and LOA. Tell me if you are interested in any of these topics.

A Christian, u/Kestral536, writes,

I’m very seriously interested in converting to Islam from Christianity, but arguments like these seriously miss the mark and come across as just odd.

I strongly disagree. It is clear cut.
To be fair I do not necessarily use this as a sole proof in dawah, there are tons of things I would generally state to a person before resorting to such things quoting mass-transmitted miracles, fulfilled prophecies and mention in past scripture. The Qur'an and getting people to read it is always the first port of call for me.
Most of the dawah I do in day to day life is not like this at all actually. I simply practice the religion and people ask me about it - they are interested - why does this guy at work go and prostrate etc. I sometimes have deeper conversations with people I work with on issues of ethics and morality.
For me, I wish to get people to think critically about truth, about certain notions they grow up. I do not generally throw them in the deep end with miraculous and prophetic proof, and this is not the Sunnah of Allah with his Prophets, who only showed miraculous evidence as a final act before people are destroyed.
Otherwise we fear a sort of "Pharaoic" response. When Musa Alayhis Salam, through forth his staff and it became a snake, Pharoah did not accept. This is a deeper message within the Qur'an, people ask for evidences and when they come, simply reject them. They do not want to accept in the first place, so invent an excuse for themselves.

You’re using a love song from the Song of Solomon where the lover is essentially saying her lover is very very attractive. Of all the things to mention in this the ten thousand part is not saying what you are making it say. The author is saying her love standouts among ten thousand, he’s that attractive that ten thousand others don’t compare. Not that he has ten thousand companions.

It's a wedding song, transmitted by the Rabbis, yes. That is the confessional narrative. Why would the Rabbis transmit a wedding song? Even there are Christian authors I have seen that say it has 'prophetic significance', and Jewish and Christian authors have interpreted the song allegorically in the past.
See, Tanner, J. Paul. "The history of interpretation of the Song of Songs." BIBLIOTHECA SACRA-DALLAS- 154 (1997): 23-46.

Red face, sure, wavy hair, sure, doesn’t say black hair, but since he’s Arab is probably the case. Large joints doesn’t necessarily mean large legs and golden arms.

You know, if you ever do become a Muslim, come back and read this to yourself. I do not know if you will laugh or cry...

It’s saying his mouth is sweetness itself, not that he has a sweet tooth, likes candy, or whatever, again this is a love song. She isn’t saying she likes his mouth because he likes candy.

The hebrew for what is translated mouth is palate , so it is related to taste. However, tayyib if I said the mouth itself is sweetness, we have two more things in this regards. There is a Hadith which says the recitation of the Qur'an is sweetness itself, and we have a miracle of the Prophet Alayhis Salam concerning his saliva being sweet.
But in the most literal sense of palate, then yes, he had a sweet tooth.

And finally the part that is often used most, Muhammadim, the word isn’t the same as how Arabs would say “Muhammad”, it comes from the same root so technically Muhammad means something similar. But translating it as Muhammad makes no sense, is she saying her lover is like Muhammad? That’s like saying this post is all-together . It doesn’t actually make sense.

I mentioned, the -im ending is added as a plural of respect e.g. like Elohim - lit. "Gods" but understood to mean the God, the plural of respect is added thus. Secondly, when you take a way the -im, the letters are the ones whose same cognates in Arabic are used to write the name of the Prophet Muhammad Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam.
They are so similar, even you are making mistakes in transcription of pronunciation - you wrote, "Muhammadim" when it is "Mahammadim" - as if your own sub-conscious and soul thinks it is relating to Muhammad, a sort of Freudian slip perhaps?

I strongly recommend, please, if you are interested in showing Christian’s actual issues with their beliefs focus on the authenticity and trustworthiness of the Bible from a historical viewpoint, the facts regarding what we know about the authors, things that are very easy to show. Serious Christians are not going to believe things like this, it comes across as goofy and has the opposite effect you want it to.

The turuq (paths) are many, but they lead to the same destination.
Many a Muslim does not need such miraculous evidence to become Muslims. They simply see Islam, the beauty of it, perhaps the Adab and religiosity of the Muslims. Abu Bakr as-Siddique, Radiyallahu Anhu, the first caliph of Islam, accepted the religion on the basis of truthfulness and character of the Prophet Alayhis Salam.
And what is there not to love about a man, who as I recently quoted in a post advising brothers how to conduct personal guidance with others, saw a bedouin man urinating in the Mosque out of ignorance, and did not harshly rebuke him but allowed him to finish and then taught him correct conduct mercifully?
By their fruits you will know them.

Of all the things listed in the song Muhammad has like 1 or 2 or 3 things maybe in common. Things like wavy hair and a red face, and maybe sweet mouth? This verse isn’t even a prophecy of some sort. What does Muhammad have to do with the daughters of Jerusalem?

And yet Christian authors through the centuries tried, poorly I might add, to attempt to interpret this as Jesus as the groom and the Church as the bride, which unlike what I have quoted, is a far interpretation!

Again, things like this have the opposite effect you expect them to have on people like me who are interested but are more serious in Christian beliefs.

If a person does not wish to believe in something, bring whatever you like, a person will not believe. I do not claim to convince Christians, Muslims are not ordered to do that. We are simply ordered to warn. What people decide to believe is up to then.
So you can ask yourself, with what you said, would you feel safe wagering eternal bliss and earning eternal damnation on what you have yourself admitted are 'details in common'? I myself would feel a sense of existential dead and discomfort with this reality. You can resolve this by reading the Qur'an, seeking the truth further in Islam. You can pray to God, the one you call father, and ask him to guide you to whatever is the truth.
I originally posted this to respond to another brother on mine concerning something he titled a post of his with, it is nice to see Christians are reading it too :)

Removed Books
1st,2nd Esdras,Tobit,Judith,Enoch,additional text to “Esther”, Wisdom,Elcesiasticus (also known as “Wisdom of Ben Sira”), Baruch, 3rd,4rth Kings, Epistle of Jeremy,Song of the Three Children,The Idol Bel and The Dragon,Prayer of Manasses, 1st,2nd Macabbes.
“The Gospel of Judas”, “The Apocalypse of Peter” , “The Protevangelion”,”The Gospel of The Infancy of Jesus Christ”, “The Infancy of Gospel of Thomas”, The Splisles of Jesus Christ and Abgarus King of Edessa”, “The Gospel of Nicodemus” (also known as Acts of Pilate), “The Apostles Creed”, “The Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans” , “The Epistles of Paul the apostle to Seneca,with Seneca’s to Paul”, “The acts of Paul and Thecla”, “The epistle of Clement”. “The Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians”, “The Epistle of Barnabas”, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians”, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians” , “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians” , “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans”, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians”, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyerians” , “The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp” , “The Shepherd of Hermas” (Visions,Commands,and Similitudes),”Letter of Herod to Pilate the Governor”, “Letter of Pilate to Herod”, “The lost Gospel of Peter”, “The Epistle of Polycarp to the Phillipians”, “2 Enoch”, “3 Enoch”, “3 Maccabees”,”4 Maccabees”, “5 Maccabees” , “Book of Judith”, “Book of Jubilees”, “2 Baruch”, “3 baruch”, “book of the shepherd of Hermas” , “Psalms of Solomon”,”Odes of Solomon”,”Book of GIants”,”Book of Adam and Eve 1”, “The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan”, “The Gospel of Peter”,”The Gospel of Thomas”,”The Epistle of Aristeas”,”The Epistle of Jeremiah”,”The Epistle of Pilate to Herod”,” Assumption of Moses”,”Apocalypse of Moses”,”Testament of Abraham”,”Apocalpyse of Abraham”,”Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”,”Acts of Paul”,”Psalms 151”,”Story of Ahikar”, “Gospel of Andrew”, “Gospel of Batholomew”, “apocalypse of Elijah”, “ Gospel of the Hebrews", "Gospel of the Ebionites", "Gospel of the Nazarenes" , "Gospel of the Twelve", "Armenian Infancy Gospel","Third Corinthians", "Protovangellion of James", "Gospel of the Nativity of Mary", "Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew", "History of John the Carpenter" , "Infancy Gospel of Thomas" , "J Composition" , "Syriac Infancy Gospel" , "Gospel of the Lots of Mary" , "Gospel of Peter", "Gospel of Eve", "Gospel of Mani", "Gospel of the Savior", "Gospel of Matthias", "Gospel of Andrew" , "Gospel of Barnabas", "Gospel of Bartholomew", "Memoires of the Apostles", "Papyrus Egerton 2", "Fayyum Fragment", "Oxyrhynchus Papyri", "Papyrus Berolinensis 1171book of Enoch 0", "Papyrus Cairensis 10735", "Papyrus Merton 51", "Papyrus Merton 51",
​
These are all Books that were removed,deemed as Apocryphal,or lost to time. Some are Gnostic,the Gnostic ones (my opinion) are not to be taken as actual Scripture. The rest which are apocryphal,i would reccomend searching them,and cross referencing them with existing scriptures to see if they link up/or if the writing styles are similar. Not all were removed,and some are just in specific versions,such as Esdras 1/2, 1,2 Maccabees,Tobit,Judith,the rest of EsteDaniel