Thank you for this, im a gang member trying to turn my mind around and i found you by studying Paul. Thank you this was easy to follow and made sense. God bless.
It'd be good to also learn about and follow the example of St. Moses the Ethiopian and how a former bandit in Egypt who committed sins such as murder and rape eventually repented and become a saint.
Organised religion is just another gang especially the catholic/jesuit order ect… psychological sociological control, get this some guys in dresses way back actually convinced man that he had this thing called a soul and it needed cleansing and what not and it can be cleaned either by money or go and die for your “Lord” 🤣 primitive shit you would be better reading Nietzsche thus spoke Zarathustra
What an awesome channel. You are very well spoken, so clear and so understandable in your ways of teaching. You are also very engaging to watch. Thank you for passing on this knowledge.
Thank you, I appreciate your enthusiasm! Coronavirus quarantine has put a stop to filming any new lectures, but I'm planning on doing several more in the Fall if things go back to (semi)-normal. I recently uploaded a high-production value lecture (all scripted out and filmed in the green screen room) on the mysticism surrounding the number "7"...and I need to review and then upload the last thing I recorded in the Spring: a comparison and analysis of the two creation stories in Genesis...stay tuned.
Why there are no more videos of your lectures? You are a gifted person in terms of teaching. Please, upload more videos, either theological or philosophical.
Many thanks...I think you are the furthest person away that has watched and commented. I had no idea when i posted these for my students that people around the world would watch them. Peace.
Great lecture. Guy has real style and intellectual chops. Rare Gift. Also, I also recommend the work of Rene Girard on the phenomenon of the (scape goat) and it's relationship with Christianity. Mind blowing stuff, with relevance to social-cultural dynamics on multiple levels.
i love your very beautiful, informative and factual lecture.... best explanation ever. simple , straight forward and very easy to understand. thank you, thank you!
Excellent, thanks for posting this. It falls a little short at the punchline - getting into Heaven isn't the goal, but being delivered from the sin (disobedience) inside of us is the goal. It isn't so much a method by which we can sow sin and reap heaven via a legal technicality, but rather a process by which we learn what/how to sow properly, so we reap eternal life by nature. This is ultimately how Adam's original sin is rectified. Still, excellent presentation, which I shall flag and share in my circle. Thank you, sir.
Great lecture by a talented teacher. I look forward to more of these. I do push back a bit on the implication that the gospels were written before Paul’s undisputed letters. Many NT scholars posit that Mark, the earliest gospel, written anonymously about 70 CE, was in fact informed by Paul’s writings, which were written around 50 CE. I think that should have been presented.
Uh...I did say that. It is the standard academic understanding that Paul's letters all predate all of the gospels. The synoptic gospels were written down later, but mostly record the memories of someone who had known Jesus; while Paul's letters, written a couple of decades after the Crucifixion, were still written down before the Gospels, and surely influenced John's Gospel, the last one written.
Well, the way he founded the religion makes perfect sense to us in the modern world. Maybe he simply had conviction the product was good for humanity, and sold it by any means. I'm a Christian and that's good enough for me!
Also, researches into DNA have shown that "generational curses" might have some validation to it. Especially, in the areas concerning psychological inheritance. In fact, are we still not being punished by the sin of Adam and Eve today?
You're conscious. You have a big brain, that was painful for you mother to birth. Your big brain makes you aware of the future, of the problems the future holds. And you know you will surely die. Nonetheless you work all your life to stave off problems in the future. The curse is perfectly the down-sides of consciousness - no doubt!
Near the end when you mention Abraham was told at the last minute not to sacrifice his son I'm reminded of what Bart Ehrman says about scribes changing the text at a later date to fit in with the times. So, if we use Bart's, well, scholarship, technique, Abraham does kill his son! So a later scribe copying the text will slightly alter the text to say Jehovah told Abraham to stop.
Such things do happen in texts--but just because it could be the case doesn't mean it was at any point. The problem with this particular example is that if there ever had been a story of Abraham actually killing Isaac it would terminate the line of patriarchs in the Hebrew Bible. I am more convinced by looking at it in terms of which stories the patriarchs during the Babylonian Captivity chose from their cultural memory to include in the written text they were creating--the recurring theme is to show that throughout their history they have repeatedly come close to disaster and complete extinction as a people but for one absolutely faithful follower of YHWH that proves their people worthy, so then God turns things around for them (Joseph in Egypt, Abraham and Isaac, Moses and the Israelites escaping Egypt, etc.). Now they found themselves in a foreign land, having seen the Temple of Solomon destroyed and Jerusalem sacked and conquered. It probably seemed to most of them that all was lost--the Covenant theme in the Old Testament was shaped to address those fears, as if to say, "Hey, I know it looks bad, but we've been here before...just have faith like our ancestors did." They chose to write down their traditions to keep their people and culture intact, so it didn't dissolve into the melting pot of religions that was Babylon in the 6th-century BC. Thus, of all the thousands of stories they could have put in their, the choices they made largely reflect the concerns of the leaders of the Jews in Babylon.
Your dad is right. did he also mention that it would be much simplified to worship one god and believe jesus to be the prophet and not son? thats simple and logical too.
@@travelswithaz I believe this lecture gave a key point as to why Jesus shouldn't be taken as just a prophet... He is the means to buy back our life (to pass from death to life). He is the living sacrifice to human race. if you take him to be just a prophet, and you pray only to Allah; the question of "how do we get to heaven" would still not be answered. How do we clean ourselves from the "original sin"? You definitely need Jesus Christ. Why do we need to worship him if he's the sacrifice? Answer: He defeated death, proving Himself to be God Worthy of our worship. Also he now stand as a mediator between God and men. Greetings from Namibia 💞
Greetings from Sydney! Thank you for this George. A great lecture made even better by the way you delivered it. You made references to other lessons like the covenant and which I would love to watch. Out of curiosity, what is this class you teach called?
I teach in a humanities department, so the courses are an interdisciplinary study of history, art, philosophy, religion, literature, culture, etc. This course is "Medieval Humanities" so it begins with an examination of the origins of the Biblical tradition and the major ideas it brought about, how Christianity became a dominant force in late Antiquity, and then we can see how it played out in the Middle Ages, influencing art, architecture, literature, society...
Depends on your point of view--he might have MISINTERPRETED or maybe ADAPTED or perhaps EVOLVED or INNOVATED--different words carry different connotations. The bald fact of it is that he drew upon Jewish elements and took the logic a step further to make Jesus the fulfillment of a Divine plan, while at the same time shaping the material to appeal to Greeks and Romans as a Mystery Cult to bypass the objections that no real "god" would allow himself to be killed in such a humiliating manner. The result if pretty clever--one explanation designed to appeal to Jews and Gentiles--and logically connected to the premises upon which it is built...but today, people just repeat the conclusion as a statement of faith, without considering the premises behind it, which are pretty hard for a modern person to hold as valid. We don't tend to think bad deeds put an invisible mark on you which the blood of freshly slaughtered animals can wash off, we don't think that someone is guilty because their grandfather committed a crime, and we don't think that sins can be gathered up and put on a goat to be driven away taking the sins with him. But these are the three beliefs--standard thinking two thousand years ago--that Paul's Christology is built on.
I don't believe that the Israelites thought that God literally consumed their sacrifices. Surely sacrificial action and intention produce the pleasing odour - metaphorically.
That is a later conception of the meaning of "sacrifice"--if you read the text with knowledge of historical and cultural context, it is clear that what was once taken literally in the bronze age evolves into something more spiritual and figurative in a later time. Consider Leviticus 3:16: "All fat is the Lord's"--and the several places where it is specifically described as a "food offering by fire of pleasing odor to the Lord." The bronze age Greeks did the same thing, literally feeding Zeus with a sacrifice of 100 cows--called a sacred hecatomb--to power him up so he could help them in battle the next day. It was a common bronze age religious concept among warrior cultures.
@George Brooks Proverbs 21:3 and Hosea 6:6 suggest that God does not have any interest in the sacrifice itself. Psalm 51 says that God doesn't delight in the gift but in the giver. "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise".What is the context to which you are referring?
@@stratosspheres4858 You could also point to Amos 5:21-24 and Micah 6:6-8 in which YHWH declares that he doesn't care about sacrificial rituals but wants people to act with justice, kindness and mercy. But they, like Hosea, are later prophets. They reflect a more evolved conception of what religious behavior really means. The context of Leviticus is the bronze age. There isn't a single "smoking gun" piece of evidence, and if you don't want to be convinced of any other way of thinking than the one you are accustomed to, then you won't be. But if you study history for a long enough time, you start to build up an understanding of the different mindsets of different time periods. And that is the real point. Devout believers think of the Bible as one big book written by God--but it is really dozens of different books, reflecting ideas from different time periods and different authors' views, which were collated into one big written text during Babylonian Captivity in the 6th-4th centuries BCE, with the final books added as they got written and accepted later than that. The point of applying a critical, academic method to the reading of the text is to dispel the assumptions promulgated by faith, and apply the same analytical and historical methods one applies to any ancient text to uncover what is really going on. It makes the study of the Bible not only more real, but a lot more interesting--you can do more than just pray and sing Hosannahs, you can actually understand something of why the text came into the form that it has.
@@stratosspheres4858 You could also point to Amos 5:21-24 and Micah 6:6-8 in which YHWH declares that he doesn't care about sacrificial rituals but wants people to act with justice, kindness and mercy. But they, like Hosea, are later prophets. They reflect a more evolved conception of what religious behavior really means. The context of Leviticus is the bronze age. There isn't a single "smoking gun" piece of evidence, and if you don't want to be convinced of any other way of thinking than the one you are accustomed to, then you won't be. But if you study history for a long enough time, you start to build up an understanding of the different mindsets of different time periods. And that is the real point. Devout believers think of the Bible as one big book written by God--but it is really dozens of different books, reflecting ideas from different time periods and different authors' views, which were collated into one big written text during Babylonian Captivity in the 6th-4th centuries BCE, with the final books added as they got written and accepted later than that. The point of applying a critical, academic method to the reading of the text is to dispel the assumptions promulgated by faith, and apply the same analytical and historical methods one applies to any ancient text to uncover what is really going on. It makes the study of the Bible not only more real, but a lot more interesting--you can do more than just pray and sing Hosannahs, you can actually understand something of why the text came into the form that it has.
Im not so sure Abraham did think he was sacrificing his son. Abraham wasn't shocked because he had faith in God and who God is. Abraham even said before the sacrifice to his son 22.8 “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” 23: 13 "Then Abraham looked up and saw behind him a ram in a thicket, caught by its horns. So he went and took the ram and offered it as a burnt offering in place of his son." Abraham clearly had faith that God was going to provide an offering for his son in some way. Then God provided the ram. Later on a few hundred years that promise of the lamb, not the ram, would be fulfilled with Christ. So i suspect Abraham was ready to kill his son but had faith he wouldn't need to, it was a test of Abraham faith, and as James said, show me your faith with out your works and ill show you mine by them.
Maybe...I think most Bible scholars read the "God will provide the lamb..." a bit more darkly. And there is human sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible, as in the story of Jepthah's daughter.
@@georgebrooks7775 Thank you for your reply sir, I am very much enjoying and learning from your presentations! I hope their will be more content in the future. I am sitting here in the UK very jealous that i can not attend your classes, which i assume is over in America.
Thank you for this, im a gang member trying to turn my mind around and i found you by studying Paul. Thank you this was easy to follow and made sense. God bless.
Good on you Bro. Your example will be a an exempliary to others who may also be feeling the same way. All kudos to you. Might I suggest you don't try.
It'd be good to also learn about and follow the example of St. Moses the Ethiopian and how a former bandit in Egypt who committed sins such as murder and rape eventually repented and become a saint.
Organised religion is just another gang especially the catholic/jesuit order ect… psychological sociological control, get this some guys in dresses way back actually convinced man that he had this thing called a soul and it needed cleansing and what not and it can be cleaned either by money or go and die for your “Lord” 🤣 primitive shit you would be better reading Nietzsche thus spoke Zarathustra
What an awesome channel. You are very well spoken, so clear and so understandable in your ways of teaching. You are also very engaging to watch. Thank you for passing on this knowledge.
I agree
I'm addicted to these now and I'm gonna run out of videos real quick! Please post more lectures in the future!!
Thank you, I appreciate your enthusiasm! Coronavirus quarantine has put a stop to filming any new lectures, but I'm planning on doing several more in the Fall if things go back to (semi)-normal. I recently uploaded a high-production value lecture (all scripted out and filmed in the green screen room) on the mysticism surrounding the number "7"...and I need to review and then upload the last thing I recorded in the Spring: a comparison and analysis of the two creation stories in Genesis...stay tuned.
George Brooks Awesome! Glad to hear there is more coming! Thanks so much for posting these for free.
@@georgebrooks7775 about damn time! love your vids, and much respect from Indonesia.
Why there are no more videos of your lectures? You are a gifted person in terms of teaching. Please, upload more videos, either theological or philosophical.
I have been listening in on your lectures.Wonderful! Gives clarity to lots of my questions.Thank you for these.From Nigeria
Thank you for sharing your valuable knowledge! I really enjoy your analogy and teaching method. Greetings from Tehran.
Many thanks...I think you are the furthest person away that has watched and commented. I had no idea when i posted these for my students that people around the world would watch them. Peace.
Simply brilliant! Thank you for sharing this
Great lecture. Guy has real style and intellectual chops. Rare Gift. Also, I also recommend the work of Rene Girard on the phenomenon of the (scape goat) and it's relationship with Christianity. Mind blowing stuff, with relevance to social-cultural dynamics on multiple levels.
i love your very beautiful, informative and factual lecture.... best explanation ever. simple , straight forward and very easy to understand. thank you, thank you!
Excellent, thanks for posting this. It falls a little short at the punchline - getting into Heaven isn't the goal, but being delivered from the sin (disobedience) inside of us is the goal. It isn't so much a method by which we can sow sin and reap heaven via a legal technicality, but rather a process by which we learn what/how to sow properly, so we reap eternal life by nature. This is ultimately how Adam's original sin is rectified. Still, excellent presentation, which I shall flag and share in my circle. Thank you, sir.
Adam’s original sin is a fairy tail
So clarifying! Thank you for sharing.
Greetings from Brazil
Great lecture by a talented teacher. I look forward to more of these.
I do push back a bit on the implication that the gospels were written before Paul’s undisputed letters. Many NT scholars posit that Mark, the earliest gospel, written anonymously about 70 CE, was in fact informed by Paul’s writings, which were written around 50 CE. I think that should have been presented.
Uh...I did say that. It is the standard academic understanding that Paul's letters all predate all of the gospels. The synoptic gospels were written down later, but mostly record the memories of someone who had known Jesus; while Paul's letters, written a couple of decades after the Crucifixion, were still written down before the Gospels, and surely influenced John's Gospel, the last one written.
Fantastic contribution!! So well balanced.
Professor George you Rock!!!
This is excellent, he clarifies it greatly.
Well, the way he founded the religion makes perfect sense to us in the modern world. Maybe he simply had conviction the product was good for humanity, and sold it by any means. I'm a Christian and that's good enough for me!
Would it make sense to say God sacrificed himself on the cross? What would the implications of that be?
What is your soul? Should we not define our terms?
This is an amazing lecture!
Hey George i love all the lectures that u posted. can you maybe give some book preferences to read up on the lectures that you uploaded.
Also, researches into DNA have shown that "generational curses" might have some validation to it. Especially, in the areas concerning psychological inheritance.
In fact, are we still not being punished by the sin of Adam and Eve today?
Adam and Eve? wait you literally believe they existed?
You're conscious. You have a big brain, that was painful for you mother to birth. Your big brain makes you aware of the future, of the problems the future holds. And you know you will surely die. Nonetheless you work all your life to stave off problems in the future. The curse is perfectly the down-sides of consciousness - no doubt!
Refer to the work of Ralph Ellis for excellent info on Saul aka paul
Near the end when you mention Abraham was told at the last minute not to sacrifice his son I'm reminded of what Bart Ehrman says about scribes changing the text at a later date to fit in with the times. So, if we use Bart's, well, scholarship, technique, Abraham does kill his son! So a later scribe copying the text will slightly alter the text to say Jehovah told Abraham to stop.
Such things do happen in texts--but just because it could be the case doesn't mean it was at any point. The problem with this particular example is that if there ever had been a story of Abraham actually killing Isaac it would terminate the line of patriarchs in the Hebrew Bible. I am more convinced by looking at it in terms of which stories the patriarchs during the Babylonian Captivity chose from their cultural memory to include in the written text they were creating--the recurring theme is to show that throughout their history they have repeatedly come close to disaster and complete extinction as a people but for one absolutely faithful follower of YHWH that proves their people worthy, so then God turns things around for them (Joseph in Egypt, Abraham and Isaac, Moses and the Israelites escaping Egypt, etc.). Now they found themselves in a foreign land, having seen the Temple of Solomon destroyed and Jerusalem sacked and conquered. It probably seemed to most of them that all was lost--the Covenant theme in the Old Testament was shaped to address those fears, as if to say, "Hey, I know it looks bad, but we've been here before...just have faith like our ancestors did." They chose to write down their traditions to keep their people and culture intact, so it didn't dissolve into the melting pot of religions that was Babylon in the 6th-century BC. Thus, of all the thousands of stories they could have put in their, the choices they made largely reflect the concerns of the leaders of the Jews in Babylon.
still killing it!!
Is that you, Nathan?
My Dad always said, "Jesus simplified the Law, so a child could understand it. Then Paul came along, and made it complicated again."
Your dad is right. did he also mention that it would be much simplified to worship one god and believe jesus to be the prophet and not son? thats simple and logical too.
@@travelswithaz nah, he is Christian. Not a Muslim. Nice try though. Peace
@@travelswithaz are you a Muslim? I invite you to study the Gospel of Jesus Christ for yourself.
@@travelswithaz I believe this lecture gave a key point as to why Jesus shouldn't be taken as just a prophet... He is the means to buy back our life (to pass from death to life). He is the living sacrifice to human race. if you take him to be just a prophet, and you pray only to Allah; the question of "how do we get to heaven" would still not be answered. How do we clean ourselves from the "original sin"? You definitely need Jesus Christ.
Why do we need to worship him if he's the sacrifice?
Answer: He defeated death, proving Himself to be God Worthy of our worship. Also he now stand as a mediator between God and men.
Greetings from Namibia 💞
Good stuff - Love it!
Thanks! These lectures are a lot more polished than when you first heard them back in the day, eh?
I wish my parents has told me, since I was uncircumcised, what I had to do to clean my thingie. At 18 I found the need!!
TMI.
How would i get your all lectures?
UA-cam search "Brooks" "Humanities" "Valencia" and you'll find all the ones I've uploaded so far. There will be more coming this year.
Greetings from Sydney!
Thank you for this George. A great lecture made even better by the way you delivered it.
You made references to other lessons like the covenant and which I would love to watch. Out of curiosity, what is this class you teach called?
I teach in a humanities department, so the courses are an interdisciplinary study of history, art, philosophy, religion, literature, culture, etc. This course is "Medieval Humanities" so it begins with an examination of the origins of the Biblical tradition and the major ideas it brought about, how Christianity became a dominant force in late Antiquity, and then we can see how it played out in the Middle Ages, influencing art, architecture, literature, society...
Did Paul misinterpret Mosaic law and Jesus teachings to persuade Romans and Greeks to become believers?
Depends on your point of view--he might have MISINTERPRETED or maybe ADAPTED or perhaps EVOLVED or INNOVATED--different words carry different connotations. The bald fact of it is that he drew upon Jewish elements and took the logic a step further to make Jesus the fulfillment of a Divine plan, while at the same time shaping the material to appeal to Greeks and Romans as a Mystery Cult to bypass the objections that no real "god" would allow himself to be killed in such a humiliating manner. The result if pretty clever--one explanation designed to appeal to Jews and Gentiles--and logically connected to the premises upon which it is built...but today, people just repeat the conclusion as a statement of faith, without considering the premises behind it, which are pretty hard for a modern person to hold as valid. We don't tend to think bad deeds put an invisible mark on you which the blood of freshly slaughtered animals can wash off, we don't think that someone is guilty because their grandfather committed a crime, and we don't think that sins can be gathered up and put on a goat to be driven away taking the sins with him. But these are the three beliefs--standard thinking two thousand years ago--that Paul's Christology is built on.
George Brooks Thank you for your reply Sir ! i'm a Muslim studying old testament at the moment and someone who loves history lessons.
I think you might have reconverted me to Christianity 😦
I liked the video. :D
I don't believe that the Israelites thought that God literally consumed their sacrifices. Surely sacrificial action and intention produce the pleasing odour - metaphorically.
That is a later conception of the meaning of "sacrifice"--if you read the text with knowledge of historical and cultural context, it is clear that what was once taken literally in the bronze age evolves into something more spiritual and figurative in a later time. Consider Leviticus 3:16: "All fat is the Lord's"--and the several places where it is specifically described as a "food offering by fire of pleasing odor to the Lord." The bronze age Greeks did the same thing, literally feeding Zeus with a sacrifice of 100 cows--called a sacred hecatomb--to power him up so he could help them in battle the next day. It was a common bronze age religious concept among warrior cultures.
@George Brooks
Proverbs 21:3 and Hosea 6:6 suggest that God does not have any interest in the sacrifice itself. Psalm 51 says that God doesn't delight in the gift but in the giver. "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise".What is the context to which you are referring?
@@stratosspheres4858 You could also point to Amos 5:21-24 and Micah 6:6-8 in which YHWH declares that he doesn't care about sacrificial rituals but wants people to act with justice, kindness and mercy. But they, like Hosea, are later prophets. They reflect a more evolved conception of what religious behavior really means. The context of Leviticus is the bronze age. There isn't a single "smoking gun" piece of evidence, and if you don't want to be convinced of any other way of thinking than the one you are accustomed to, then you won't be. But if you study history for a long enough time, you start to build up an understanding of the different mindsets of different time periods. And that is the real point. Devout believers think of the Bible as one big book written by God--but it is really dozens of different books, reflecting ideas from different time periods and different authors' views, which were collated into one big written text during Babylonian Captivity in the 6th-4th centuries BCE, with the final books added as they got written and accepted later than that. The point of applying a critical, academic method to the reading of the text is to dispel the assumptions promulgated by faith, and apply the same analytical and historical methods one applies to any ancient text to uncover what is really going on. It makes the study of the Bible not only more real, but a lot more interesting--you can do more than just pray and sing Hosannahs, you can actually understand something of why the text came into the form that it has.
@@stratosspheres4858 You could also point to Amos 5:21-24 and Micah 6:6-8 in which YHWH declares that he doesn't care about sacrificial rituals but wants people to act with justice, kindness and mercy. But they, like Hosea, are later prophets. They reflect a more evolved conception of what religious behavior really means. The context of Leviticus is the bronze age. There isn't a single "smoking gun" piece of evidence, and if you don't want to be convinced of any other way of thinking than the one you are accustomed to, then you won't be. But if you study history for a long enough time, you start to build up an understanding of the different mindsets of different time periods. And that is the real point. Devout believers think of the Bible as one big book written by God--but it is really dozens of different books, reflecting ideas from different time periods and different authors' views, which were collated into one big written text during Babylonian Captivity in the 6th-4th centuries BCE, with the final books added as they got written and accepted later than that. The point of applying a critical, academic method to the reading of the text is to dispel the assumptions promulgated by faith, and apply the same analytical and historical methods one applies to any ancient text to uncover what is really going on. It makes the study of the Bible not only more real, but a lot more interesting--you can do more than just pray and sing Hosannahs, you can actually understand something of why the text came into the form that it has.
Im not so sure Abraham did think he was sacrificing his son. Abraham wasn't shocked because he had faith in God and who God is. Abraham even said before the sacrifice to his son 22.8 “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.”
23: 13 "Then Abraham looked up and saw behind him a ram in a thicket, caught by its horns. So he went and took the ram and offered it as a burnt offering in place of his son."
Abraham clearly had faith that God was going to provide an offering for his son in some way. Then God provided the ram.
Later on a few hundred years that promise of the lamb, not the ram, would be fulfilled with Christ.
So i suspect Abraham was ready to kill his son but had faith he wouldn't need to, it was a test of Abraham faith, and as James said, show me your faith with out your works and ill show you mine by them.
Maybe...I think most Bible scholars read the "God will provide the lamb..." a bit more darkly. And there is human sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible, as in the story of Jepthah's daughter.
@@georgebrooks7775 Thank you for your reply sir, I am very much enjoying and learning from your presentations! I hope their will be more content in the future. I am sitting here in the UK very jealous that i can not attend your classes, which i assume is over in America.
interesting
Lol....I am Jesus....”knock it off”
Inaccurate
There is no point in making such a comment unless you are able to articulate your reasons for making it.
Paul was a jerk 😮
He was ony dead three days