Thanks for the question and engaging with our video! I would clarify at the outset that I have no interest in defending the universality of circumcision (nor do any Christians, this issue was definitively settled for us early on, Galatians 5:6). I think it important only to defend male circumcision as not inconsistent with God's goodness, justice and love since God did command one man and his descendants to mark themselves this way. IE, there's a difference between a practice being "not immoral" (one may do it if one wants) versus "moral" (all MUST do it). If God demands that baby Sampson not taste wine or have his hair cut, for example, one must show that this command was not inherently an immoral one, but no Christian thinks that all good parents must follow this regimen for all their children for all time. So, in what way is female circumcision wrong for all people to perform on children for all time, and male circumcision not? What puts it out of the "you may do this if you want to" category and put it in the "this is a violation of God's moral law"? For me, it comes down to violations of the inherent design of the body, and related to that, the motivations of the ones doing it. Male circumcision does not affect mature sexual function and sexual response since it does not disturb the male organ, per se. It does not affect reproduction, it does not bring any negative health issue, unless the rite is botched. On the contrary, many men opt to get circumcised as adults to achieve certain health benefits, and Jewish scholars have made the claim that the practice not only enhanced male sexual performance, but also female pleasure and response. I make no assessment about whether this latter claim is true, but I mention it because it presents a contrast in motivations for the person performing the rite on boys, versus girls. Female circumcision, on the other hand, is opposite in every way. It does affect mature sexual function and response. In fact, that's probably its original purpose. As it limits or eliminates female sexual pleasure the motivations of those doing it are clear: to decrease the chances of a wife straying sexually. The procedure (which seems to be different in different places) either covers or mutilates a sexual organ, obliterating its clear natural function. Also, it's known to cause recurrent infections, difficulty urinating and passing menstrual flow, chronic pain, the development of cysts, an inability to get pregnant, and complications during childbirth. I suppose if one wanted to make a case for the moral acceptability of FGM by adult females who choose it for themselves, that's a different case. But I think if one is going to undermine the bodily integrity of an infant, with no interest in restoring or improving health or function, but rather to undermine overall health and function, this is a violation of the fundamental preciousness of a human person, made in God's image. All morality is grounded here: we are all an end in ourselves, with inherent worth, which must extend to bodily integrity - the violation of which is immoral.

@@jrteason Ok, this is what i understood. Male circumcision is NOT immoral, because it doesn't negatively affect the person. But female circumcision is immoral because it can be bad for the person. So are you saying what is not harmful is NOT immoral or moral? Then who decides what is harmful? Something can be harmful now and beneficial later. I am confused because you also seem to indicate that morality is grounded by what God commands. So according to you when God commanded Abraham to circumcise was it moral? or not immoral? or immoral? And based on what are you now overruling a command given to Abraham?

@@pseudonym9215 hi! Thanks for your questions. I did already explain that circumcision is "not immoral", as opposed to a moral command. Is this confusing? A bit of history on this might explain how "do no harm" is connected to God's commands, and which commands specifically: Christians have had to work out the distinction between what laws are universally obligatory versus temporally since the very start of the movement. When Gentiles were first welcomed into it the question was asked, "is it required that Gentiles become Jews before they can follow the Jewish Messiah?" The answer they came up was no, we are all welcomed into the family of God by God's grace alone - not by perfect obedience to the Jewish law. But then, what rule of life were the Gentiles expected to follow after they became Christians? Jesus made it very simple: "love your neighbor as yourself." Now, this one overarching command could be abused, as you implied by using a "do no harm" standard: "who decides what is harmful?" Excellent question. So we find that while Jesus and the Apostles reduced our moral demand to one ("love your neighbor as yourself") they both nevertheless affirmed the continuing relevance and demand of every single one of the 10 commandments. For example, Paul says, "If you love your neighbor, you will fulfill the requirements of God’s law. For the commandments say, “You must not commit adultery. You must not murder. You must not steal. You must not covet.” These-and other such commandments-are summed up in this one commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to others, so love fulfills the requirements of God’s law." (Romans 13:8-10) So "love your neighbor as yourself" sums up the Christian moral universe, but as "Love" and "do no harm" are subjective concepts open to interpretation, their objective definition is maintained in the 10 commandments themselves. For example, I may feel I should sleep with a grieving widow to comfort her, as an act of love. But God has declared adultery to be immoral. So there is no loving way to commit adultery. All other commandments were filed by the early church in buckets we might label "ceremonial" or "civil". The Church has always found them interesting and informative on many levels, but not obligatory. Thus, there was no continuing obligation to maintain circumcision. So circumcision was a "not immoral" command because it "did no harm." But that is not saying it has ongoing, universal applicability. What was the purpose of these ceremonial laws, if they don't have universal moral force? Christians came to see their purpose was mostly symbolic, to highlight the "otherness" of God, to highlight human fallenness, to highlight the need to be singularly devoted to God, to be set apart for God, to highlight the cost of sin etc. As such they were not immoral commands, but they had no universal ethical content. For example, a law about how to cut one's hair (Deut 14:1) is not about ethics per se, it's a ceremonial demand no Christian feels obligated to follow. But in its context the command distinguished the Jews from surrounding pagan cultures that associated hair cutting with their ritual worship of gods that demanded infant sacrifice, cult prostitution, among other things. Finally, you ask my basis to overrule such commands. They are overruled by the coming of Jesus who fulfilled their demands, their symbols and their intent in his own perfect life. This bible verse summarizes my view nicely: "The old system under the law of Moses was only a shadow, a dim preview of the good things to come, not the good things themselves. The sacrifices under that system were repeated again and again, year after year, but they were never able to provide perfect cleansing for those who came to worship. ... instead, those sacrifices actually reminded them of their sins year after year." Hebrews 10:1-3

@@jrteason I am really not understanding your reasoning or logic for not following male circumcision, when Jesus himself was circumcised. Lets keep the female circumcision aside. Tell me could God's commands be less than best or ideal? When Abraham was commanded to circumcise was that a "not immoral" command(i.e. neutral, neither good or bad, not bad and not ideal) or was that a "moral" command(i.e. inherently good or upright or ideal) I accept that God can overrule old laws or give new laws, but when did Jesus overrule the Jewish law? Infact doesn't he say that he came to uphold the old law? I can't wrap my head around the fact you yourself say Jesus is the Jewish messiah, yet dont follow the law Jesus upheld. Can you bring any statements from Jesus that supports your position instead of Hebrews.

@@pseudonym9215 thanks, your comment clarifies your position nicely. I agree that God can overrule old laws and give new ones. So I assume based on your rejection of Hebrews that you do not take the position of Jesus' Apostles as authoritative of God's will and desires for Christians? And thus, you would not accept their authority to express God's overruling of certain old laws or giving of new ones? This is a curious position, but not uncommon. Many seem to set Jesus up in opposition to his Apostles. I say it's curious, only because it fails to take into account how we got the Bible. Since Jesus never wrote a book, all we have of his life and teaching was first recorded for us by Apostles or their close associates. Often the same ones who wrote the letters and history of the early Church. So, to suggest that when the Apostles lay down beliefs and actions for the early church, that this contradicts what Jesus would have said or done, makes the Apostles out to be inconsistent or blatantly confused! For example, Luke gives us Jesus' take on the Old Testament: Luke 16:17 - the verse you reference: "But that doesn’t mean that the law has lost its force. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the smallest point of God’s law to be overturned." But if this means that it is obligatory for all Christians to forever obey all the Laws of Moses, including circumcision and every other ceremonial law, why did this SAME author, Luke, ALSO write this: "But then some of the believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood up and insisted, “The Gentile converts must be circumcised and required to follow the law of Moses.” So, the apostles and elders met together to resolve this issue. At the meeting, after a long discussion, Peter stood and addressed them as follows: “...God knows people’s hearts, and he confirmed that he accepts Gentiles by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he cleansed their hearts through faith. So why are you now challenging God by burdening the Gentile believers with a yoke (adherence to all the ceremonial law of Moses) that neither we nor our ancestors were able to bear? We believe that we are all saved the same way, by the undeserved grace of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 15:5-11) Is Luke confused? Is Luke thinking that the early Church made a terrible decision in direct contradiction to the teaching and attitude of Jesus? I think that's a hard position to maintain. Rather, it seems to me that the same people who gave us Jesus' story and teachings did what they did in harmony with those teachings. They wouldn't preserve the teaching of Jesus, only to indict themselves for having overturned him, would they?? I say no. So, I take their stances as authoritative, because Jesus, who is the source of ALL authority (Matthew 28:19-20) gave them his authority (Matthew 18:15ff). And on the issue of circumcision, the opinion of the Apostles COULD NOT BE CLEARER! - For when we place our faith in Christ Jesus, there is no benefit in being circumcised or being uncircumcised. What is important is faith expressing itself in love. (Galatians 5:6) - For there are many rebellious people who engage in useless talk and deceive others. This is especially true of those who insist on circumcision for salvation. (Titus 1:10) Now, if we wanted to look into Jesus' teachings and see if he made clear that some aspects of the Mosaic covenant were being laid aside, we have many: - Jesus set aside the Mosaic divorce provision (Matt 19:1-9) - Jesus set aside the Mosaic requirements for vow making (Matt 5:33-34) - Jesus set aside the Mosaic requirements for food laws (Mark 7:19) - Jesus greatly modified our understanding of Sabbath observance (Luke 6:2-9) - Jesus created distinction between the moral (weightier) and the ceremonial laws of Moses (Matt 23:23) Also, when I've looked into the context of Jesus' comment about the Law not going away, I've realized he was responding to the ways the Pharisees and other Scribes had dumbed down the moral aspects of the law to find legalistic loopholes. That's why in the Sermon on the Mount, right after he said, "I didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it," he notes that our righteousness must SURPASS that of the Pharisees. Not because they were so good and we need to be EVEN better. No. It was because they had taken the purity of the Law's moral designs and perverted them. They extended the law's permissions (regarding divorce and vengeance) and they had limited the Laws restrictions (on murder and adultery). Jesus does the opposite; he restricts the law's permissions and extends the laws restrictions. In this way, Jesus is again drawing attention to the eternal importance of the MORAL aspects of God's law, but at no point in this sermon does he uphold the ceremonial aspects of Moses. So, as my Lord, I am happy to embrace Jesus' attitude about Moses. And I think Paul, rather than undermine that attitude, summarizes it nicely: "The law was our guardian until Christ came; it protected us until we could be made right with God through faith. And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian." Galatians 3:24-25

Devotion by the Newsboys

Thank you

Darn Spell Check 🤪

I will check his stuff out. I enjoyed the writings of Grudem on the topic in his systematic theology text.

Hey April! So glad it helped you! Send me an Alex@ac3.org and we will get it to you.

Hi April, we'll email that white paper ASAP, in the meantime, you can see a copy at our website here: ac3.org/2018/10/ac3-position-on-women-in-leadership

@@AC3AllenCreekCommunityChurch Oops! I got the email wrong the first time. I'll resend it to this correct email right now. Thanks so much!

@@AC3AllenCreekCommunityChurch Wow! I just read the copy online and it is excellently written! Such a wonderful resource. Praise God for the wisdom He's blessed this ministry with and the ability to properly analyze scripture, in context, and then to articulate that understanding so well. What a blessing to the body of Christ!

Thank you for responding, I appreciate you responding. Talking over RU-vid comments are hard but I will try my best to express the Christian world view here. God creates man. man sins and ruins society, in these places God commanded to destroy they were raping women and children and doing horrific things. God says killing is bad in the 10 commandments yet we see much killing in the Old Testament specifically the Pentateuch. So is there any place God give permission to kill. In order to answer this apparent contradiction, we must make a distinction between killing someone and committing murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of a life, while killing may be lawful or unlawful. The establishment of capital punishment actually extends back to the Noahic Covenant when God declared, “Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:5-6). Even before this, Cain was afraid of the other members of his family seeking to kill him after he had murdered his brother Abel (Genesis 4:13-15).1 In the cases outlined in Scripture, taking the life of another in the name of justice was not murder. The question poses a false dilemma in that killing does not have to be always right or always wrong-God has provided qualifications. Because man is made in the image of God, the death of a human is not taken lightly. In the laws given to Israel through Moses, those sins that were worthy of death were detailed. Leviticus 19 is one such place where these commands are given. Since these are commands directly from God and God cannot lie, we understand that there must be no contradiction in the commands. Those who committed sexual sins were to be justly killed, but only upon the clear affirmation of their crime established by witnesses. The Bible provides many circumstances under which the taking of a life is legally allowed by Scripture. As the author of the first five books of the Bible, Moses would not have written contradictory ideas. If we allow for killing to be wrong in every case, when a person carried out capital punishment, as commanded by God, they would have to be killed for the taking of a life. Then their life would be demanded, and so on until humanity was left with one. Extending the logic allows us to see how absurd the claim of a contradiction truly is. The Bible provides many circumstances under which the taking of a life is legally allowed by Scripture. Killing another person in an act of self defense (Exodus 22:2) was permitted with no consequences. There are examples of God calling the people to war against other nations to punish them for their sins. When Joshua led the children of Israel into the Promised Land, God commanded the Israelites to utterly destroy the idolatrous peoples who inhabited the land (Deuteronomy 20:16-17). A list of their sins can be found in Leviticus 18, including incest, murdering children, and so on. When God called Israel to war against those in the Promised Land, then He was permitting the killing in this situation, making men His agents of justice, as in the case with capital punishment. The killing of Goliath by the young David was, likewise, justified in the eyes of God. In fact, David was angered by the way that Goliath blasphemed God and met him in battle. David did not trust in himself, but in the Lord to deliver Goliath into his hands. This is an example of continuance of the war the Israelites had been engaged in with the inhabitants of the Promised Land, as directed by God. God repeatedly chose war and capital punishment as a way to bring judgment on peoples and individuals who were acting in defiance of His will by doing great sin. He ordained the killing as a punishment to accomplish His purposes in the world. This should give an idea of seriousness of sin. In the eyes of a perfect and holy God, one sin is worthy of death (Genesis 2:17). Since we are all sinners, we are all under the death sentence already. In essence, we are all on “death row,” and those who murder or do other terrible sins as described in Scripture, simply had their wait on “death row” shortened. God hates sin, especially those that lead to any situation where a human life is lost. His holy nature and subsequent hatred of sin make the taking of a life acceptable only in the rarest of cases. We should never seek to minimize the taking of a life-a life made in the image of God. Remember that taking a life for justifiable reasons is only necessary because we live in a world of sin. The perfect creation would not have required death for any reason. I am not sure this helps clear up my view. - pastor Alex

@@AC3AllenCreekCommunityChurch // "They were raping women and children" // Two things firstly, the BABIES and CHILDREN that God alledgedly ordered to be killed were not raping anybody dear. Do you accept this *YES or NO* ?? Secondly for many of the tribes that god ordered to be destroyed the only "crime" they had done was to live on land that god had decided should belong to the Israelites. Do you understand this *YES or NO* ??

@@AC3AllenCreekCommunityChurch Next you engage in the usual Godsplaining biblical preaching and then attempt to use this as justification for what alledgedly was instructed. So let me once again ask a few basic questions ..... Is the "unaliving" of babies and children ALWAYS objectively immoral *YES or NO* ? 🤔 If "unaliving" of babies and children is alledgedly carried out or instructed by your subjective "God" is it moral *YES or NO* ? 🤔 If "unaliving" of babies and children is alledgedly carried out or instructed by a different subjective God is it moral *YES or NO* ?? 🤔 Is your OPINION regarding the "correct" God who's allegedly the basis for morality a "SUBJECTIVE" one or a "OBJECTIVE" one ?? 🙄 Let the mental gymnastics ensue......

@@AC3AllenCreekCommunityChurch // "in the name of justice" // You think the killing of innocent babies and children represents _"justice"_ so long as there are _"qualifications"_ ie their parents have upset your specific subjective God 🤮 What does "justice" actually mean to you my friend ? 🤔 You see for me justice is all about "fairness", responsibility, equality, accountability, and consequences all of which can be negated under Christian soteriology by one's acceptance or rejection of extraordinary supernatural claims and a willingness to pass the buck. Under Christian soteriology one's eternal salvation or damnation is determined not by their actions in life but membership of the "belief club" *John 5 24* _“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and _*_"BELIEVES"_*_ in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and _*_SHALL NOT COME INTO JUDGMENT,_*_ but has passed from death into life"_ Our societal conception of "justice" in in direct conflict with the *unequal punishment* based on the accused "beliefs" ( something they have no more control over than the colour of their skin at birth ) prescribed by Christian theology. Moral properties such as responsibility are supervenient on actions and attributes of moral agents, and cannot be transferred between them. As such vicarious redemption ( scapegoating ) could never and should never be regarded as either logical or moral. The idea of sin, or morality however you define it, being a tradeable commodity is at odds with how I define morality. Particularly when it involves the suffering of an innocent. I am responsible for my good and bad actions, people can't 'take' my bad deeds any more than they can my good nor should they.

@@AC3AllenCreekCommunityChurch When you assert that God created man in his image do you mean, ...... with no knowledge of right and wrong ?? 🤔 or did he only only truly reflect _"Gods image"_ AFTER eating of the fruit when he became a "sinner" ?? 🤔 is this why man can be a jealous, genocidal monster at times just like his alleged "creator" ??

You seem very passionate about this subject would you be open to discussing further over a zoom call?

​@@AC3AllenCreekCommunityChurch This is my preferred medium thanks, but YOU seem very passionate about your beliefs so perhaps you can answer a few of my basic questions dear ?

@@trumpbellend6717 Hi, I'm Rick, another pastor at AC3. Let me take a stab at answering your last questions: In critiquing the Christian view of morality as arbitrary (because we have a made-up God, therefore, his rules are made up by the people who made him up), you're trying to lump Christians in with all moral relativists who think morality has no objective basis. And if we're all appealing to subjective morality, what claim does any one set of mores have over another? I take this to be your argument. But I think you are misunderstanding the two camps. The Christian view, before we get to specifics, is that God is necessary for morality to have any objective grounding at all. We believe in God. Therefore, we believe morality has an objective grounding. Your view is that because there are competing views of God, and therefore competing views of what different gods consider right or wrong, therefore it's "vacuous and useless" to talk about objective morality. But it's not that at all, if you back away from the specifics and first simply compare the view that morality HAS an objective grounding, with the view that it does not. In the first view you are correct to note that this puts a new challenge in front of the person who believes morals can be grounded outside the self. Which God? Which code? But that is a very, very different kind of quest than the person who has given up on grounding morality objectively at all. The person in the latter camp is forced to look at all moral codes and statements of value as vacuous and meaningless. And so they must accept that the phrase "be good" has no real meaning to it. Not REALLY. "Be good" implies that we can know what the good is, and can therefore pursue it. But believing that there is no such thing as "the good" (only certain preference statements people make about behaviors, which often conflict), the moral relativist has no bumpers on behavior, EXCEPT that which suit his or her inner world, which is the only place one determines "the good". To live in relative harmony, the relativist might get together with others and work out some preferences they have in common, but I think only a very superficial person thinks that those communal values have real weight. They might have weight when people are watching, when a social credit score is on the line, when an appetite might go unmet. But that wouldn't make such communal codes objective, and therefore they could never be weighty. It could make them expedient, practical, helpful to survival - pick an adjective - but what it wouldn't make them is RIGHT. Thus, when the eyes are turned the other way, when it would be in-expedient, when it would be impractical, when it would detract from survival, such common moral codes formed by the consensus of people's subjective, inner, behavior preferences will be, and are often left behind, disobeyed, ignored etc. This is the difference between you and the Christian. The Christian believes that morality is objective, so no matter how it's worked out, no matter WHICH God you worship, the ground of all goodness we believe is "out there" not "in here". That gives the chosen code, weight. How could it not? You cannot think, and go on thinking that your value statements and moral codes are just the result of atomic actions, randomly dancing in the frontal cortex of a bipedal mammal, and feel any weight to them. Ask yourself, how much pressure do you feel to obey the stop sign at 2 am in the morning, at the empty intersection? None. Because you know it's an arbitrary, ad hoc rule. But if you knew there were cameras onsite, and real humans were actually watching you all the time, suddenly the rule would FEEL different. Well, that is the difference between the Christian view of morality and the moral relativist. You can argue that the Christian has no access to an objective moral standard, I get it. But they BELIEVE in a moral standard and that matters to how one treats the pursuit of and the development of goodness. Whether or not you have access to the objective standard or not, it matters whether or not you believe one is there to discover. Now, once that difference in base approach is clarified, we can then look into the Christian's claims about why their God or their discovery of their moral code is real and actual, not just another subjective preference statement of their whims versus another's'. And that is a complex thing. If you believe, for example, that there is good evidence that Jesus was who he said he was, and did what is claimed for him, that gives you an objective reason outside your own preferences to consider what Jesus says and did as the basis for your moral code. You might counter that other religions have other grounds for taking a different religious figure as authoritative. Fine. But now, can we not admit that we are no longer in the realm of the subjective? Now we're dealing with competing historical claims based on publicly available data. And people can evaluate these claims which are all obviously OUTSIDE the individual's head and preferences. In such an evaluation, if the individual believes, based on evidence, that they have reason to think they've accessed the moral code of THE God, they would then have reason to abandon personal ethical preferences in exchange for the code offered by the one deemed to have authority. And if those exchanges are often not comfortable, that at least proves that the standard is not some kind of wish-fulfilment on the part of the Christian. They aren't just inventing a code to suit their inner world, obviously not, if they are confronted with painful changes of mind to conform to the code of the One (Jesus) claiming to have access to TRUE (that is to say, objective) goodness. If the Christian has a God who affirms their inner world at every point, it is almost certain they've made a God in their own image. If the Christian starts with the presumption that moral truths ARE objectively grounded, versus the relativist's attitude, that is a difference maker, even if the Christian's ethics were chosen arbitrarily. They will, nevertheless, look at ethics with a weight the relativistic mindset can never afford. But i think I've also shown how the Christian's case for why THEIR morals and not another religion's, is not subjective because it's built on making the case for God (first) and the case for why Jesus showed us God (second). One may disagree with their reasons for thinking Jesus is the true grounding for all moral value, but what you can't do is say the Christians are just making up a subjective goodness like everyone else. They are not.

@@AC3AllenCreekCommunityChurch I suppose the first thing to note is your reluctance or inability to answer my very specific initial questions. So before moving on i will ask AGAIN .... is your OPINION regarding the "correct" God objective or subjective ? Can we use ANY god as the basis for morality or just the one YOU determined is the "correct" one ?? The answer to these questions requires no explanation about WHAT you believe, but a simple yes or no would be helpful. I'm more than happy to discuss the rest in detail once we get this out of the way first. Many thanks

@@AC3AllenCreekCommunityChurch // "Compare the view that morality HAS an objective grounding with the view that it does not" // You seem to not comprehend what the word "objective" means dear. How about I simply ASSERT that morality has an objective grounding in "wellbeing" ?? if differences with regards to our opinions on the "correct" God don't prevent morality being objectively grounded in a God then our differences with regards to our opinions on the "correct" wellbeing don't prevent morality bring objectively grounded in wellbeing. It works both ways dear, you can't have your cake and eat it.

:-) - Rick

🤣

Thanks for watching - sorry you experienced troubles. Sometimes our shorts process goes a little haywire.

That is a really interesting take. You made two seperate claims here. You said God is fake and that there is no evidence that Jesus existed. I am curious what your basis is for Jesus not existing and I am curious if you believe the philosopher Plato existed?

It is humorous most people attempt to use this philosopher as some form of proof. There is no such person named Jesus to have ever existed in that time in that area at all. You cannot provide any evidence to prove he ever exiated.. the fact the bible mentions a man named Jesus is proof that the translation of the bible is sketchy at absolute best. ​@@AC3AllenCreekCommunityChurch

​@@AC3AllenCreekCommunityChurch his name was יֵשׁוּעַ translated to the english language Yēšūaʿ or for ease of the english written word Yeshua the meaning of this name "to rescue" and for ease of translation to english tongue with btw was translated more then 300 years later Joshua. Do you know why they did not use the name Joshua? Its simple. The lord called Joshua to be the new prophet after Moses Jesus and his followers where soooo vein and soooo pathetic they could not stand the idea that his name was mentioned as another.. so they made a name that did not exist so as not to "contaminate" his name

@@AC3AllenCreekCommunityChurch now because i would actually enjoy debating this topic i will say yes i believe Plato existed.. for a few simple reasons.. 1 we have actual evidence he existed. 2 we have HIS writtings on HIS handwriting. 3 he attended many many political seatings and was recorded as a participant. 4 there are MANY instances of his existence recorded by thousands of people who we can trace back to.. Jesus was witnessed by 400ish people in an area known for wine. And their names where never recorded.. none of them wrote about it.. so you cant actually prove a few hundred witnessed him.... other then the word of his friends who followed him because he provided food and wine....

@@poafm6529 I appreciate your commentary though this is not completely true. I apologize for the delayed reply. Yeshua is the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Joshua.” Iesous is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Jesus.” Thus, the names “Joshua” and “Jesus” are essentially the same; both are English pronunciations of the Hebrew and Greek names for our Lord. (For examples of how the two names are interchangeable, see Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 in the KJV. In both cases, the word Jesus refers to the Old Testament character Joshua.) We refer to Him as “Jesus” because, as English-speaking people, we know of Him through English translations of the Greek New Testament. Scripture does not value one language over another, and it gives no indication that we must resort to Hebrew when addressing the Lord.