No they didn't. Almost everything you have said here is wrong. For instance, the earliest version of the New Testament that could be considered "canonized" consisted of ten of pauls epistles and a version of the gospel of Luke. It was only around 200 AD that the 27 books of the NT were decided to be the likely candidates for being wholly inspired works, which became agreed upon by the whole church by the middle of the 3rd century. There were 3 other books which were included in 397 as reading material, but they were not thought to be inspired. The catholic church included 11 more books in the 1500s, but no one else considered them inspired, including the jewish people who wrote them. They were finally taken out of bibles around the end of the 1800s, as you said.

These uninspired works were known as the apocrypha, and none of them ever belonged there in the first place. The fact is, the bible today matches what the early church had decided upon as inspired as early as 200 AD. Which brings us to the mormons, who claim that they have a special revelation from Jesus Christ, that He came and visted America and the indians, etc. The problem is, not excepting that there is no evidence for the claims it makes, or any precedent or prophecy that predicts it, that the claims of the book of mormon fundementally alters the truth of the gospels. It preaches a much different Jesus, as does Islam. Paul said this:

Galatians 1:8

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Both the mormons and the muslims received their revelations from angels. Scripture also says this:

2 Corinthians 11:14

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

Scripture rejects it, and that is why they are considered a cult and not Christian.


>> ^joedirt:
Wow are you the dumbest person spouting religious crap I've seen on this website.
from 100 AD until 1885 the Christians all had version of a Bible with 80 books in it. You are an ignorant person running around telling people what a Christian is and then you say the Bible is just the OT & NT. So clueless. Would it blow your mind to know that Islam and Mormonism all have the same Jesus in their sacred books? They both believe in the same Jesus, so by your definition that makes them Christians also.
If you consider Mormons a cult because they added a book, then guess what, you are also a follower of a cult by removing 14 books of the word of the Lord.
>> ^shinyblurry:
How can I trust YOUR holy book isn't lying to me?
Do you use a Baptist holey book? An Episcopalian wholly book?
Christians use the bible, which is the Old Testament and the New Testament in one volume. Mormons have added another book to that, which is the reason why it is a cult and not Christianity.

Regarding the founding fathers, you could also say they were white, therefore this should be a country for white people. Most founders of this country though religion was an abomination when it comes to matters of the state, and they feared ignorant people running around trying to declare nonsense like it should eb a nation of Chirstians.
>>>Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. -- James Madison (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

This is the sort of thought process that needs to be discouraged because when enforced you have people that begin seeing it as justified. "See, they can handle it, we can just fuck them over some more! They've already accepted it!" The reason the other classes are struggling is because of policies and business strategies put in place by the upper-class. They fucked our economy, they fuck our pockets, consequently fucking our overall health, liberty & "pursuit of happiness" just so they can keep immense profits for themselves.

Never compare the USA to Africa - Africa is so full of injustice, genocide and cruelty it is just unbelievable. Although, America is covert with their militaristic corruption supposedly as a nation we are peaceful with liberties & freedoms. America is better than our current trajectory but by giving up on the "niceties" of the lower & middle classes & not supporting real living wages you may be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of even more injustice & cruelty in the US of A. The war in America is of the mind - when they get you thinking the way they want they will be able to exploit everything under the sun... sort of like what they've already done & luck plays no part of their agenda.

>> ^robbersdog49:

JiggaJonson, while your life may be harder than that of others around you it's a whole world apart from the poor of Africa. How far do you and your kids have to walk each day to collect enough contaminated water to survive? What? You get clean water piped right to your house? Yeah. Poor. I see.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be helping those less fortunate than ourselves in our own societies, but I also think those people should appreciate quite how lucky they were to be born where they were born...

If you don't believe in original sin, you don't believe in redemptive history. You have to explain the purpose of the law and how it came to be, as well as how Jesus fufilled that law and what the purpose was of His death on the cross. It's a little bit more complicated than you're making out. You can't just cut out the OT and pretend that it still makes sense. Jesus told us in plain words why He was there and what He was doing and for what reasons. He fulfilled prophecy from the OT which predicted His coming, and He spoke about the OT as literal history. To contridict any of that makes it logically incoherent. To say Genesis is a conspiracy is grandiose claim as well. What evidence do you have this is true?

>> ^enoch:
original sin is a fabrication of the church to establish control and dominance but has never really been able to prove this position.though there are many fundamentalists who will defend this position, it still will not hold water when put under proper scrutiny.
for many evangelicals to refute the original sin story is to also refute jesus.
this is untrue,but to attempt to explain that to someone who views the bible as the literal word of god would be an exercise in futility.
they will defend the position of original sin staunchly and vigorously.
to do otherwise would be to reject jesus in their mind.
most theologians agree that original sin put forth by the church is a fallacious argument.
my position is that the book of genesis is the metaphorical representation of kabballah and has nothing to be understood in literal terms but rather an abstract of creation,the godhead and correlation between this physical universe with the "nether".

Here are a few thoughts at to why:

* Teaching and inspiring others to learn is exceptionally valuable. Apparently, you don't believe teaching is, which is insane. Why is inventing something more valuable than teaching and/or inspiring perhaps multiple inventors? They both are extremely valuable.

* They love to teach.

* They believe in the value of what they do over monetary rewards.

* They actually do move on to other professions that pay a hell of a lot better. That's why I began transitioning into IT, although later it was also because the job sucked because it was less and less about teaching and more about standardized test scores, ensuring every bit of the state curriculum was mentioned in class but not taught well at all, calling parents for the 20,000th time to let them know their child is failing/hasn't brought their signed report card/missing library books, etc. So it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. People fight to keep teacher salaries low, so on average the talented people quit the profession to make more money. Then those people who fought to keep their salaries low can say, "SEE? TEACHERS SUCK!" Eventually though you won't find enough people willing to be teachers, which is where we are today.

And yet I wonder why these super geniuses settle for teaching instead of using just some of the myriad of skills you listed and become the next big inventor, or the next great physicist, or the next big whatever. Yet instead, even with those over-qualifications (if we're to take your word for it), they choose to work so much harder for fewer rewards (again if we're to take your word).

Nothing about that says planet. It simply states with analogies that prophecy is a guiding light in the darkness. Nothing here about how Lucifer (or morning *STAR*) is a planet. Back then it was just another bright spot in the sky, and thus *tada*! a star.

2 Peter 1:19-21

New International Version (NIV)

19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Pretty sure I saw this in a prophecy somewhere.

I'm not sure where you're getting that John was a rebel or disagreed with Jesus, or that the book of John contridicts a single thing Jesus said.. on the contrary John was the beloved disciple and perhaps more than the others was privy to the deeper meaning of what Jesus said. The book of John goes right to the heart of His teachings.

I'm also not sure where you're drawing this imaginary contention between Revelation and the apocryphal vision of paul from..they are completely different animals..Revelation is pure prophecy, whereas the supposed pauline doctrine is very similiar to the gnostic mystery texts, which describes the various artifices of heavenly processions, but fails to expand on or add any meaningful truths. It has the words but not the content. Revelation is about the future, and it makes several predictions which are happening today, such as the formation of a one world government, economy and religion. This is what seperates the word of God from everything else.

As far as predictions about the end go, no one is ever supposed to make them..and anyone who does is automatically wrong. >> ^enoch:
book of john.
the man who disagreed with jesus most of all and was a true zealot.
i prefer the book of revelation according to paul.the writing is better and not as much hallucinagenic influences.
the book of john was a last minute addition to the bible to be canonized by the council of nicea.the revelation according to paul was rejected because johns was allegedly more emotionally and imagery provoking than pauls.
because of the addition of the prophecy of john there have been so many christians who read the book literally.when we consider the times that these books were written and the punishment if exposed,we need to take in to account that much of what is written is metaphorical.representing much of the cosmology and symbology of the time by way of inferrence rather than literal translations.wish some devout christians understood that.
see millerites:http://historicaldigression.com/2011/05/20/the-rapture-millerites-and-the-great-disappointment/
they are still around today.seventh day adventists

book of john.
the man who disagreed with jesus most of all and was a true zealot.
i prefer the book of revelation according to paul.the writing is better and not as much hallucinagenic influences.
the book of john was a last minute addition to the bible to be canonized by the council of nicea.the revelation according to paul was rejected because johns was *allegedly more emotionally and imagery provoking than pauls.
because of the addition of the prophecy of john there have been so many christians who read the book literally.when we consider the times that these books were written and the punishment if exposed,we need to take in to account that much of what is written is metaphorical.representing much of the cosmology and symbology of the time by way of inferrence rather than literal translations.wish some devout christians understood that.
see millerites:http://historicaldigression.com/2011/05/20/the-rapture-millerites-and-the-great-disappointment/

*they are still around today.seventh day adventists

You have a schitzophrenic faith, my friend. I would call you my brother but it doesn't appear that you know our Lord. It appears that in your picture you are ashamed of your Lord. So allow me to enlighten you for your edification:

The six day creation is literal, it is not allegory. You can tell this simply by the grammar and syntax used. The word for day used is "yom", which appears over 400 times in the bible and only ever refers to a day as a 24 hour period. You may recognize this from "Yom Kippur". Do jews celebrate the day of atonement for millions of years?

The literal account of the 6 day creation also is integral to the ten commandments. We have the Sabbath day as a day of rest because God rested on the 7th day. Do we rest for millions of years on the Sabbath? So already you've called God a liar, you've made the commandments to no effect, which undermines the messiah prophecies..and the entire thing is turned on its head.

We have confirmation from Jesus Christ Himself, that the account is literal. He refers to a literal creation, adam as the first man, the flood and many other OT accounts as fact. You reject that and you reject the testimony of our Lord. If you don't believe in a literal 6 day creation then you should throw your bible in the garbage because that is what the theory of evolution has filled your head with.

You have the gall to impringe on my witness and imply im crazy..hey, at least im internally consistant. You've had to twist your mind into a pretzal to believe what you do. You've fallen into apostacy because of your lack of faith. Evolution is a stumbling block for you, and will remain so until you trust in the Word of God. Here's my Word for you:

21 Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?"
23 And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."






>> ^burdturgler:
It's only writing God out of your picture, not mine. The bible is a lot of things, but one thing it was not meant to be was a scientific accounting of anything. I am still perfectly able to love and worship God and yet still understand and accept evolution, so .. you're wrong.
I made my post under the assumption that you were capable of rational thought, but you've proven that that's not the case. I never said anything happened without God, I said understanding what DID happen gives me greater appreciation for God.
Well .. that's two posts now, see you in 2013.

No, perhaps you should re-read, the bible has NO historical authority. Like a broken clock it can, rarely, be right, but I can't reasonably accept anything from it without outside corroboration

Oh really? So why is that archaelogically, it has proven to be 100 percent historically accurate?

“No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969

There have been over 25,000 discoveries which prove its historical accuracy alone. Seems like far from being right accidently, it's always on time.

Sooo...You are claiming that these books have not been under the same copy/editorship for millennia ? My point does not require a by-line match, only that the folks copying (and editing) the canonical versions are in control of both, and have incentive to make them seem more impressive. Are you claiming this was not the case?

Of course I'm claiming its not the case. It also doesn't make any sense. You don't think the jews at the time would notice that people were editing in prophecies later? They were fanatical about these kind of details..so unless you're claiming it was a gigantic conspiracy your view seems illogical. The jews were very careful about copying..the earliest manusciprs we have and the oldest ones have very few discrepencies.

Wow, nice straw split. The portion of the testimony that claims the divinity of jesus is cut from whole cloth, that is what you were talking about, that is a forgery. You wish to interpret it as a testimony of divinity, when the historical record strongly supports the contentions that these parts were not in the original text, and are not attributable to Josephus => forgery.

The vid you post takes the safety position that since the original appears to be about jesus that it is proof of his historicity. The original text, as far as we can reconstruct it, as well as all the other non-fake historical documents don't actually claim that jesus was real or divine, they only convey the story as stated by christians.

I can also state the christian story, as a matter of historical record, without validating it or accepting it myself, the fact that christians existed is not proof that jesus did.

lol..so, when a historian talks about someone in history, its not evidence..what kind of evidence do you want? Photographs?

"Josephus includes information about individuals, groups, customs and geographical places. Some of these, such as the city of Seron, are not referenced in the surviving texts of any other ancient authority. His writings provide a significant, extra-Biblical account of the post-Exilic period of the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty, and the rise of Herod the Great. He makes references to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and a disputed reference to Jesus (for more see Josephus on Jesus). He is an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity.

A careful reading of Josephus' writings allowed Ehud Netzer, an archaeologist from Hebrew University, to discover the location of Herod's Tomb, after a search of 35 years — above aqueducts and pools, at a flattened, desert site, halfway up the hill to the Herodium, 12 kilometers south of Jerusalem — exactly where it should have been, according to Josephus's writings."

Read that? His writings were so accurate that we were able to find a mans tomb 2000 years later. Turn off your schitzophrenia for a moment. You're claiming Jesus isn't a historical figure, even though this historian, whom you say is accurate for Cyrus, verifies that He is. I'm not talking about whether He is divine, just that He existed. You can't have it both ways. He's a historian who obviously checked his sources..he's isn't telling stories, he is relating facts. You just want to throw the ones you don't happen to agree with.

I see what you did there, let me see if I can recreate your "logic":
1)I claim the testimony has been forged
2)Therefore I must accept Josephus as completely unreliable
3)Therefor the bible is the only source of the story
4)Therefor the claimed historicity of the events depends on the bible
5)Therefor for the Cyrus claim to hold the bible must be divinely inspired

Step 2 does not follow, most of Josephus is considered sound. The fact that your predecessors felt the need to lie in his name does not invalidate all his writings, only those which we have reason to believe have been altered. As it turns out, your boys tended to do a pretty unconvincing job in their historical revisionism.

Again, forget about the divinity claims which were interperlations. He records the existence of the historical person of Jesus. So, if its good enough for Cyrus, its good enough for Jesus. You can't have it both ways. Your pathogical unbelief is amusing, but unwarrented. So your only sources are one that claims Jesus is real, and another that claims God frees the slaves. Again, not helping your case in any respect.

>> ^shinyblurry:
So, the bible is only good for the claims you wish to prove.
No, perhaps you should re-read, the bible has NO historical authority. Like a broken clock it can, rarely, be right, but I can't reasonably accept anything from it without outside corroboration.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Again, you show your lack of research..the prophecy and the fufillment of the prophecy are in seperate books written 1 or 2 hundred years apart.

Sooo...You are claiming that these books have not been under the same copy/editorship for millennia ? My point does not require a by-line match, only that the folks copying (and editing) the canonical versions are in control of both, and have incentive to make them seem more impressive. Are you claiming this was not the case?
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's not "widely considered forged". Again you don't know what you're talking about.
Educate yourself:
Wow, nice straw split. The portion of the testimony that claims the divinity of jesus is cut from whole cloth, that is what you were talking about, that is a forgery. You wish to interpret it as a testimony of divinity, when the historical record strongly supports the contentions that these parts were not in the original text, and are not attributable to Josephus => forgery.

The vid you post takes the safety position that since the original appears to be about jesus that it is proof of his historicity. The original text, as far as we can reconstruct it, as well as all the other non-fake historical documents don't actually claim that jesus was real or divine, they only convey the story as stated by christians.

I can also state the christian story, as a matter of historical record, without validating it or accepting it myself, the fact that christians existed is not proof that jesus did.
>> ^shinyblurry:

but the only sources concerning freeing the jews are from the bible and Josephus. You can't have it both ways..you can't claim the bible for evidence when the entire evidence you're claiming was about what Cyrus was doing for God, let alone it was the fulfillment of prophecy from the book of Jeremiah.
You can't say Josephus is discredited yet claim it for evidence about the jews either. If the bible is evidence, then the credit goes to God for freeing the slaves.
If you say Josephus is accurate, you have to admit Jesus is a historical figure.


I see what you did there, let me see if I can recreate your "logic":

1)I claim the testimony has been forged
2)Therefore I must accept Josephus as completely unreliable
3)Therefor the bible is the only source of the story
4)Therefor the claimed historicity of the events depends on the bible
5)Therefor for the Cyrus claim to hold the bible must be divinely inspired

Step 2 does not follow, most of Josephus is considered sound. The fact that your predecessors felt the need to lie in his name does not invalidate all his writings, only those which we have reason to believe have been altered. As it turns out, your boys tended to do a pretty unconvincing job in their historical revisionism.

Example:
[FORGERY]
>> ^shinyblurry:

I deny the Holy Spirit.
[/FORGERY]

Does that forgery make all your actual words fundamentally suspect?

>> ^shinyblurry:

Doesn't seem like many people agree with you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_myth

Some religious theologians think that the myth argument is unsound? Color me surprised. Argumentum ad populum is still a fallacy.

Clearly, since text can not be edited, all text which precedes a statement must, of necessity, predate it. Therefore if a claim is made in a text, and then said to be fulfilled in the same text, the author must be a true profit.

hilarious. So, the bible is only good for the claims you wish to prove. Again, you show your lack of research..the prophecy and the fufillment of the prophecy are in seperate books written 1 or 2 hundred years apart. I'm stating to get the idea that you don't actually know anything and I'm arguing with a search engine.

Josephus's testimony is widely considered forged, and few, excepting christian ideologues, claim that it has not been at least altered. The older Arabic translation does not contain a profession of faith, just an account of the claims of the followers, and saying that christians exist, is not the same as saying that they have their facts straight.

Josephus, of course, is not the only source on Cyrus, he ruled a fucking empire, he was not some two bit sheep herd. Yet you avoid the issue, you made a claim, Cyrus refutes it.

It's not "widely considered forged". Again you don't know what you're talking about.

Educate yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6cQgqbXYN0

I'm avoiding nothing; yes, there are other sources for Cyrus, but the only sources concerning freeing the jews are from the bible and Josephus. You can't have it both ways..you can't claim the bible for evidence when the entire evidence you're claiming was about what Cyrus was doing for God, let alone it was the fulfillment of prophecy from the book of Jeremiah. You can't say Josephus is discredited yet claim it for evidence about the jews either. If the bible is evidence, then the credit goes to God for freeing the slaves.

If you say Josephus is accurate, you have to admit Jesus is a historical figure. Either way, your evidence is firmly in my territory. I'll happily admit that you have one example in the whole of human history of slaves being freed if you'll admit that Jesus was a historical figure.

There is no historical reason to believe that such a person did exist,
and the gospels are so glaringly contradictory that the authors
clearly cared nothing about historical accuracy. Absent any historical
authority in the gospels, or the forgeries, there is just as much
chance that some guy named meatloaf was tearing around Galilee on his
motorcycle at or around 30CE, but I don't believe it.

Doesn't seem like many people agree with you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_myth

Wow. You're so ridiculously stubborn that you are actually going to defend your indefensible viewpoint. Fine, it's your funeral. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Did you know that Cyrus freeing of the slaves confirms the bible is true? It was prophecied that the jews would go into exile and be freed at the exact time Cyrus freed them:

"Jeremiah predicted Israel’s second captivity would last 70 years for every year they had not observed the Sabbath year rest of the land. "And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years." (Jer 25:11) The Babylonian army conquered Israel in the spring of 606 B.C. Confirmed by history as well as the Bible, Israel’s captivity in Babylon ended exactly 70 years later in the spring of 536 B.C., in the Jewish month Nisan. As was predicted, the Persian King Cyrus freed the Jews to return to their land (Ezra 1:1-3)."

You're right, there is also historical confirmation outside of the bible of what Cyrus did: it comes from the 1st century roman historian Titus Flavius Josephus. The same historian who confirms that Jesus was a historical figure and affirms His life death and resurrection. This agrees with modern historians, almost none of which make the ridiculous claim that Jesus never existed.

So lets review..so far your position confirms the accuracy of bible prophecy and the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. I really couldn't have said it better myself. So yeah..any other evidence you'd like to present to prove my case?
>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
lol!! wow this is truly classic.
Maybe you should actually read the articles you're providing as evidence from your desperate google search to disprove me.
Do you know what slaves he freed? The Jews. That's right, Gods chosen people.

Sooo...that means he was a Christian? Do you understand the concept of moving the goal posts?
>> ^shinyblurry:
How do we know this? The bible. Getting a sinking feeling yet?

I have never claimed that the bible does not reference historical events/places/people, but it can not by any objective measure be considered historically accurate itself. Cyrus, unlike Moses and Jesus, is not a construction of the biblical authors, if the bible had never existed we would still know of Cyrus and have a general understanding of what he did.

Nice ambush. If you want to drag me into a thread, don't start it off by putting words in my mouth. It's extremely amusing how you're trying to set it all up; Okay, here is my comment on the video: This is complete bullshit. Yeah I really buy that she was just this sweet innocent little girl who had to study the bible and suddenly she is making militant antitheist videos on the internet. This has to be one of the least well adjusted girls I've ever seen..maybe she should quit her day job of appearing in wells because I've rarely seen such superbly edited mockery.

Here's my response about her entirely fabricated commentary. First of all, the verses she mentioned about pregnant women were prophecy about sinful nations who routinely sacrificed their own children to baal, among other things. God never ordered anyone to rip open pregnant women. That's completely false.

Here is a verse about slavery she missed:

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death."

The idea of slavery in those days was far different than our modern version. In ancient Israel, people who couldn't provide for themselves or their families were sometimes sold into slavery so they wouldn't die of exposure or starvation. That person would receive housing and food in exchange for labor.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The bible teaches equality for all people, which was a new idea at the time. Anyone following the bible wouldn't have kept a slave. And if you want to talk about slavery, there has never been an abolitionist movement outside of the Christian west. Freeing slaves seems to have been a uniquely Christian virtue. So much for atheism saving the world. All of this hyperbole about slaves, where people are trying to play this bible gotcha-game shows a complete lack of understanding of the history and the cultures of the time, or what is actually in the bible in the first place. All in all, pretty damn pathetic.

So the Bible is "historical evidence"? You do know that all the accounts of Jeebs' life were written decades after he allegedly lived, don't you? That at least one of the Gospels is simply a rewriting of another (i.e. Matthew of Mark)? That alot of them contain "cherry-picked" passages from the Jewish Prophets' texts in order to make prophecies "come true" (causing the NT to be even more incoherent)? etc...
Just because archeology says there was a town or fountain somewhere that's mentionned in the Bible, doesn't mean Jeebs did the zombie walk (nor that such a character even existed... even that is debatable). Not to mention how biased most of those "studies" are (i.e. trying to make the fact fit the fiction). I guess since castle ruins and crypts can be found in Romania (ex-Transylvania), Dracula the immortal vampire truly existed?

On definitions: Deism is not a kind of theism.

Nobody said gnosticism was the opposite of agnosticism; in worldviews and ideologies, it is not a question of opposites (just like communism is not the opposite of capitalism, even thought they have many opposing views).

But there's no having a rational argument with you...