4kings:

Appealing to Authority again.
So University Scholars determine the veracity of stories now abi...
Why not mention those "contributions" they gave, so we can examine them.

Now Its apparent you don't know what an appeal to authority is . Here's a quick example

4kings : My dad said the earth is flat

King Ebuka : Is he a cosmologist , geophysicist ?

4kings : No , he is a businessman

King Ebuka : But .. Business has nothing to do with the shape of the earth

4kings : He is my dad so he is right

Here you appealing to authority ( your dad) who is not an expert in the field concerned with the topic of discussion .

Scholars are experts here , so we pay attention to them to guide us to the truth .

4kings:

Ya, from a Gnostic point of view.

Abeg go and sit down

You are the trying to evade your shitty logic

Since Mark didn't mention the virgin birth therefore its not true ; then since all Gospel indited the resurrection event , therefore it is true

Next time you think before you type

KingEbukasBlog:


Abeg go and sit down

You are the trying to evade your shitty logic

Since Mark didn't mention the virgin birth therefore its not true ; then since all Gospel indited the resurrection event , therefore it is true

Next time you think before you type

I have ALWAYS been open to the Gnostic point of view, and you know this.

So you know what I would go for already, stop being sly..

4kings:

I told you that before the name "Christian" was given Nazarene and Ebionite were used.

The link you posted said Eusebius said a group believed in the Virgin birth of course there were "Nazarene".
Even if this Nazarene are subjected to scrutiny - can't trust Eusebius the Liar.

The point remains that people just 40 years after the death of Christ -in the first century - accepted the virgin birth . Whatever you think of them is of no importance .

Case closed .

4kings:

I have ALWAYS been open to the Gnostic point of view, and you know this.

So you know what I would go for already, stop being sly..

Lol , mi good bro

Relax

No slying here

You didn't even mention the Gnostic whatever when you talked of virgin birth in the first place

The simple truth is that you felt that since Mark didn't mention the virgin birth therefore such never happened ; the same logic has to be applied in the resurrection event in Christ's life : since all four gospels noted it , therefore such did happen .

End of story

Case closed .

So done and dusted .

More contributions on the topic please

May Christ who was born through the virgin birth , died , resurrected and ascended to Heaven bless you

Amen

KingEbukasBlog:


The point remains that people just 40 years after the death of Christ -in the first century - accepted the virgin birth . Whatever you think of them is of no importance .

Case closed .

Nope, the only record of their existence was quoted by Eusebius the liar, however the Ebionites were in existence for a 1000 years.
The movement of Nazarene who belived in a virgin birth, started in the late 2nd century then to the 3rd century.

Consider this:
The ebionites(who were mostly Gnostics) lived for about a 1000 years, were followers of John the baptist and Jesus. For this group of people to have existed during the lifetime of Jesus, and still denied the virgin birth, simply means it was not heard of before.

The virgin birth was first mentioned by Eusebius(as usual) and some of the Romans Leaders, who were trying to form a religion with Constantine, for decorum in the Roman era.

When Constantine brought up the idea of forming a Religion, the council of nicea actually took a vote, to elect the "new universally accepted God" for the romans to worship, amongst the ones that were existing in those days, this includes Jupiter, Neptune, Mithra and many more.

Constantine instructed Eusebius to compile a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council. His instructions were:
"Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one
book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake."

Constantine believed in the Sun God called "Mithras", 5 gods were chosen out of the rest that was brouht forward, then Constantine decided on the name to give this new God and he chose to combine Hesus and Krishna(meaning Christ in Sanskrit) and thus the name was formed Hesus Krishna, which later developed to jesus Christ as time went by

The virgin birth was a concept popularly known amongst Krishna followers, centuries before Paul

There was never a mention or prophecy of the virgin birth as popularly believed in the old scriptures, Isaiah was refering to a young woman in that passage that would give birth during his time. The word "almah" was used in that verse(Isaiah 7) which means "young woman", "betulah" means virgin and was a commonly understood term for referring to a woman who had not met with a man.

As written in the Gospel, Jesus was so popular, then how come this miraculous news was not known by his followers or recorded in the very first books of the new Gospel or is it not worthy of attention.

Gnosticism was most likely what Paul was preaching as i've told you before, Ebionites were mostly Gnostics and existed for years even during the time of Mohammed.

Cheers

KingEbukasBlog:


Lol , mi good bro

Relax

No slying here

You didn't even mention the Gnostic whatever when you talked of virgin birth in the first place

The simple truth is that you felt that since Mark didn't mention the virgin birth therefore such never happened ; the same logic has to be applied in the resurrection event in Christ's life : since all four gospels noted it , therefore such did happen .

End of story

Case closed .

Nope, i never based my belief on mark, I dont just believe in Fairy tales anyhow.

Gnostics on the other hand, which i talk about regularly, have been in existence for centuries and they don't believe in a virgin birth.
The Ebionites and Paul were MOST LIKELY Gnostic, i've told you this before even on other threads, so whenever i talk about the bible i also consider the Gnostics too.

Case not Closed

KingEbukasBlog:
So done and dusted .

More contributions on the topic please

May Christ who was born through the virgin birth , died , resurrected and ascended to Heaven bless you

Amen

You wish

KingEbukasBlog:


Now Its apparent you don't know what an appeal to authority is . Here's a quick example

4kings : My dad said the earth is flat

King Ebuka : Is he a cosmologist , geophysicist ?

4kings : No , he is a businessman

King Ebuka : But .. Business has nothing to do with the shape of the earth

4kings : He is my dad so he is right

Here you appealing to authority ( your dad) who is not an expert in the field concerned with the topic of discussion .

Scholars are experts here , so we pay attention to them to guide us to the truth .

Yikes!

4kings:

Nope, the only record of their existence was quoted by Eusebius the liar, however the Ebionites were in existence for a 1000 years.
The movement of Nazarene who belived in a virgin birth, started in the late 2nd century then to the 3rd century.

Consider this:
The ebionites(who were mostly Gnostics) lived for about a 1000 years, were followers of John the baptist and Jesus. For this group of people to have existed during the lifetime of Jesus, and still denied the virgin birth, simply means it was not heard of before.

The virgin birth was first mentioned by Eusebius(as usual) and some of the Romans Leaders, who were trying to form a religion with Constantine, for decorum in the Roman era.

When Constantine brought up the idea of forming a Religion, the council of nicea actually took a vote, to elect the "new universally accepted God" for the romans to worship, amongst the ones that were existing in those days, this includes Jupiter, Neptune, Mithra and many more.

Constantine instructed Eusebius to compile a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council. His instructions were:
"Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one
book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake."

Constantine believed in the Sun God called "Mithras", 5 gods were chosen out of the rest that was brouht forward, then Constantine decided on the name to give this new God and he chose to combine Hesus and Krishna(meaning Christ in Sanskrit) and thus the name was formed Hesus Krishna, which later developed to jesus Christ as time went by

The virgin birth was a concept popularly known amongst Krishna followers, centuries before Paul

There was never a mention or prophecy of the virgin birth as popularly believed in the old scriptures, Isaiah was refering to a young woman in that passage that would give birth during his time. The word "almah" was used in that verse(Isaiah 7) which means "young woman", "betulah" means virgin and was a commonly understood term for referring to a woman who had not met with a man.

As written in the Gospel, Jesus was so popular, then how come this miraculous news was not known by his followers or recorded in the very first books of the new Gospel or is it not worthy of attention.

Gnosticism was most likely was Paul was preaching as i've told you before, Ebionites were mostly Gnostics and existed for years even during the time of Mohammed.

Cheers

Unfortunately, kingebukasblog is anti-commonsense

hahn:


Unfortunately, kingebukasblog is anti-commonsense

No mind that boy...

4kings:

[s]Nope, the only record of their existence was quoted by Eusebius the liar, however the Ebionites were in existence for a 1000 years.
The movement of Nazarene who belived in a virgin birth, started in the late 2nd century then to the 3rd century.

Consider this:
The ebionites(who were mostly Gnostics) lived for about a 1000 years, were followers of John the baptist and Jesus. For this group of people to have existed during the lifetime o f Jesus, and still denied the virgin birth, simply means it was not heard of before.

The virgin birth was first mentioned by Eusebius(as usual) and some of the Romans Leaders, who were trying to form a religion with Constantine, for decorum in the Roman era.

When Constantine brought up the idea of forming a Religion, the council of nicea actually took a vote, to elect the "new universally accepted God" for the romans to worship, amongst the ones that were existing in those days, this includes Jupiter, Neptune, Mithra and many more.

Constantine instructed Eusebius to compile a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council. His instructions were:
"Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one
book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake."

Constantine believed in the Sun God called "Mithras", 5 gods were chosen out of the rest that was brouht forward, then Constantine decided on the name to give this new God and he chose to combine Hesus and Krishna(meaning Christ in Sanskrit) and thus the name was formed Hesus Krishna, which later developed to jesus Christ as time went by

The virgin birth was a concept popularly known amongst Krishna followers, centuries before Paul

There was never a mention or prophecy of the virgin birth as popularly believed in the old scriptures, Isaiah was refering to a young woman in that passage that would give birth during his time. The word "almah" was used in that verse(Isaiah 7) which means "young woman", "betulah" means virgin and was a commonly understood term for referring to a woman who had not met with a man.

As written in the Gospel, Jesus was so popular, then how come this miraculous news was not known by his followers or recorded in the very first books of the new Gospel or is it not worthy of attention.

Gnosticism was most likely what Paul was preaching as i've told you before, Ebionites were mostly Gnostics and existed for years even during the time of Mohammed.

Cheers[/s]

This is a blatant red herring and has absolutely nothing to do with the argument . I provided evidence from multiple sources to prove my point .

Stop regurgitating bullshiit you read somewhere in order to force a false conclusion , stay in line with the argument next time.

hahn:


Unfortunately, kingebukasblog is anti-commonsense

That young man needs to start being logical . Presuppositions , red herrings , and fallacies are really bad .

4kings:

Yikes!

Seriously you don't know what an appeal to authority is?


Surprised ? Yes

Shocked ? No

Because its 4kings

4kings:

Nope, i never based my belief on mark, I dont just believe in Fairy tales anyhow.

Gnostics on the other hand, which i talk about regularly, have been in existence for centuries and they don't believe in a virgin birth.
The Ebionites and Paul were MOST LIKELY Gnostic, i've told you this before even on other threads, so whenever i talk about the bible i also consider the Gnostics too.

Case not Closed

This guy and his foolish talk . Paul was not a Gnostic neither were all the Ebionites . Stop making idiotic assumptions to sustain your delusion . I'm tired of repeating myself honestly .

Its obvious you are deluded because I have provided cogent evidence that refutes your claims .

KingEbukasBlog:
So done and dusted .

More contributions on the topic please

May Christ who was born through the virgin birth , died , resurrected and ascended to Heaven bless you

Amen

Shut up
You're lucky I've not been around
your idiocy and love for asshole has been exposed here
https://www.nairaland.com/3570678/kissing-hanks-ass-look-religious

jonbellion:

Shut up
You're lucky I've not been around
your idiocy and love for asshole has been exposed here
https://www.nairaland.com/3570678/kissing-hanks-ass-look-religious

Your nairaland account , your opinion .

By the way , it's shallow and insipid

Try something intellectual by responding to the question I asked you about the expansion of the space here :https://www.nairaland.com/3553021/conclusion-atheism-illogical-atheist-delusion

KingEbukasBlog:


This is a blatant red herring and has absolutely nothing to do with the argument . I provided evidence from multiple sources to prove my point .

Stop regurgitating bullshiit you read somewhere in order to force a false conclusion , stay in line with the argument next time.

What "multiple sources" are you talking about?

All their claims(if you are talking about Nazarene & Ebionites) were from Eusebius.
I just gave you reasons why it might be false(coming from Eusebius), and you are hear talking trash...

If you can't defend your delusion, just say this simple words "I believe by Faith" and stop talking trash.

KingEbukasBlog:


This guy and his foolish talk . Paul was not a Gnostic neither were all the Ebionites . Stop making idiotic assumptions to sustain your delusion . I'm tired of repeating myself honestly .

Its obvious you are deluded because I have provided cogent evidence that refutes your claims .

Why was Paul not a Gnostic?

4kings:


Why was Paul not a Gnostic?

He talked about the Preeminence of Christ , the Incarnation of Christ and He experienced Christophanies . No paucity of evidence shows He is a Gnostic . Its an outlandish claim

4kings:

What "multiple sources" are you talking about?

All their claims(if you are talking about Nazarene & Ebionites) were from Eusebius.
I just gave you reasons why it might be false(coming from Eusebius), and you are hear talking trash...

If you can't defend your delusion, just say this simple words "I believe by Faith" and stop talking trash.

Eusebius came 200 years after the Ebionites and Nazarenes .

Go back to bed .

KingEbukasBlog:


He talked about the Preeminence of Christ , the Incarnation of Christ and He experienced Christophanies . No paucity of evidence shows He is a Gnostic . Its an outlandish claim

I don't think you understand basic Gnosticism very well...

A Gnostic can also come up with those same argument.

Let me ask you, what do you think Gnosticism is about?

KingEbukasBlog:


Eusebius came 200 years after the Ebionites and Nazarenes .

Go back to bed .

Just like he came years after Josephus but was the first to quote a non-existing paragraph.
You better stop posting silly rebuttals

4kings:

I don't think you understand basic Gnosticism very well...

A Gnostic can also come up with those same argument.

Let me ask you, what do you think Gnosticism is about?

Gnosticism is a dualistic movement . Just like Zoroastrianism . The dualism in Gnosticism has already rejected Paul he does not even need to reject it . And Gnosticism is kind of mystical . Almost like Esoteric Christianity

4kings:

Just like he came years after Josephus but was the first to quote a non-existing paragraph.
You better stop posting silly rebuttals

You are the one making silly presuppositions - obviously what you read somewhere without being skeptical as usual since it seems to discredit Christianity , gorged on it and regurgitating here . Trying to fit non existent evidence into what you believe .

Go and prepare for school bro

KingEbukasBlog:


Gnosticism is a dualistic movement . Just like Zoroastrianism . The dualism in Gnosticism has already rejected Paul he does not even need to reject it . And Gnosticism is kind of mystical . Almost like Esoteric Christianity

You are being dishonest.
Gnostic reference Paul in most of their teachings, I don't know what Zoroastrianism is?
Stop being dishonest.

4kings:

You are being dishonest.
Gnostic reference Paul in most of their teachings, I don't know what Zoroastrianism is?
Stop being dishonest.

Lol . Remember when you said that you don't know much about the labels you give yourself . This is one of it .

You don't even know what Gnosticism is .

Na wa oo

Dishonest ko

KingEbukasBlog:


Lol . Remember when you said that you don't know much about the labels you give yourself . This is one of it .

You don't even know what Gnosticism is .

Na wa oo

Dishonest ko

I wonder what you are referring to as Gnosticism.
Maybe this link would help you :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism_and_the_New_Testament?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C9040498400

KingEbukasBlog:


You are the one making silly presuppositions - obviously what you read somewhere without being skeptical as usual since it seems to discredit Christianity , gorged on it and regurgitating here . Trying to fit non existent evidence into what you believe .

Go and prepare for school bro

What makes them silly, replying you is actually stressing me right now.

4kings:

I wonder what you are referring to as Gnosticism.
Maybe this link would help you :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism_and_the_New_Testament?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C9040498400

There were gnostic interpretations of Paul's teachings not that Paul Himself was a Gnostic . Just like Pauline Christianity who also took teachings of Paul and made different conflations with it and the Gnostic teachings of the Gospel .

Like I earlier said , Gnosticism was dualistic . The existing realm is agathokakological - composed of good and evil . The spirit realm is good and the physical realm is evil (dualistic : opposite in nature ) . Gnostics believe that salvation is gotten through divine knowledge and Paul Himself said it was through faith by grace not by our works

Ephesians 2:8–9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Now , if the physical is evil that means Christ who came to the world is evil ? Now they circumvented this problem by saying that Christ was physical but not actually real . Then how did Christ die and resurrect if He wasn't real in the first place ?

Romans 4: 23-25

23 But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

Paul's teachings were obviously interpreted the Gnostic way just like the Gospels not that Paul himself was a Gnostic . The above verse shows clearly that Paul supported the death and resurrection of Christ that permitted the possibility of salvation not through any form of knowledge like the Gnostics believe that will save you from darkness

Last bullet :

1 Gnosticism predated Christianity and Paul warned Christians that they should not be inveigled with philosophy and empty deceit according to the elemental spirits of the world .

Colossians 2:6-8
6 Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, 7 rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.

8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits[a] of the world, and not according to Christ.

2. Gnostics believe in a lesser diety (sort of ) while Paul himself said :

Colossians 2:9
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Godhead is Theotes in Greek and it means deity - this shows Christ is the personal and bodily manifestation of all the fullness of Deity . He is God incarnate .

Paul never mentioned any lesser deity who ruled any particular realm . He saw Christ as Yahweh's equal /

KingEbukasBlog:


There were gnostic interpretations of Paul's teachings not that Paul Himself was a Gnostic . Just like Pauline Christianity who also took teachings of Paul and made different conflations with it and the Gnostic teachings of the Gospel .

So Gnosticism does not reject Paul again abi.
this boy & his wahala sef....

Like I earlier said , Gnosticism was dualistic . The existing realm is agathokakological - composed of good and evil . The spirit realm is good and the physical realm is evil (dualistic : opposite in nature ) . Gnostics believe that salvation is gotten through divine knowledge and Paul Himself said it was through faith by grace not by our works

Ephesians 2:8–9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

You're getting it wrong as usual.
Gnosticism does not subscribe to the concept of "Salvation from sin", but that through Gnosis one is free from Ignorance.
There is no Hell or Heaven here.

Now , if the physical is evil that means Christ who came to the world is evil ?

**Good and Evil planes**
You don't even understand the Gnostic Demiurge. SMH

Now they circumvented this problem by saying that Christ was physical but not actually real . Then how did Christ die and resurrect if He wasn't real in the first place ?

The death and resurrection of Jesus to Gnostics, simply explain the evolution of the soul(or consciousness), from denial or death of Ego to a rising consciousness.

Romans 4: 23-25

23 But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

Paul's teachings were obviously interpreted the Gnostic way just like the Gospels not that Paul himself was a Gnostic . The above verse shows clearly that Paul supported the death and resurrection of Christ that permitted the possibility of salvation not through any form of knowledge like the Gnostics believe that will save you from darkness

Oh Pneumatic learn to reason properly.

Last bullet :

Really?

1 Gnosticism predated Christianity and Paul warned Christians that they should not be inveigled with philosophy and empty deceit according to the elemental spirits of the world .

Colossians 2:6-8
6 Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, 7 rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.

8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits[a] of the world, and not according to Christ.

2. Gnostics believe in a lesser diety (sort of ) while Paul himself said :

Colossians 2:9
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Godhead is Theotes in Greek and it means deity - this shows Christ is the personal and bodily manifestation of all the fullness of Deity . He is God incarnate .

Paul never mentioned any lesser deity who ruled any particular realm . He saw Christ as Yahweh's equal /

One of the core beliefs of Mainstream Christianity is that Jesus Christ was qualified to be the saviour of the world because he became fully human, as shown in Hebrews2:7

“ Therefore , it was necessary for him
[ Christ] to be made in every respect like
us , his brothers and sisters…”

But this presents a silly Contradiction, when reading the scripture you posted(Col2:9), because if we are not God then Christ was not made in every respect like me, because he is God.
Comprende?

You might bring up silly argument that Jesus was both fully divine and fully human.
This does not make any sense because you would also be saying Jesus had an infinite divine mind and a finite divine mind. This is in itself contradictory again, because Flying Spaghetti Monster cannot be real and unreal at the same time.

Now let's dive in to the Gnostic interpretation of that scripture by a Gnostic Paul

In order to make sense of what that scripture was talking about==> Jesus could not be God and be like everyone else(Heb2:7), unless we are gods too.

Lets look at that scripture again from another angle.
“ For in him dwells all the fullness of
the Godhead bodily . ”

The Greek word used for the word "him" is "autos", also a reflective pronoun for the word "self"
If you put the word "the self", then you would see clearly that Paul was talking about us(the Godhead).
But wait..., Paul was obviously referring to Jesus in that verse, right?
In Gnosticism Jesus represents the Divine self in Esoteric thought.

I gave you a link where you can learn true Gnosticism, you refused to even check it out, that's why you are coming up with this silly argument.

---

Well if that was your last bullet then this case is closed.
See you in another thread.