Emmanystone:

Thanks for that. Now pls present me with the benefits i'll get from abandoning Jesus. Both short term and long term.

Perhaps one benefit for you will be that your mind will be free to grasp context and realise that that stupid request of your is not within the purview of this thread.


If you have anything more to say about the relationship between Yahoo and Enki and which is older, you're still free to present it. But please this time try to be intelligent.

PastorAIO:



Perhaps one benefit for you will be that your mind will be free to grasp context and realise that that stupid request of your is not within the purview of this thread.


If you have anything more to say about the relationship between Yahoo and Enki and which is older, you're still free to present it. But please this time try to be intelligent.

You are just making noise.

What do you have that i who believe in YHWH does not have that you need me to have? A free mind? Hahahahahahaaha. Do you have a free mind?

Fake Pastor, you have reported to your daily work, 'bantering in Nairaland', for those of us who have something doing with our lives, we live you to enjoy your atheist free mindedness.

I hope seun pays you for always being here.

Bye.

sonmvayina:



The Jesus story is a Roman story, they just gave it a jewish setting, the jews don't have the idea of God having children with himans,it is a Roman /greek idea..

If Jesus is a Roman Story which was given a Jewish setting...

Kindly explain why Paul and Peter and the other followers of Jesus were killed by this same Roman authorities...instead of being encouraged to spread this Roman Story freely around the world...

budaatum:

I'm not even going to bother! Its all 3! Do you know how difficult it is to get Dna from 2000 year old bones alone, not to talk of off clothe?

Since you're certain it's all 3...and you're more knowledgeable than the scientists in that documentary...what makes you think that the scientists and the interviewers did not consider your point of view before arriving at their conclusions?

OR do you think forensic science and archaeo-genetics has not improved and evolved to surpass that challenge?

Emmanystone:

You are just making noise.

What do you have that i who believe in YHWH does not have that you need me to have? A free mind? Hahahahahahaaha. Do you have a free mind?

Fake Pastor, you have reported to your daily work, 'bantering in Nairaland', for those of us who have something doing with our lives, we live you to enjoy your atheist free mindedness.

I hope seun pays you for always being here.

Bye.

cheerio

sonmvayina:


You are using a Roman propaganda to disprove a religious text...the new testament has got nothing to do with jews, it was the Romans who fabricated it and added it to the Tanakh of the jews to make it look like 1 religion when it is not..it is like using the Koran to disprove IFA religion...
I don't know if you understand my point. They are different religious ideas.

The Jesus story is a Roman story, they just gave it a jewish setting, the jews don't have the idea of God having children with himans,it is a Roman /greek idea..

The Tanakh was written for Judaism..in it, God is not a man or human being, Numbers23 :19, and worshipping the image of anything on heaven, on earth or under the waters bellow the earth is prohibited (2nd commandments) a man is something found on earth....so christianity is idolatry according to Judaism...

When you make these your claims, show facts to back it up. Quote Jewish authority agreeing that it was a Roman fabrication. Besides Tacitus, a roman historian won't agree with you.

Even if your claim were true, didn't you see the 1chronicle I quoted? Was it a roman fabrication too?

Emmanystone:

No, you don't make sense even to yourself.

In your omniknowitall opinion, I suppose.

budaatum:

In your omniknowitall opinion, I suppose.

That is what happens when people's minds have been purposely and systematically twisted.

If they have no money they are told to confess wealth. They will say they are rich.

If everything is falling apart around them they will confess, 'it is well'.

If their lives are nasty and sinful they will say they are righteous because of the righteousness of christ imputed to them.

This is the manifestation of this purposeful derangement of the mind. Completely ignorant they will claim wisdom.

Its really got nothing to do with science really, since there is nothing but hearsay to tie the clothe to Christ in the first place. Then consider all the other hands that touched this cloth, and the fact that it wasn't from the start preserved so dna on it can be tested. Then look at the history of Jesus' relics themselves! Here is one about the Holy Prepuce. I am certain there would be a video about it somewhere.

OkCornel:


Since you're certain it's all 3...and you're more knowledgeable than the scientists in that documentary...what makes you think that the scientists and the interviewers did not consider your point of view before arriving at their conclusions?

OR do you think forensic science and archaeo-genetics has not improved and evolved to surpass that challenge?

budaatum:
Its really got nothing to do with science really, since there is nothing but hearsay to tie the clothe to Christ in the first place. Then consider all the other hands that touched this cloth, and the fact that it wasn't from the start preserved so dna on it can be tested. Then look at the history of Jesus' relics themselves! Here is one about the Holy Prepuce. I am certain there would be a video about it somewhere.

One question...

Have you watched the step by step analysis on the piece of clothing in the documentary before concluding its a hearsay?

I just want to confirm if you have watched the video...before debunking the analysis of these experts...

OkCornel:


One question...

Have you watched the step by step analysis on the piece of clothing in the documentary before concluding its a hearsay?

I just want to confirm if you have watched the video...before debunking the analysis of these experts...

No I haven't. Told you I wouldn't. 45 minutes is precious to me to waste.

Have you researched dna on ancient relics, or human tissue? Below is a guideline for samples collected and preserved with intent to analyse the dna.

For how long can DNA forensic evidence be kept?
DNA is relatively stable. It is most likely that forensic samples collected from a rape victim will yield results: however, time factors, chemical factors (such as washing using soaps and detergents), external factors (such as temperature and humidity) and internal factors (other bodily fluids) may affect the validity of a sample. The earlier samples are collected and tested the higher the chances of yielding solid, reliable results. The following are just some guidelines as to how long different DNA samples may remain viable:

DNA from fingers in vagina — up to 12 hours.
DNA from a penis — most likely to obtain a profile from the victim within the first 12 hours.
DNA from skin to skin contact (e.g., on bruises, or from kissing) can be detected up to two days. This includes detection of body fluids, cellular material and lubricant. If by chance, the person has not bathed or showered then the Forensic Science service says that the relevant area can be swabbed up to 7 days after the incident.
Fingernail scrapings — two days.
Oral (saliva and mouth swabs) — two days.
Lubricant from a condom — up to 30 hours.
Anal — up to three days.
Vaginal — up to seven days.
Fibers of anything put on the head can last up to seven days.
Semen can be detected on clothing despite washing.

How long does DNA last from when the samples were taken?
The DNA should last up to 3 months from the time you took the samples, provided you followed our instructions and they are kept dry and at room temperature. For humid climates, the swabs should be returned immediately.

And if you got the money and the time, Exploring the limits for the survival of DNA in blood stains

budaatum:

No I haven't. Told you I wouldn't. 45 minutes is precious to me to waste.

Have you researched dna on ancient relics, or human tissue? Below is a guideline for samples collected and preserved with intent to analyse the dna.

For how long can DNA forensic evidence be kept?
DNA is relatively stable. It is most likely that forensic samples collected from a rape victim will yield results: however, time factors, chemical factors (such as washing using soaps and detergents), external factors (such as temperature and humidity) and internal factors (other bodily fluids) may affect the validity of a sample. The earlier samples are collected and tested the higher the chances of yielding solid, reliable results. The following are just some guidelines as to how long different DNA samples may remain viable:

DNA from fingers in vagina — up to 12 hours.
DNA from a penis — most likely to obtain a profile from the victim within the first 12 hours.
DNA from skin to skin contact (e.g., on bruises, or from kissing) can be detected up to two days. This includes detection of body fluids, cellular material and lubricant. If by chance, the person has not bathed or showered then the Forensic Science service says that the relevant area can be swabbed up to 7 days after the incident.
Fingernail scrapings — two days.
Oral (saliva and mouth swabs) — two days.
Lubricant from a condom — up to 30 hours.
Anal — up to three days.
Vaginal — up to seven days.
Fibers of anything put on the head can last up to seven days.
Semen can be detected on clothing despite washing.

How long does DNA last from when the samples were taken?
The DNA should last up to 3 months from the time you took the samples, provided you followed our instructions and they are kept dry and at room temperature. For humid climates, the swabs should be returned immediately.

And if you got the money and the time, Exploring the limits for the survival of DNA in blood stains

Per the bolded, if you aren't watching the video...then I guess we have nothing to discuss.

I am still asking you if you think the geneticists didn't consider all these limitations you are posting here before arriving at their conclusion...

It's a National Geographic documentary and not something extracted from a Christian blog...

Have you bothered asking how archaeo-geneticists go about getting their evidences?

OkCornel:


I am still asking you if you think the geneticists didn't consider all these limitations you are posting here before arriving at their conclusion...

Yes, I am claiming the geneticists didn't consider all these limitations before arriving at their conclusion!

Aaron Kosminski

Can we ever find Jesus's DNA? I met the scientists who are trying to find out

budaatum:

Yes, I am claiming the geneticists didn't consider all these limitations before arriving at their conclusion!

[urlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Kosminski?wprov=sfla1]Aaron Kosminski[/url]

Can we ever find Jesus's DNA? I met the scientists who are trying to find out

Interesting...so you know genetics better than the experts in that field!

Very interesting...

So how are you certain these geneticists never considered these limitations?

OkCornel:



Interesting...so you know genetics better than the experts in that field!

Very interesting...

So how are you certain these geneticists never considered these limitations?

Thought you guessed "we have nothing to discuss"?

It's not about who knows more. If there were dna available for Jesus to compare it with, can you imagine how explosive that news alone would be? I propose big enough for it to be claimed "He's alive, amen!" Then you are asking me to consider that dna found on a cloth can be, first, determined to be that of Christ after all the time and grubby hands that must have touched and deposited dna on said cloth, and second, that the cloth even had anything to do with Christ in the first place!

You are asking me to believe way too much I'm afraid.

budaatum:

Thought you guessed "we have nothing to discuss"?

It's not about who knows more. If there were dna available for Jesus to compare it with, can you imagine how explosive that news alone would be? I propose big enough for it to be claimed "He's alive, amen!" Then you are asking me to consider that dna found on a cloth can be, first, determined to be that of Christ after all the time and grubby hands that must have touched and deposited dna on said cloth, and second, that the cloth even had anything to do with Christ in the first place!

You are asking me to believe way too much I'm afraid.

Have you watched the documentary? Yes or No...


If you haven't...then you would have a tough time proving the geneticist wrong.

What makes you think what you are posting here was not considered before that conclusion was arrived at?

How many times do you want me to answer the same question? No, I have not watched the documentary. I actually tried, on consideration , but it won't play for me it seems. But that's besides the point. I've posted my arguments against it all the same and for want of listing them again - non-preservation of sample and thereby degradation, possible contamination, no Jesus dna to actually compare it to, no corroborating scientific peer reviews etc.

All that is not to claim I have proved it wrong, which I cannot do unless I have the skills to test dna myself and have access to the sample. What you are however asking me to do is believe it, and again, I say no can do, considering the weight of evidence against it likely being true.

Has anyone else watched the video please?

OkCornel:


Have you watched the documentary? Yes or No...


If you haven't...then you would have a tough time proving the geneticist wrong.

What makes you think what you are posting here was not considered before that conclusion was arrived at?

OkCornel:



3) You are right, I have also pondered on this question on how Mary could have a baby without mating...but please examine this DNA test done on the burial cloth of Jesus (by National Geographic channel), then explain to us how it is possible for a man to have 23 (x) Chromosomes traceable to the mother and no chromosomes traceable to an earthly father...then you can connect the dots from there...

The Blood of Christ

Trace the blood stained Shroud of Oviedo to Israel in a quest to determine whether it holds Christ's DNA, and in a most chilling discovery, finds that it contains no evidence of a father's DNA.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/videos/the-blood-of-christ/




GayJesus... examine the persuasive evidence based on the DNA test performed in the link above (a 20-25 minutes documentary) before concluding;

budaatum:

Has anyone else watched the video please?

Oh my God, this is so funny. Actually it is quite sad but my sense of humour is twisted so I laugh.

It's such a shame that you can't watch the video mr Budaatum.

The conclusion of the video is that they cannot get the full sequence of the samples nucleic DNA but only the sequence of the Mitochondrial DNA.

This is very basic secondary school biology. Mitochondria are organisms that live symbiotically in our cells are provide us with energy. They have their own dna separate from ours.

It is also a known fact that Men do not pass on their mitochondrial dna to their offspring, only mothers do. So we all got our mitochondria from our mothers.

Not only Jesus, but EVERYBODY'S mitochondria was passed on only from their mother. If the only dna they could extract from the Sudarium sample was from the mitochondria then it could only have been passed on through the mother.



Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is genetic material found in mitochondria. It is passed down from mothers to both sons and daughters, but sons cannot pass along their mothers' mtDNA to their children. This is because mtDNA is transmitted through the female egg. ... You inherited your mtDNA exclusively from your mother.
Mitochondrial DNA Explained - Phillips DNA Project
https://phillipsdnaproject.com/faq-sections/144-mitochondrial-dna-explained

The work, published in this month's issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution, challenges traditional explanations of how the ancestors of mitochondria first entered our cells between one and a half and two billion years ago. It also sheds new light on a process recognised as one of the major transitions in the history of life on earth.

"Our results challenge the paradigm - shown in every biology textbook - that mitochondria were passive bacteria gobbled up by a primordial cell," says co-author Dr Nathan Lo from the University of Sydney's School of Biological Sciences.

"We have found instead that the mitochondrial ancestor most likely had a flagellum, so was able to move, and possibly acted as a parasite, rather than prey, on early eukaryotic cells," added Dr Lo, who collaborated with scientists from Italy and Spain on the research.

Eukaryotes include all forms of animal and plant life on earth that are more complex than bacteria. They differ from simpler life forms because their cells have both a nucleus and mitochondria, which are like little batteries that generate energy to power the cell.

https://www.sciencealert.com/star-wars-inspired-bacterium-provides-glimpse-into-life

The research quoted above suggests that Mitochondria invaded our cells rather than that our cells ingested them. Either way, they ended up being very good for us because they provided us with the energy we use.

PastorAIO:





Oh my God, this is so funny. Actually it is quite sad but my sense of humour is twisted so I laugh.

It's such a shame that you can't watch the video mr Budaatum.

The conclusion of the video is that they cannot get the full sequence of the samples DNA but only the sequence of the Mitochondrial DNA.

Actually, I am surprised that NatGeo ended the video right there where the guy says it's only mitochondrial dna and doesn't go on to explain it. NatGeo is obviously just trying to be Sensational. This is quite sad. I know they've been struggling to make money and had to be bought by Rupert Murdoch but this kind of misleading sensationalism is just beneath them. Murdoch might be influencing them with his style of journalism, the Clickbait technique.
You know, when you read the headlines of an article and it is so sensational you buy the paper only to read the full article and realize that it is not saying what the headline is suggesting.

OkCornel:


If Jesus is a Roman Story which was given a Jewish setting...

Kindly explain why Paul and Peter and the other followers of Jesus were killed by this same Roman authorities...instead of being encouraged to spread this Roman Story freely around the world...

For a start, those are not Jewish names... The Jewish knows too well that God is not a man or human being..
Credit should go to Eusebius, he also forged the Christian history..

sonmvayina:


For a start, those are not Jewish names... The Jewish knows too well that God is not a man or human being..
Credit should go to Eusebius, he also forged the Christian history..

When will all these claim of yours end?

PastorAIO:


Actually, I am surprised that NatGeo ended the video right there where the guy says it's only mitochondrial dna and doesn't go on to explain it. NatGeo is obviously just trying to be Sensational. This is quite sad. I know they've been struggling to make money and had to be bought by Rupert Murdoch but this kind of misleading sensationalism is just beneath them. Murdoch might be influencing them with his style of journalism, the Clickbait technique.
You know, when you read the headlines of an article and it is so sensational you buy the paper only to read the full article and realize that it is not saying what the headline is suggesting.

No need to be disappointed...besides the scientist clearly stated that it was mitochondrial DNA that was tested...the documentary further stated that forensic analysis needs to be done on the nuclear DNA...

Now that you have watched the documentary and hastily concluded that NatGeo is sensational...there's another video I am going to post which continues from NatGeo stopped on their analysis...however, the source of the DNA is also from Golgotha (where the ark of the covenant was claimed to be buried years before the crucifixion of Jesus)...

Thankfully this one is less than 10 minutes... I need to check my archives for it...

JMAN05:


When will all these claim of yours end?

My brother...it is well...

Let's engage him in further conversations...just to understand his point of view

sonmvayina:


For a start, those are not Jewish names... The Jewish knows too well that God is not a man or human being..
Credit should go to Eusebius, he also forged the Christian history..

Whether they are Jewish names or not is not the bone of contention here...what we are discussing here is why these men were slaughtered by the roman authorities for spreading the teachings of Jesus...which according to you is a ROMAN STORY which was given a Jewish setting...



Let me ask you, if Paul and Peter never existed (i.e. forged by Eusebius)...then tell us those whom Emperor Nero blamed and killed for the fire that burnt most of Rome...

or lemme guess... Nero was also forged and he never existed?

PastorAIO:


Actually, I am surprised that NatGeo ended the video right there where the guy says it's only mitochondrial dna and doesn't go on to explain it. NatGeo is obviously just trying to be Sensational. This is quite sad. I know they've been struggling to make money and had to be bought by Rupert Murdoch but this kind of misleading sensationalism is just beneath them. Murdoch might be influencing them with his style of journalism, the Clickbait technique.
You know, when you read the headlines of an article and it is so sensational you buy the paper only to read the full article and realize that it is not saying what the headline is suggesting.

I have known NatGeo to be clickbait for quite a while now and Murdoch's ownership has simply dragged it further into the gutter. I just did not want to include that in my argument against since I hadn't actually watched the video. It is a pity as it used to have an amazing reputation for credibility.

Please comment on how the dna tested was found to be that of Jesus, in the first place, and how they avoided contamination.

OkCornel:


No need to be disappointed...besides the scientist clearly stated that it was mitochondrial DNA that was tested...the documentary further stated that forensic analysis needs to be done on the nuclear DNA...

Since you too know that it was only mitochondrial dna tested and mitochondrial dna is only received from the mother how can you take seriously a video that claims:


Trace the blood stained Shroud of Oviedo to Israel in a quest to determine whether it holds Christ's DNA, and in a most chilling discovery, finds that it contains no evidence of a father's DNA.


Even repeating it. Is it not disingenuous? Are you not exposing yourself to be a disingenuous person?

Your mitochondrial dna has no evidence of a father's dna. My mitochondrial dna has not evidence of a father's dna. Are you Jesus? Am I Jesus?
Is everybody in the world, including plants and bacteria, Jesus?

What is so 'chilling' about anybody's mitochondrial dna having no evidence of a father's dna?

OkCornel:


Now that you have watched the documentary and hastily concluded that NatGeo is sensational...

The conclusion is not hasty. Unless you can tell me what is Chilling about having no trace of your father in your mitochondria then that word 'chilling' is being Sensational.

These are the sources that your faith is based on. That is why you will always be derided by educated people when you try to preach.

I also noticed that the scientists words were heavily edited in the video. Why would they do that?

PastorAIO:


Since you too know that it was only mitochondrial dna tested and mitochondrial dna is only received from the mother how can you take seriously a video that claims:


Trace the blood stained Shroud of Oviedo to Israel in a quest to determine whether it holds Christ's DNA, and in a most chilling discovery, finds that it contains no evidence of a father's DNA.


Even repeating it. Is it not disingenuous? Are you not exposing yourself to be a disingenuous person?

Your mitochondrial dna has no evidence of a father's dna. My mitochondrial dna has not evidence of a father's dna. Are you Jesus? Am I Jesus?
Is everybody in the world, including plants and bacteria, Jesus?

What is so 'chilling' about anybody's mitochondrial dna having no evidence of a father's dna?



The conclusion is not hasty. Unless you can tell me what is Chilling about having no trace of your father in your mitochondria then that word 'chilling' is being Sensational.

These are the sources that your faith is based on. That is why you will always be derided by educated people when you try to preach.

I also noticed that the scientists words were heavily edited in the video. Why would they do that?

Ah...there we go again...leaving the subject of discussion now to claim I am a disingenuous person?


Are we here to talk about the evidence or whether I am a disingenuous person?

By the way, the NatGeo documentary the first of two videos I am putting here...Thankfully it was clearly stated in the video by the scientist that mitochondrial DNA was tested...and nuclear DNA is undergoing further analysis... so therefore...you haven't said anything new...

Can you be patient enough for me to post the other video or would you rather leave the subject of discussion to shout I am being disingenuous?

I am not surprised at your reaction anyways... it's quite predictable...

OkCornel:




Are we here to talk about the evidence or whether I am a disingenuous person?

What evidence? What evidence do you want to talk about? What 'chilling' discovery is in the video?

That mitochondria has no traces of a father's dna? That is chilling evidence for you?

If I say your brain cannot function anymore you will say I'm leaving the topic of the thread to talk about your brain.

This is the type of desperate nonsense that you'll probably come up with.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZnxbiRulIw&t=140s







https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsS5x9_DitU&t=354s

PastorAIO:


What evidence? What evidence do you want to talk about? What 'chilling' discovery is in the video?

That mitochondria has no traces of a father's dna? That is chilling evidence for you?

If I say your brain cannot function anymore you will say I'm leaving the topic of the thread to talk about your brain.

Per the part of your quote I bolded, you can slug it out with NatGeo... that was how they presented the video...and I posted it here...

And what does my brain have to do with this discussion?

PastorAIO:
This is the type of desperate nonsense that you'll probably come up with.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZnxbiRulIw&t=140s







https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsS5x9_DitU&t=354s

Aha...and what about them? What have you discovered about them to counter their position?

OkCornel:




And what does my brain have to do with this discussion?

Nothing, apparently!!