Nairaland Forum

Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / Login / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 1225076 members, 1602913 topics. Date: Thursday, 21 August 2014 at 11:10 AM

View PastorAIO's Posts

Nairaland Forum / PastorAIO's Profile / PastorAIO's Posts

(0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (of 158 pages)

Religion / Re: What Is Atheist's Moral Grounding? by PastorAIO: 10:38pm On Aug 20

If you don't fear anything in life, i beg you in the name of all that is good to PLEASE fear the bolded in any religious person you come across!

That "ought-ness" has led to the death of over a hundred million native Americans, millions of jews in the dark ages, and several pagan communities all over Europe (directly or indirectly)!

My 2kobo !

That 3rd voice of 'Oughtness' is more prone to saying, "Don't help him, his a muslim/pagan/jew and he ought to die". More times than not people have overridden their God given natural altruistic instincts and opted to obey the Nasty Evil voice of Oughtness.

What about the 3rd voice of Oughtness that says, "Listen to the first voice of Altruism because that was given to you to guide you in Love for your neighbours."
Religion / Re: Paul: The False Apostle by PastorAIO: 10:32pm On Aug 20
thorpido: What has christianity done?I'm sure your parents attended missionary schools even if you didn't and they are the main reason why you can even type on the keyboard as you've just done.
You can stick with what you know but don't rubbish what you have no understanding of.

Perhaps you should convert to Islam. After all it is from the Arabs and the Moors that Europeans, your teachers, got their education and scientific knowledge. Even the numerals that you use to do simple 1 plus 1 equals 2, which I believe we all learnt in school, this was given to us by the muslim arabs. So if Education was your reason for becoming a christian then kuku go to the source and convert to islam.
Religion / Re: What Is Atheist's Moral Grounding? by PastorAIO: 4:48pm On Aug 18
Joshthefirst: The question is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

If you won't believe foundational basic things, why should I waste my time?

Religion / Re: What Is Atheist's Moral Grounding? by PastorAIO: 11:38am On Aug 08
He won't understand what you are getting at here. He has lost the capability. He's literally given up the ability to make ethical and moral considerations for himself and it shows in his character.


This right here is the 'highest' form of morality.
Tell me, Ola, do you do good because you fear hell and hope for a reward, or because it is the right thing to do?

This is why I contend that atheists--("baby killers", "godless people", "infidels"-- are more moral than theists is because they do good out of fear and greed. Fear of eternal punishment, and greed for everlasting life. I'm sure if they were told there was no "hell" or "heaven" Christian, Muslims, --theists, -- will show their true colors. Even now they believe in the sky daddy (god), sky fairies (angels) and heaven and hell, they are still more immoral than we heathens.

Einstein said it best:
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. ..."
- Albert Einstein, quoted in: All the Questions You Ever Wanted to Ask American Atheists, by Madalyn Murray O'Hair

Survey reveals only 0.02% of prisoners identify as atheists not 2% not 0.2% but 0.02% guess who makes up the remaining 99.98%? shocked
That is, 2 people in 10, 000. and we are the bad people? undecided

1 Like

Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 1:44am On Aug 07
maestroferddi: My man give it up. You have been found out! [b]You said Luke's theology and that of Paul in Galatians were conflicting. [/b ]You did say both Paul and Luke cannot both be correct. When I painstakingly demonstrated the full import of your assertions, you derisively branded my effort an English lesson and then surreptitiously smuggled in a belated face-saving reference to the church in Galatia . Tell me you are kidding me!

Meanwhile check out the addendum in my last post. Was omitted when my device ran out of power..

Give what up exactly! And still you haven't answered any of the questions I've asked.

Are you know hallucinating? Where did I say that Luke's theology and that of Paul in Galatians were conflicting? Are you actually reading this thread?

You presented an english lesson to demonstrate that Conflict means contradiction which is a total load of rubbish and shows that perhaps you don't even understand english too well, or are being disingenuous. All the while you did that you were hoping that you could avoid the actual issue under discussion and the questions I asked. Further more , as if to expose yourself, you then accused me of playing musical chairs and shifting the goalposts which of course we all now know is your psychological projections which is a natural reaction to being under pressure.
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 12:53am On Aug 07
maestroferddi: Oga I may have to exit this interchange if you continue slouching behind. Paul quoted Epimenides: how? Can you build a watertight case? The Bible was written by men under divine inspiration. There were no need to seek authentication from unreliable human narratives. You can do better than to default to wild assumptions and extrapolation by providing conclusive proofs.

In Titus Chapter 1 Paul says:

12One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons.

I've pointed out that the Cretan Prophet he was quoting is Epimenides, who said this:

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.

— Epimenides, Cretica

A Cretan Prophet called Epimenides wrote a poem called the Cretica. Paul quotes a line verbatim from the poem and furthermore affirms that it comes from a Cretan prophet. I don't know how much more watertight you need. Although I suspect you will still say that it is not proof enough.
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 12:49am On Aug 07
maestroferddi: I still maintain that you are playing a game of musical chairs.

You thought you could pull a fast stunt on us by playing with nuanced adjectives viz polemical and conflicting. Two adjectives that on the surface look neutral but nonetheless have negative connotations.

Oxford Advance Learners Dictionary - 8th Edition, pp 304 & 1131:

Conflict (verb): conflict (with something) if two ideas, beliefs, stories etc conflict, it is impossible for them to exist together or for both to be true.
Synonym: clash
Example Sentences: conflicting emotions/interests/loyalties * These results conflict with earlier findings * Reports conflicted with on how much of the aid was reaching the famine victims *

Polemical (adjective) <formal>: involving strong argument for and against sth, often in opposition to the opinion of others.

If the foregoing is not contradiction, then you tell me what is!

So we are now doing english lessons!! shocked

Contradiction refers to two statements that negate each other. There is conflict in the middle east. There isn't a contradiction in the middle east, there is a conflict. These two words are very different. Stop squirming.

There is nothing neutral about polemics, or conflict. They both mean 'negative' things. I don't disagree with you, and there is no fast one that I'm pulling. Paul's letter to the galatians was polemical. if you see that as negative that is your problem. The fact is that it was polemical and it addressed a conflict that was going on in the church in Galatia. I'm not trying to be 'neutral', I'm stating facts. Can you deal with them?

I notice in all your 'English lesson' that you've failed to answer any of my questions. If you know you can't answer it then just take your leave from this thread. Otherwise answer. Let me repeat these ones:

As regards the 'most effective methodology to achieve maximum results', what exactly are the results that you think that Paul is aiming for? And do you really support a 'by any means necessary' approach? What about lying and stealing? if they are the most effective methods to achieve your aims then would it be alright to employ them?
Religion / Re: How Does The Translation Process Impact The Inspiration, Inerrancy Of The Bible? by PastorAIO: 4:37pm On Aug 06

I have said from the onset of this thread that translations are not inerrant the autographs are. Below is a quote that answers your query.

Even then this does not help your case as we do not have the Autographs. So therefore, nothing that we have today can be considered the inerrant text.

That quote you posted is nothing but pure speculation with next to no basis.
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 3:35pm On Aug 06
maestroferddi: You keep introducing introducing extraneous issues that could lead our veer off the issue at hand.

Like what? Where is the extraneous issue? What is the issue at hand for you?

Yes, an Ifa worshipper, a Hinduist, Greek pagan or a Buddhists can all make the statement alluding to their concept of higher being(s) each time. But are they right? The answer is a resounding No. They all have an inkling of supreme being(s) but their apparent knowledge is a grievous IGNORANCE. Note that Paul accentuated the foregoing in V22. He was like, you guys have the spiritual consciousness of God but you clearly do not know how to access Him. That is why you dub Him "UNKNOWN". If you had known how to find Him, you would have gone to Jerusalem because salvation is of the Jews. If you had gone to Jerusalem, you would have heard of the ministry of Jesus. But alas, you did not make the sojourn! Now here I am, Paul, to give you guys with THE answer to the very God you guys have been seeking to know. And he proceeded to explain...
If an Ifa priest, for example, makes a statement calling his god kind and benevolent; does it mean a Christian who wants to praise God cannot use the preceding phrase while alluding to the Almighty God?
Thankfully, they did not address the statement to Zeus. They dedicated it to an UNKNOWN GOD. In order words, they disowned Zeus (assuming in the unlikely case they did subvert Zeus' worship/obeisance to Almighty God). Since Zeus couldn't do anything about it , I don't see why it should be an issue or are you fighting for Zeus?
Is the so-called verse from Epeminides different from a typical worshipful line? The problem you have is that Epeminides was quoted to have made it. Well, Pharaoh could also have made it thousands of years earlier. By the same token, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or Moses could have made it to the Almighty God without your knowing. Position: statement is a mundane devotional/supplicatory line. You cannot prove that it was first made to Zeus.
The same logic applies to the statement about Cretans...

Why would an Ifa worshipper, a Hindu etc by wrong? Why a resounding no? Please explain.

Who is not Grievously ignorant of God? Are we not all looking through a glass, darkly? Did Paul ever claim absolute knowledge? Or did he say 'whether there be knowledge it will vanish away'?

That we cannot know God absolutely is attested to in many religions and cultures. In Egypt they worshipped Amun as 'The Hidden One'. In Rabbinical traditions they still insist that God is beyond our grasp.

The rest of your arguments are based on sheer speculations. How do I know that someone else didn't say those phrases before epimenides? I don't know. And neither do you? But if you want to base your argument on what we don't know rather than on the information available to us then that is your choice. I'm not down with wild speculations. At least not on this matter. Many on another topic if you get me in the right mood then we can speculate on what we don't actually know until the cows come home.
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 3:14pm On Aug 06
maestroferddi: Maybe you also need to show that being polemical equates to being contradictory. Paul was entitled to deployed the most effective methodology to achieve maximum results. I don't see anything wrong with that provided he was not contradicting existing scriptures.

Na wa for this your style of conversation. Please where did you see the world 'contradictory' in any of my posts and what was it in reference to?

I spoke of 'conflict'. At least you agree that galatians is polemical, so therefore there must have been conflict. Let's not shift the goal post from conflict to 'contradictory'.

(aside: why is it that certain people do something and straightaway they accuse everybody else of doing that very thing that they are doing while seemingly oblivious to the fact that they are the worst culprit of that thing they are complaining about? This matter of psychological projects is really terrible on Nairaland.)

As regards the 'most effective methodology to achieve maximum results', what exactly are the results that you think that Paul is aiming for? And do you really support a 'by any means necessary' approach? What about lying and stealing? if they are the most effective methods to achieve your aims then would it be alright to employ them?
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 12:11pm On Aug 06
maestroferddi: Conflict or contradiction? Please may we know what you deem conflicting?

The whole of the letter of Galatians and it's polemical tone is enough for you to know that there was conflict in the early church between Paul and the Church in Jerusalem.
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 12:01pm On Aug 06

The syncretism charge must be such that the practice is alien to Pre-Paul Christianity or that a particular practice is not in line with the bible. From my explanation, there is nothing untoward in Paul's conduct in the cases reviewed.

You're getting the wrong end of the stick. I never said that syncretism was a bad thing or was wrong. If you look at many of my posts on Nairaland and many of the reactions against me it has been often the accusations of syncretism, though maybe not in those words exactly. While I've often argued that it is the same religious truth articulated variously by various cultures.
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 11:51am On Aug 06
maestroferddi: You are shifting the goalposts.

From where to where? Nothing has shifted, if you've seen any shifts please point out exactly where it is shifting.

Let us take it one thing at a time: Can the "a" part of Acts17:28 be legitimately applied to God? In other words, can a christian make that devotional sentence without sounding paganistic? If your answer is a yes, then the charge of syncretism falls on its face.
If it is a no, then you need to tell us why. Is that sentence not universal, religion speaking?

Can an Ifa worshipper make that statement? Can an hindu make that statement? Can a Greek pagan make the statement? Can a christian make the statement? If the answer to all of these is yes then it's open season for Syncretism.

If they make that statement knowing that it is a reference to the Greek God Zeus then the case for syncretism is pretty much an established fact.

Now your major grouse is apparently to the reference to poets. If you start from V22, Paul hinted on the superstition of the Athenians and the fact that were seeking God ignorantly.
Now the assumption that the unknown God must be Zeus is your own invention. Zeus has a name so the allusion to him is, at best, an unfounded allegation.

No, it is not my invention. You need to look up the verses by Epimenides. And also by Callimarchus. I'll quote it out for you here:

Epimenides was a 6th-century BC philosopher and religious prophet who, against the general sentiment of Crete, proposed that Zeus was immortal, as in the following poem:

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.

— Epimenides, Cretica

Denying the immortality of Zeus, then, was the lie of the Cretans.

The phrase "Cretans, always liars" was quoted by the poet Callimachus in his Hymn to Zeus, with the same theological intent as Epimenides:

O Zeus, some say that thou wert born on the hills of Ida;
Others, O Zeus, say in Arcadia;
Did these or those, O Father lie? -- “Cretans are ever liars.”
Yea, a tomb, O Lord, for thee the Cretans builded;
But thou didst not die, for thou art for ever.

— Callimachus, Hymn I to Zeus

Those words were taken straight out of the Hymn to Zeus. So you see, I'm not just inventing things by bring up Zeus. Those two phrases, 1)Cretans are always Liars, and 2) In whom we live move and have our being, are taken straight from Poems written by prophets of Zeus in honour of Zeus.
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 11:57pm On Aug 05
They fashioned a tomb for you, holy and high one,
Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies.
But you are not dead: you live and abide forever,
For in you we live and move and have our being.
- Epimenides

It is also a common accusation thrown at christians from pagans in the Roman empire that the Christians were saying nothing new.

When we call Christ the Logos, do we mean that in the sense that the Greeks understood the term or is there another sense in which we understand the word Logos?

So we find Christianity all over the pagan world, the only difference is that the concepts have been given new names but a rose by any other name will smell just as sweet.
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 11:52pm On Aug 05
maestroferddi: I am still finding your logic pretty nebulous. Are you saying Paul should have preached a different message since there was a subsisting legend on the death and resurrection of Zeus? Did Paul substitute Zeus for Jesus or make any kind of obeisance to Zeus? What do you really understand by syncretism? I think some understanding of demonology will come handy to you.

You are leaping to abrupt conclusions on the Athenian spectacle. Paul never coveted a heathen shrine. When he got to Mars Hill, he saw a SIGN marked with the inscription: "TO AN UNKNOWN GOD". Now, who is the unknown God? He definitely cannot be Satan. Satan invariably has an identity. If you view religion from the God-Satan dialectic or good-evil relationship, you would see that what is not of Satan must be of God as the two are the only forces in contention. Compare the foregoing with the statement Jesus made that those who are not against Him must be for Him.

If I meet a man who believes God exists but is trying to access Him via a wrong channel or who doesn't know how to access God, am I suppose to refute the very existence of God and manufacture a new one? No, that would be counter-productive. What Paul did was to confirm the existence of God but declaim the only means of accessing Him which is via Jesus Christ. There is nothing syncretic about that!


Syncretism /ˈsɪŋkrətɪzəm/ is the combining of different, often seemingly contradictory beliefs, while melding practices of various schools of thought. Syncretism involves the merger and analogizing of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths.

Who is the God in whom we live and Move and have our Being? Ask any Christian today and he will say Jesus. Ask any Hellenic pagan and he will say Zeus.

By quoting from a prophet of Zeus that all Cretans are liars he is making a very direct reference to Zeus. In the Hellenic world in which he lived that would be totally unmistaken. By claiming that that was the God that he was preaching it cannot be seen as anything less than syncretism.

Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Who were the Greek poets talking about? Who is it that 'we are all also his offspring.'?

The Greek poets state quite explicitly that it is zeus.
Religion / Re: Will God's Chosen People Do This ? ( Graphic ) by PastorAIO: 9:50pm On Aug 05

Okay i agree but please explain this,_2014.

Palestine has fired over 3055 rocket bomb into isreal just from january to july alone, Nobody complained, Isreal retaliate, everybody is complaining.

Palestine know isreal is stronger but they keep on looking for trouble, Isreal kept quiet till late July. Even countries that are not as powerful as isreal would have retaliated since. Just imagine one rocket bomb is sent from Nigeria to Russia, what do you think would happen immediately?

I don't need to explain anything. Someone asked how the conflict started this time around and I told them that it is over the death of 3 kids and there was no proof that the palestinians had anything to do with it.

If you want to start dragging the entire history of the conflict into it then we should go back to 1947 when Israel was formed. But that's not even the subject of this thread although you are free to open a thread on that issue.

1 Like

Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 9:46pm On Aug 05
maestroferddi: We really need to cut Apostle Paul some slack. In paganism just like other religions, there abound some moral truths. The question then is whether we expect Apostle Paul and other christian leaders/writers to stand the truth on its head just because a particular religion was the first to make a particular assertion or statement of truth.

This isn't just a small matter of some moral truths. The prophecy that Paul was quoting was about the supposed death and resurrection of Zeus. Unless you want to equate Zeus with Jesus. this is not just a matter of Moral truths. This is a matter of syncretism.

Paul does it again in Athens when he tells the citizens that a shrine that he found in Athens was the shrine of the God that he is preaching to them.
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 9:43pm On Aug 05
maestroferddi: I honestly cannot see your point. The primary human validator of Paul's apostleship/discipleship was Ananias, a reputed prophet and, to some extent, Barnabas, an able disciple. Paul's meeting with Peter and the rest cannot be to validate his office as an apostle because we should suppose that the witness and reputation of Ananias ought to have gotten to their knowledge. Paul had a direct instruction of the mode and means of his ministry so I really do not see where the need to be tied to the apron strings of Peter and the rest arose. Paul and Barnabas/Silas met with the rest as the occasion called like the council in Jerusalem.

My point is that there is a discontinuity between the Early Church before Paul and the Teachings of Paul. This caused a lot of friction in those days. Hence the polemical nature of a lot of Paul's letters, especially Galatians. In acts there isn't a single whiff of this conflict and it is made to seem as if Paul blended in with the other christians.
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 8:29pm On Aug 05
I thank you for you response because I truly did not know that Arabia was a region that encompassed Jordan and up to Damascus in Syria.

However having said that there still remains the points as follows. Luke is trying to demonstrate a connection between Paul's Ministry and the rest of the Church while Paul himself is trying in his letter to the galatians to distance himself from Jerusalem and thus to throw off any authority that they may be seen to have over him.

Whether we can connect Luke's 'Certain Days' with Paul's '3 years' and say that they refer to the same time period would depend on knowledge of Luke's colloquialisms and use of language. I don't have that kind of knowledge but in my own experience when a period is measured in days, even if they were talking about very many days I would not imagine that they were talking about a period of years.

Paul insists that he did not confer with anybody but went to Arabia. Luke says he met with Ananias who gave him back his sight and he met other christians. We agree that he only later went to Jerusalem and had started to preach before he went there. The bottom-line is that Paul is claiming an independent inspiration while Luke fits him in the milieu of other christians before him.


2 Corinthians 11:32-33King James Version (KJV)
32 In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me

Aretas was in Damascus in Paul's day. That's the first aspect. Secondly, the capital of then Arabia was Petra. Petra was occupied by Nabataeans (at the north) that live in modern day Jordan. At their peak they extended from Dedan into Damascus (1 BC), meaning that Damascus had to be inside the whole of Arabia that also encompassed Jordan.

Luke said he spent certain days in Damascus with the disciples in verse 19. He did this till verse 22. Then he went into the northern (rural areas) of Arabia. This is where the Galatians 1:17 account happened. He spent "many days" here before returning again to Damascus.

17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

For him to 'return again' to Damascus it implies that he must have been there before going to Arabia which is what I said earlier.

When he returned to Damascus after many days and when he had to be helped out of Damascus due to the plot till he got to Jerusalem took about 3 years in total. That's why I said it is difficult to ascertain how the stay was apportioned between Arabia and Damascus. We know it took 3 years altogether. Then he got to Jerusalem. It adds up.

Religion / Re: How Does The Translation Process Impact The Inspiration, Inerrancy Of The Bible? by PastorAIO: 7:55pm On Aug 05

You would soon realise that you are the one on a slimy, slippery slope when I show you how you have just shot yourself in the foot, again.

What does Mark 1:2 actually say?

"As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before your face, which shall prepare your way before you" (Mark 1:2)

Where did this verse quote Isaiah? It says clearly here that "as it is written in the prophets" Mark quotes Malachi 3:1 as you have said but where did you see Mark attributing it to Isaiah? [/b]If Mark quoted Isaiah at all it will be in verse 3 where he quoted Isaiah 40:3. Malachi and Isaiah both prophesied many centuries in advance, of the coming of John the Baptist as the forerunner of our Lord Jesus Christ. There's no other book ever written that contains specifically fulfilled prophecies as the Bible, yet the Bible contains hundreds of such. Divine inspiration is the only reasonable explanation.

Now that you have been shown to be the one who misquoted the Bible would you now eat your humble pie and apologise?

Now that you have been exposed for being a fraud and a would you have the courtesy to apologise and repent for accusing God for making mistakes? undecided

Mark 1:2 quote Isaiah the prophet in every translation of the bible except for One, namely,[b] King James Version
. It was deliberately changed in KJV because they were aware that Mark had got it wrong. Every other bible sticks true to what Mark says and so does every ancient manuscript that I am aware of.

Which brings us to a fine point that tallies with the subject of this thread. The matter of translations and their authenticity. If the translators of KJV can adjust the text to iron out what they perceive as errors then where else have they fiddled with the text to fit in with their agendas?
Religion / Re: Problems With Biblical Inerrancy by PastorAIO: 11:49pm On Aug 01
Kay17: The divine inspiration of the bible is very difficult to pinpoint especially when there is no criteria dictated by an external source other than the bible.

Well, the church would be such an external source.


Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 10:05pm On Aug 01

I'd let you have your laughs. Done? The scripture you posted said Arabian desert. Please bear it in mind.

Arabia at the point of discourse included all the kingdom of Aretas from Damascus and Eastern Jordan. It even stretched into Edom that resided southwise. When Paul differentiates between Arabia and Damascus is to show that he wasn't in Damascus the whole 3 years. We don't know how long he spent in the Arabia aspect (north area) before going back to the Damascus. We know that altogether he spent 3 years at Arabia and Damascus meaning he received his revelations in the North of Arabia then he preached to people around there for a bit. After thence he went back to Damascus from whence he originally received his sight from. All this he did before going to Jerusalem to meet the Apostles.

In a nutshell, he met Jesus at the Arabian desert (still in old Arabia), went into the Damascus region of Arabia and received his sight, started preaching as he drifted towards North Arabia (densely populated), he received more revelations, came back to Damascus (hence the 'returned again' part in Galatians), confounded Jews (as a result), fled because they tried to kill him and headed to Jerusalem.

No, I'm not quite satisfied. Can you provide evidence that Arabia included all the land from Damascus and Eastern Jordan? Where did you get that information from?

He said he spent 3 years in Arabia but Luke said in Acts that he only spent a few days with the disciples in Damascus before he went to Jerusalem. The two sources do not tally. 3 years is a big difference from a few days no matter how much anyone can try to spin it.

And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and he arose and was baptized; 19and he took food and was strengthened. And he was certain days with the disciples that were at Damascus. 20And straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God. 21And all that heard him were amazed, and said, Is not this he that in Jerusalem made havoc of them that called on this name? and he had come hither for this intent, that he might bring them bound before the chief priests. 22But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews that dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is the Christ. 23And[b] when many days were fulfilled[/b], the Jews took counsel together to kill him: 24but their plot became known to Saul. And they watched the gates also day and night that they might kill him: 25but his disciples took him by night, and let him down through the wall, lowering him in a basket. 26And when he was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: and they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple.

This story does not suggest that Paul went to any Arabia, even if the Arabia was just next door to Damascus. He was in Damascus for some certain days preaching and then he escaped and went to Jerusalem.
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 8:13pm On Aug 01

Case dismissed then. BTW, Jesus' teachings were largely to a Jewish crowd and he employed Jewish teachings to pass his message. Paul's was to Gentiles and would have been amiss to use the same "Jewish teachings" to pass his truths- the very truths he got from "Jesus himself". In Paul's own words- I was everything to everyone so that by every means I could win some.

The point that I think that you are raising is a very important point. Paul didn't use Jewish teachings to convert Gentiles. In fact he taught the gospel in the terminology of Greek religion, using phrases and quotes from Greek prophets and poets. This can be similar to what the missionaries in africa did when they called Esu Satan and they called Eledumare the Christian. But in the end are you really teaching christianity if you are couching it in the terms of another religion or culture and distorting both cultures and religions at the same time. Why Can't Satan just be Satan? Why do they have to conflate it with Esu?

Paul tried to pull this stunt of in Athens but got laughed out of the city. He saw a shrine to a God called the Unknown God and would you believe what he did? He claimed that the God that he is preaching is that Unknown God that the Athenians were worshipping. Can you imagine what the jews would have thought of him going to a foreign land and equating a shrine he saw there with the God of Israel?

By being all things to all people you end up conflating everything.
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 8:02pm On Aug 01

Paul on getting converted on his way passed through Arabia (which is very much en route to Damascus) before getting to Damascus. In that Journey and after getting healed by Ananias Paul began preaching the revelations he got from Jesus to everyone he could see in Damascus. The revelations were that the gentiles had access to salvation through grace by having faith In Jesus. This offended the Jews who planned to kill him. Paul then escaped to Jerusalem where he then met and conferred with the "Apostles". He didn't go to the Apostles after being converted.

Hope this answers you.

If I pretend not to laugh it could be construed as insulting or condescending so I'll blurt it out. My guy, Damascus is in Syria which is north of palestine. Arabia is South of Palestine. You cannot pass through arabia on your way to Damascus from Jerusalem. I'll be honest with you I am laughing right here, I'm sorry. You said that without batting an eyelid!

Secondly Paul said that he was in Arabia for 3 years. Was he blind all those 3 years? Remember it was Ananias in Damascus that baptized Paul. Was Paul therefore in Arabia unbaptized for three years and blind?

Conclusion, you have not reconciled the discrepancy in the story. Do you want to have another go?
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 7:00pm On Aug 01

Simple comprehension sir. Even the aspects you emboldened give you away. After Paul's encounter with Jesus he went to damascus and met with THE DISCIPLES THAT WERE THERE. The account doesn't say he met with the "Apostles". For example, Ananias was one of such disciples that he met there.

After Paul received the Holy Spirit he began preaching the gospel to people he could see in the Synagogues in damascus- mostly Jews. The account clearly states that after MANY DAYS the Jews then sought to kill him so he was aided out of damascus. Between verse 25 to 26 was the time it took Paul to travel to Jerusalem where Barnabas helped introduce him to the APOSTLES as well as other DISCIPLES. So when Paul said "none of them added to his message" in Galatians he was right because he had already started preaching his gospel of grace in Damascus before he ever met the APOSTLES in Jerusalem. Remember this took a long time to happen. So don't confuse yourself.

I will do justice to other aspects you posted when I am afforded the time.

Simple comprehension sir! I didn't say anything about meeting apostles in Damascus. I plainly asked the question where there was discrepancy. I'll ask the question again:

The question to ask therefore is: What happened to Paul after the Road of Damascus Conversion? Did he go to Jerusalem to be accepted by those 'which were apostles before me', Or did he go straight to the Arabian desert and confer with no one?

Please can you answer the question.
Religion / Re: The Bible Is A Catholic Book by PastorAIO: 4:17pm On Aug 01
Okay o. At least I know where you stand. You think the bible is Jesus. No wahala.

As for the rest I agree whole heartedly. The Church is Not Christ.


Your chants are just like saying...

The Church is not Christ!!!

The Church is not Christ!!!

The Church is not Christ!!!

Of course the Bible will not be Christ if you see it as just another book...
It will not be Christ if you see it as a collection of papers with ink on them...
Just like the Church will not be Christ if we look at it as a mere building where Christians go to worship God.

Sacred scriptures go beyond just being a collection of books written by men through the inspiration of the Spirit. Sacred scriptures contains God's word which is both Alive and Active. God's word is the author of creation and yes, it is Jesus.
Religion / Re: The Bible Is A Catholic Book by PastorAIO: 2:28pm On Aug 01

Jesus and the Jews who existed first?

The Bible and the Christians, who existed first.

"Before Abraham was, I am" so says Jesus. The Word proceedeth directly from the Father and through him ALL things were made. A section of humanity cannot claim ownership of what owns us all.
Sacred scriptures is all about how man and everything that is in existence came to be, man's fall from grace, his journey through 'darkness' and how God brought man back to himself.
Sacred scriptures is not about how a section of humanity was made. It is not about how a section of humanity fell from grace. It is not about how a section of humanity journeyed through darkness and certainly not about how a section of humanity got redeemed.
Sacred scriptures is about the interrelationship between God and his creatures, particularly man. He did choose a section of humanity (the Jews) to serve as a point of contact towards reaching the whole of humanity but this does not imply that the section now owns him.

Did Sacred scriptures pre-exist the human race? Was it there with God from the Beginning?
Religion / Re: The Bible Is A Catholic Book by PastorAIO: 2:24pm On Aug 01

Acceptance of Sacred scriptures or the way people choose to interpret it does not really matter as regards who lay claim to it. The very essence of Sacred scriptures is God's word which took flesh in Christ.

Just as no single group or individual can claim 'ownership' of the Person of Christ, so too can they claim 'ownership' of Sacred scriptures. To claim 'ownership' of Sacred scriptures is tantamount to claiming 'ownership' of Christ.

The Bible is not Christ!!!

The Bible is not Christ!!!

The Bible is not Christ!!!

How many times did you heard me say that? I take God beg you.
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 12:47pm On Aug 01
BabaGnoni: ^^^
and for any closely following Titus has three chapters in it,
so PastorAIO means Titus 1:10-14

Thank you, o ja re
Religion / Re: Will God's Chosen People Do This ? ( Graphic ) by PastorAIO: 12:38pm On Aug 01
Weselion: Bros you are the one misunderstanding things, i didn't say because isreal is in the bible it is a peaceful country. Isreal cannot go to fight without a reason, when the palestines struck, nobody complained, isreal retaliated, you are crying foul. You don't believe in religion, that one is your own delusion, guy i'm not the perfect christian but due to things that have happened to me, i believe in Religion, I believe there are spirits, i believe the spiritual controls the physical and most importantly, i believe there is black magic.

Palestinians did not struck anything. 3 jewish kids got missing and they were found dead. Then without any proof that it was any palestinians that killed the kids the Israelis started bombarding Palestine. Even if it was a palestinian, could it have been a lone palestinian mass murderer, or even an israeli murderer? Why would the entire palestinian people have to suffer like that?

It is barbaric what Israel is doing. They should first do a thorough investigation into the death of those kids. Are they trying to say that if an israeli kid should trip and hurt himself today, 1000 palestinians my die for that tomorrow?
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 12:32pm On Aug 01
In the letter to Titus Paul quotes a very interesting phrase made by the greek philosopher Epimenides. Why did he quote it?

10For there are many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision, 11whose mouths must be stopped; men who overthrow whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 12One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons. 13This testimony is true. For which cause reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. Titus Shaptar 1

That phrase all 'Cretans are liars' is known as Epimenides paradox. It is said by a Cretan. So if all Cretans are liars then the person who said it must be lying. So is the phrase True or not. If it's true then it's not true. Paul says it's true.

If you read that passage as a mere paradoxical joke then you might miss something else that Paul might be hinting at.

You see that phrase comes from a poem that is actually referring to the death and resurrection of the Greek God Zeus. Certain people from Crete denied that Zeus resurrected and in protest the poet called them all Liars.

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.
Epimenides, Cretica

O Zeus, some say that thou wert born on the hills of Ida;
Others, O Zeus, say in Arcadia;
Did these or those, O Father lie? -- “Cretans are ever liars.”
Yea, a tomb, O Lord, for thee the Cretans builded;
But thou didst not die, for thou art for ever.
Callimachus, Hymn I to Zeus

There are a lot of things that Paul says that would make sense automatically to a greek pagan. He quotes them a lot.

The question for me is whether the teachings are of any spiritual value. I say that they are, so therefore I am less prepared to dismiss Paul's teachings as falsehoods. However I would agree that there little continuity between what Jesus taught and what Paul taught.

I hope I've been able to make a worthwhile contribution to this thread.

1 Like

Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 12:20pm On Aug 01
This thread is very long. I've been reading it with interest cos it contains many points that I've been trying to make over the last few years. However I would not go to the extreme that Sarassin has gone to. I do not think that Paul's teachings were absolute falsehood. I think that they contrast with the teachings of Jesus, but they are not always in stark contradiction. I think it is important to understand where Paul is coming from.

This whole thing about Paul Lying, I think definitely there is the problem of consistency in a lot of biblical accounts. Paul's story is inconsistent with the story in Acts. Acts contradicts itself and it contradicts Paul. Instead of going through a long thing with too many examples I think it is less time consuming to just put up one strong point and argue that point.

For example, instead of putting up a lot of issues that could easily be dismissed as mere speculations I would put up a single incident where the accounts in two part differ remarkably.

Personally I would go for the accounts of Paul's conversion and his early days as a christian. Then Ask questions as to what actually happened historically.

The Book of Acts tells it thus:

8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. 11 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, 12 and hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. 13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: 14 and here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. 15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 16 for I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.

17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. 19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.

20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God

23 And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: 24 but their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. 25 Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. 26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. 28 And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.

Paul is brought in to the family of christians in Damascus and then introduced to the apostles in Jerusalem where he is welcomed. But what is Paul's own account of what happened?

Galatians 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

In galatians Paul is obviously trying to declare that the apostles in Jerusalem have no authority over him and so he denies even conferring with them after his conversion.

The question to ask therefore is: What happened to Paul after the Road of Damascus Conversion? Did he go to Jerusalem to be accepted by those 'which were apostles before me', Or did he go straight to the Arabian desert and confer with no one?

It is obvious that the writer of Acts is trying to place Paul in the context of the Church of Jerusalem, yet Paul himself is trying to remove himself from this context and deny it's authority over him.

Me personally, I would stick on this issue and hammer it over and over again. Otherwise the argument will just go all over the place and 10 pages later there'll be no progress, just a lot of yabis.

I'll be right back on the next post.....

(0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (of 158 pages)

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2014 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See Nairalist and How To Advertise. 274
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.