₦airaland Forum

The single biggest contradiction between the teachings of the apostle Paul and the teaching of Jesus has to do with works and the law.

Jesus was all about works.

Jesus was also all about the law, if Matthew 5:17-19 is an authentic teaching of Jesus. (Some think it isn’t.)

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-19)

On the other hand, Paul tossed out works and the law like yesterday’s stinky garbage.

Will the greatest christian evangelist thus be the least in the kingdom heaven?

Or was the passage above written by a warring theologian of the James/Peter school of theology, as a rebuttal of Paul?

Why didn’t the much-lauded holy ghost lead early christians to the same, correct understanding of works and the law?

Jesus said a house divided is doomed to fall.

What about a house divided into 45,000 different christian denominations?

Apparently, the holy ghost is not a good communicator.

How did Paul's teachings become central to christianity despite obvious contradictions with Jesus's own teachings?

Well, very few Gentiles were going be circumcised, give up shrimp and pork, or keep 613 nit-picky rules, many of which “don’t make a lick of sense.”

Paul made the christian religion more palatable to the non-Jewish world.

The Matthew 5:17-19 law-based version of christianity would never have flown outside tiny Judea.

Jesus: “I will judge you by your works.”

Paul: “I hate the law, so works mean nothing.”

Ammishaddai:
[s][/s] Wrong . The "US"(Elohim ) terminology is used for decision making when Eloha wants to make a consultation with Himself and not with the earth . This point is proven in Genesis 11:7 , where Elohim used "US" to change the languages of the earth . And if we go by your analogy of Genesis 1:24, there would be no consistency with the use of "US" to explain further bible verses

How is the Elohim "the same image and likeness" as man?

Maximus692:
Is that what you believe?

Yes, the gospels are all fictions.

lawani:
How am I misleading people?. I did not say he was their messiah. He however was a kind of pretender who said his own kingdom was in the minds of men. He did not confront Rome so he does not qualify. Rome did not see him as a threat and he was an apostate to the Jewish authority. You may want to read my submission again.
Then Christianity was not entirely a Roman creation. It grew on its own for centuries before it was taken up by Rome. There are still Christian sects today that had nothing to do with Rome in Ethiopia and the middle East etc.

I was referring to maxindhouse. He is being dishonest. He quoted Isaiah 7:14 as if it is referring to Jesus. I pointed out that the real prophecy is verse 16, not 14. It is about king Ahaz and an impending war and a son that would be born to Isaiah that was a sign for the king that his kingdom will stand the threat of the two kings.

MaxInDHouse:
According to what you always say everyone will end up becoming perfect whether they are misled or not so stop deceiving yourself!

Stop misleading people. It is not nice.
You claim to be a member of a performing group, but all you do is to be dishonest.
State it as it is. And stop taking text from context.

lawani:
There are debates about the existence of Jesus but I believe a Jewish religious preacher existed upon which Christianity is based though his name was not Jesus Christ which is a Greek name and he may not have been executed. In fact Muslims say he was freed at the last minute. As per the name, nobody existed that was named Jesus Christ.

No, I don't think the gospel stories are based on a real person. They are all adapted from the stories about inanna and his beloved Dimuzi/Tamuz and a sprinkling from ancient tales about Marduk. Inanna is the queen of heaven same as Mary the mother of Jesus. She would be Lucifer (light bearer) because Jesus is the light she bore.
There was never any Jesus in Jewish history.

MaxInDHouse:
Whatever is written remains valid until you prove it wrong neither you nor i was present when these things were recorded it's like saying all the stories written about people who lived in ancient times are false so it's whatever you feel against mine!

Have you ever heard about the branch of writing called Fiction?

Gabrielshow24:
Are you Muslim? Or you probably inherited some genes from Arian! 🤨

Explain to me how Africa can enter Nigeria

I will wait.

How did they even defeat Arian in that argument?

FreeIgboho:
Fine. The only problem is, you don't know what u talking about because u don't have the foggiest idea what this "reality" is. It could very well be an elaborate hoax - and there are telltale signs it is!

Be as it may, Jesus is not a god. He is a man. And a man is a creation of God that is made of dust. God can't be made of dust. God is the creator. He can't be part of creation. Not possible.

We are Gods who came to earth to experience it. When we expire, we go back being God's.

Lucifer is a title and it means "light bearer" Lucifer is St Jerome of telling us "look no further" he was the one to use it in his latin Vulgate.
How did she rise to prominence?
After Marduk has given all the gods their realm and station. She got nothing. She went to complain to Enki who is the god of wisdom. He told her to relax "You still small, your eye too dey big thing"
There are seven senior gods or Orisha in Babylonian myths. They are the Elohim. They initially were 1. Utu/shamash the sun God 2. Enki, 3 Enlil, 4 Ninhersag 5. Ninmah, 6 Nanna 7. Nabu.
Inanna was never part of them. She plotted to sit with the senior gods.
One day she got Enki drunk, stole the Mes from him. This are insignias that bestows divine power and authority to who ever has them.
So,Ninmah was withdrawn from the group, and she was included. That is briefly how she rose herself to the pantheon and became Lucifer...

Lucifer is a "She" not a he. She is neither Satan nor the devil.
Well, both Judaism and Christianity were heavily influenced by Babylonian ideologies and stories. Infact much of the Torah is a recast of Babylonian myths and epics.
So for us to know who or what Lucifer is, we have to go there.
In Babylon, the chief God is Marduk, who is the creator of the universe. He won his place by defeating Tiamat. He used her body to create the universe. (Tiamat is just a metaphor for the primordial chaos(so the story is just about, Marduk bringing order to chaos) .
Now, there are two sides to God. The left hand side and the right hand sides.
The left hand side (The evil side) is made up of Enlil and Ninlil and their sons and daughters.
The right hand side made up of Enki and his sons and daughters (the good side) After Marduk defeated Tiamat, they both gave him their attributes see Isaiah 45:7. Hashem, the Hebrew God and Marduk are one and the same being.
On the left hand side, which comprises Enlil and his family, Enlil would be Satan, because he is the destroyer. He send the flood to destroy the earth. Both Enki and Enlil are all aspects of Marduk. The yorubas refer to them as Orishas. The Bible calls them the angels of God. They are the laws and principles govering existence.
Enlil who is Satan, is the Orisha of the wind. He is the North wind. He has a consult by name Ninlil, who is the south wind. They have offspring. Their first son is Nanna/Sin. He is the devil. He is the Orisha of darkness and most times represented by a crescent moon. He has a consult called Ningal. And together they rule the night. Their first offspring is Inanna. She is LUCIFER. She is the Orisha/goddess of love, wisdom, war (and maybe death). She is the "statue of liberty" She is Mary the mother of Jesus in Christianity, she is also Ishtar, Isis, Aphrodite, Venus. I think she is also Osun in yorubas mythology. She is the so called queen of heaven. She and Marduk are enemies.
So Lucifer is Inanna, she is a deceiver, she is the OS in the book of revelation. She is the whoooore of Babylon.

Lucifyre:
"Those so called scholars were all paid to keep the lying" 🤣 Typical conspiracy nutjob, what did they pay them with? Milk and honey?! Who paid em? A talking snake i guess. What a joke. Funniest part is you citing those same scholars when you thought they agreed with your agenda, like how closeminded can one be(I don't forget that hilarious and embarrassing thread). Like I said empty noise backed by empty claims that would never change facts. You should check your dictionary to know the meaning of "debunk". Empty baseless noise is never debunking, anyways goodluck " debunking"😁

The fact remains ...Jesus never existed.

No long story.

Lucifyre:
And I couldn't care less for your theological gish gallop, they're all nonsense and baseless mythology as far as I'm concerned, Jewish and Christain alike. Non of that speaks to the FACT he existed, believing or denying it wouldn't change a general and academic consensus older than 80yrs. You might want to get to writing your paper backed by evidence to change it, so we adopt yours as the new consensus and fact. No?! Till then you're just another noisy person on the Internet spouting baseless claims.

Those so called scholars were all paid to keep the lying and deception going. They know the truth. If you decide to block your ears to the truth, it is your problem, not mine. And don't come here claiming he existed with no concrete proof. I will continue to debunk it.

Kobojunkie:
Yet more brain farts? No point engaging since it seems all too clear you are not interested in dealing with facts but religious gobbledegook.

Yea...just as I thought.

One day you will wake up, just like I did too....
Keep the Torah, that's what God demands of us. Not worshipping a man as God. You could not handle the facts I provided....

Shalom

Lucifyre:
Deny all you want, don't think anyone cares, it literally wouldn't change the fact and luckily facts & truths don't care about belief or denial.

I don't deal with believes or emotion.
The Jesus portrayed in the gospel never never existed. For once, the Jews don't have the idea of god mating with women. It is a Greek/Roman theology. The Jewish Messiah is a man from the line of David, through Solomon. The two contradictory genealogies in Mathew and Luke can never produce a Messiah. The real Messiah is not coming to die for sins, God already gave them a solution to the problem of sin. He is coming to bring peace....

Kobojunkie:
Stop lying! All of the Gospels, including the supposed writings of Paul, were written in the 1st Century CE.

2. Stop lying!

3. When exactly did the Jews get around to seeing the Gospels and laughing their heads off? Please be specific! Was this before or after the Romans eliminated about 1/3rd of the Jewish population, and exiled another third before taking over Jerusalem and remaining the entire country to Syria and Palestine in 134 AD?

None of the gospel was written in the first century. None
If they were, they would not have gotten the geography wrong.
And I still maintain that they were not written by Jews. Any Jews, should have known that the sanhendrin don't meet during the holy days and at night. Just like we know our supreme court don't meet during national holy days and again, they have the power and right to condemn a man to death....there was no need for the pilate to and fro......some many incontinence, for it to originate from the Jews. And moreover, they already have their Torah, why risk the wrath of God to create, another religion. Their Torah was for ever. God told them to pass it on to their children. To many reasons.....
The isrealites saw the mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14, as a prophecy for Jesus, they laughed hard. The passage is a reference to Isaiah Young wife and not a prophecy for Jesus. They know the real prophecy was in verse 16. Too many lies and mistranslation..

MindHacker9009:
These are some of the the Jesus' in the first century:

Jesus, son of Sapphias (Rebel Leader)
Mentioned in: The Jewish War, Book 2.
This Jesus did lead an attack on Romans, and here are the details:
Jesus was one of the chief rebels in Tiberias, a city in Galilee.
He led a group of fishermen and poor people who plundered the palace of Herod the Tetrarch during the early stages of the First Jewish-Roman War (66–70 CE).
He and his men destroyed property and took control of parts of the city.
Josephus, who was then a commander of Jewish forces in Galilee, was sent to negotiate or subdue them.

Jesus ben Ananias:
Jesus ben Ananias was a Jewish peasant who, around 62 CE, began loudly prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. For over seven years, he wandered the city crying, "Woe to Jerusalem!" Despite being beaten and tortured by Roman authorities, he never changed his message. During the Roman siege in 70 CE, he shouted, "Woe to me also!" just before being killed by a stone from a Roman catapult. Josephus saw him as a mad yet eerily accurate doomsday prophet.

We all know that the Jesus portrayed in the gospel stories did not exist. But the jews that left were black headed...not the Caucasian now in Israel...

Dtruthspeaker:
Same for everyone, so no point.



The prophecy was very clear for God Said He would throw them out of the Land when they annoy Him. Which as you already know did happen which is why you said they "returned" in 1948.

The word return means that they were there before.

And this is in clear fulfilment of the prophecy where God Said that He would return them to their place, which you witnessed that it occurred in 1947.

Thus, the prophecy was full filled

God knows his chosen people, sọ i personally dont dabble into such things.
One thing i know is that those that left....are not the ones that returned . They left black.....and returned as caucaseans.

Lucifyre:
No one is arguing Jesus didn't exist, it's basically a fact and consensus about 80yrs old, what is also a fact is my previous statement, there's zero evidence for any of the supernatural claims about him and like other historical figures - see Alexander who was claimed to be the son of Zeus - all of the supernatural claims are basically mythlogical which is a fact. If they're not provide evidence they happened which obviously you can't.

As for your gospel claim that the writers are known, if they're known it wouldn't be difficult to identify the names of the authors within the texts as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John right. So pls show us where within the texts the authors Matthew, Mark, Luke & John, identify themselves or any evidence they wrote it. Again, obviously you can't. End of story.

And to properly kill off that baseless assertion of known writers, how did poor stark illiterate peasants who spoke Aramaic in a time period where the literacy rate was less than 2% somehow manage to write in sophisticated greek and chose not to write in Aramaic or say Hebrew, more than 50 years after. Empty claims lol!

I am denying the historicity of Jesus.....hẹ never existed. There is nọ mention of hin till the 2nd century CE. Hẹ wae written into existence, by the greeks........
When the jews later later saw the gospel, they laughed their heada off.....

JimRohn:
Thank you for sharing your interpretation. I appreciate the reflective tone in which you've approached these challenging scriptural passages. However, I must respectfully disagree with your framework of understanding, particularly the allegorical reinterpretation of historically violent commands as internal psychological processes.

As a Muslim, I believe in upholding the divine origin and coherence of revelation. While I agree that sacred texts contain layers of meaning—moral, spiritual, and metaphysical—this does not negate the historical reality or moral implications of the events they record. Recasting clear historical narratives involving war and destruction as entirely symbolic or internal struggles with the ego raises important theological concerns that deserve a closer, critical look.

You argue that figures such as the Amalekites or Canaanites are not actual people but symbolic representations of egoistic tendencies, and that divine commands to "destroy them" are metaphors for inner transformation. However, such interpretations risk disconnecting the ethical dimension of Scripture from its historical foundation. If the text speaks of events involving real people and communities, transforming these into mere archetypes may undermine both the justice and mercy of God, who, in your reading, appears to command symbolic violence that has historically been taken—and acted upon—as literal.

In Islamic theology, we affirm that God is both transcendent and intimately aware of human affairs—Al-‘Aleem (The All-Knowing), Al-Hakeem (The Wise), and Al-‘Adl (The Just). Commands from God must be understood in their revealed context and interpreted with the ethical standards that God Himself has set. The Qur'an does indeed speak about spiritual struggle (jihad al-nafs), and like you, we affirm that the inner battle against pride, ego, and desire is fundamental. But this is never confused with, nor used to reinterpret, historical events in Scripture. Literal history and spiritual symbolism are not interchangeable categories.

Moreover, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) taught that guidance must be anchored in hikmah (wisdom), rahmah (mercy), and clarity. Islam does not endorse a view where troubling commands are explained away by abstraction, but instead, we are taught to affirm God's justice in all His decrees, contextualize warfare within strict ethical guidelines, and reject cruelty both in interpretation and application.

To posit that divine commands to annihilate entire populations are actually metaphors for “destroying the ego” risks trivializing the very real suffering historically associated with these verses. Additionally, such interpretations raise a further theological issue: If scriptural language is so allegorical as to mean the opposite of what it says plainly, how can any moral guidance be reliably derived from it?

In contrast, the Qur’an repeatedly reminds humanity that divine speech is mubeen—clear, purposeful, and preserved. While metaphor exists in sacred language, it does not override the apparent meaning unless indicated by the text or prophetic explanation. We are encouraged to reflect deeply, but within the bounds of textual fidelity and divine justice.

In conclusion, while I commend your desire to extract spiritual meaning from Scripture, I cannot agree with a methodology that reduces clear commands and historical events to internal allegory—particularly when such events involve serious moral implications. True spirituality, in my understanding, involves both the purification of the inner self and the ethical integrity of how we interpret and apply divine revelation.

With respect and sincerity,

BibleInterpreta AntiChristian TenQ CreativeOrbit gofh

God is the universal divine conciouseness..not a man yo in the sky.
Allah is the moon qod sin/Nanna, He is nọyẹ known with creation. Hẹ represents the darkness wihtin each of us.

AntiChristian:
God didn't ordain any religion called Judaism or religion!
In fact, no Prophet brought Judaism or Christianity as a religion!
They were all coined by people!

So saying Judaism is different from Christianity makes me think the God of the Old Testament is different from that of the New Testament!

You nẹdẹ to prove to me thats muhamed actually existed before i will take you serious...until then, you atẹ in nọ position. Morever, Allah is rhe moon god sin/Nanna

Steep:
See ignorance, the oldest church on earth is in Africa. Christianity came to Europe just as it came to Africa, colonial masters has nothing to do with it. So Alenxender, Augustus ceaser, Socrates, etc are myth? Delulu

So because okonkwo Ebubedike of things fall apart, so therefore Ola Rotimi, Cyprian Ekwensi and woke soyinka does not exist? You see your falacy?
Christianity states as the worship of serapis in Africa, when it became the religion of the Romans empire, they had to make it appealing to everyone in the empire ...by incorporating paganism into it as they went along.

AntiChristian:
Can God forgive without Blood?

Jesus had to die according to your Bible and its interpreters! Your God needs blood to remit sins!

What are you on about?
I am asking a question, you are using oil to rub my face?

That is not my belief, I am asking him to tell me where he got the idea from? And for your information, Judaism is different from Christianity.....

femi4:
You missed the point when you address Jesus as "human"

Revelation 12:11

And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death.

Ephesians 1:7 ESV

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

So Jesus is not human? Ok that's new to me. He is now a lamb....the offspring of a sheep. Ok..no wahala, even if he is a lamb and not a human being, the sacrifice still has to be performed by a levitical priest, not Roman soldiers. There are so many problems with this Jesus sacrifice....so many that goes against the laws and commandments of the creator.....
I am so glad I left it more than 20 years ago ...

femi4:
You read my post upside down

Go Sunday school, you no gree

Uder the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Hebrews 9:22 ESV

Purified with blood?
This is pagan practice oh..
Where did you get it from?
The idea that Jesus’ death serves as an atonement for sin is not valid, for several key reasons grounded in Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) and Halachah (Jewish law).

Let’s break it down clearly and respectfully:

1. Human Sacrifice is Rejected by Torah

As mentioned before:
• Deuteronomy 12:31, Leviticus 18:21, Jeremiah 7:31 – Human sacrifice is called an abomination, not a path to holiness.
• Jesus being presented as a “sacrifice” directly contradicts the Torah’s teaching on what sacrifices are permissible: only specific kosher animals, offered in the Temple, and never humans.

2. Vicarious Atonement is Rejected
• Ezekiel 18:20 – “The soul that sins, it shall die.” No one can die for someone else’s sin.
• Torah’s model of atonement is individual responsibility and repentance (teshuvah).
• The prophets emphasize that God desires a contrite heart, not blood (see Hosea 14:3, Micah 6:6–8, Psalm 51).

3. Jesus Did Not Meet Messianic or Priestly Criteria
• If Jesus were a legitimate offering, he would have to be:
• A Levitical priest to offer a sacrifice (he wasn’t).
• Without blemish (sinless) – which is a theological claim but not a provable fact.
• Offered in the Temple by authorized priests—which didn’t happen.

Even the Christian claim that Jesus “fulfilled” the role of the Paschal Lamb (korban Pesach) is deeply flawed:
• The Passover lamb was never a sin offering.
• It was eaten by families, not offered for atonement.

4. The Temple System Was Not Replaced by a Person
• Torah and the Prophets never hint that sacrifices would one day be replaced by the death of a man.
• When the Temple is gone, the response is repentance, prayer, and deeds of lovingkindness (see Hosea 14:2–3, Daniel 4:24, I Kings 😎.

5. Logical Problem:

If Jesus’ death paid for all sin:
• Why is repentance still necessary in Christianity?
• Why do Christians still suffer?
• Why did evil continue?

It collapses under theological and scriptural scrutiny.

Conclusion (Torah View):

according to the eternal standard of Torah, Jesus’ death is not a valid atonement. It goes against:
• God’s laws,
• The nature of sacrifice,
• The requirement for personal repentance,
• And the Jewish understanding of the Messiah.

femi4:
If its for the same reason, Jesus wouldn't have come.

None of the guys you mentioned replaced the blood of an animal with his blood

After Jesus, the remission of sins via blood of animal stopped.

He was the last prophet that came

Where did you get the idea that God needs blood before he can forgive......and the blood of a human for that matter?

Janosky:
He can never be triune..

I know that, He is one and indivisible...and has no physical form.

Janosky:
You referenced your own God as "HE".
Later you go say nah 3 persons or 3 spirits.

For a purpose...

Steep:
even historians who anti Christianity cannot deny the historicity of Christ. The writers of the gospels are not unknown they are Mathew mark Luke and John.
So Jesus is not a myth after all, right? You guys are in deep trouble.

He is a myth and you are wasting your whole life on it. The colonial masters that brought the religion to it has abandoned it. Almost all the churches in north London are now pubs or sold to Muslims....ño money to take care of it vos no attendance...
Jesus is the Roman empire invention, to control the masses...

Your people can talk about your gods who is dust.
It does not matter....
The creator and source of everything can't be made of dust. .....so qualms.
My God is the universal, eternal, indivisible source and creator of all things visible and invisible.....he created all the realms and is not part of any one. He is all the realms. I am a spark of the whole....