₦airaland Forum

analice107:
Where is my 4kings?

I just dey observe.
How far?

CatfishBilly:
Muttleylaff, 4kings
Brilliant guys.

Thanks man.

What's code lagos?
Any helpful link?

felixomor:
Hehehehe,
Anyway, I saw it coming

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSbnTgjr6eA

It's very nice.
Wonderful job.

---

You can also add forms to handle sorting by prices or system specification.

OtemAtum:
I dropped empty envelope, lol

Malachi 3:8
"Will a man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me!"

OtemAtum:

Omo, shrine will come first before mosque o. Arabic language gives me catarrh

lol.
I'll be waiting for the shrine tour.

OtemAtum:
I want to socialize with the sheeple so as to see more true happenings to write in the DOCTUFOS HISTORY BOOK.

Ok.
Next should be the Mosque right?

Otem, wetin u dey do for church?

felixomor:
In your mind.

And in reality.

I think Dalaman has closed this argument on morality as usual.

phililp:
yea i know the my_dictionary.items () returns the key and value of each item in the dictionary..
but i dont understand what the for fruit, details in ... does

They're just loop variables that are useful for iteration.

>>>for x in range(3):
            print(x)

#the result will be 0, 1, 2
x is the variable in this loop iteration.
You know that range of 3 is 0,1 and 2
Therefore x represent each value in the range in the course of the iteration.

However a dictionary(or the dictionary items) is like a tuple of two values: ('keys' and 'values') and not made of just a single value like the range.
So i used two loop variables for the dictionary to represent the keys and values which in this context are your fruits and description

I hope i explained this well.

phililp:
thanks.. i think with this i can solve may first problem..
but now how do i check to see if the users input is the key of the random selected value..

i.e

if user_input == items_description.key()
print ('you got it)

# where item_description = random.choice(list(my_dict.value()))

please how do i implement this

my_dict.values() returns a string and not a dictionary.
Therefore using item_description.key() is also the same as doing 'string'.key() and key is not an attribute of a string.
For example:
>>> name = 'seun'
>>>name.key()
pythons return error message because 'key' is not an attribute of a string.

So to solve your problem, do this instead:

    for fruit, details in my_dict.items():
        
        if word == item_describtion:
            print('you got it')
            break

I hope you know what items() does, so i don't need to explain that. If you don't you can quote me.

annnikky:
Wrong
Try again

June.

urheme:
Seriously.....this guy starts a thread and then run out of it .....he is like a light bulb...he get switched on and off

Probably he has had a change of heart towards this.
Baldur made a very good point and i'm waiting for DeepSight to answer this question: If the human body is an illusion of being, what is the true nature of being?

DeepSight where art thou?, please continue...

annnikky:
Mind teaser





If ‘JANUARY’ is ‘JULY’, ‘SEPTEMBER’ is
‘SEPTEMBER, ‘FEBRUARY’ is ‘AUGUST’ and
‘MARCH’ is ‘MAY’ then ‘AUGUST’ is ?






Cc: femi4, piperson, Epicmaurice, Vicolan, Smallish, 4kings, kretoz, joshysmartie

FEBRUARY

Use this to solve the error:
item_describtion = random.choice(list(my_dict.values()))

Note that the above code wraps the values to a list.

Richirich713:
Quoting, not copying and pasting.

I see...

That's probably becuz u don't got any one with credentials to back up ur claims.

From what i know my claim is also a consensus among most scholars.
And you're yet to debunk them.

And who u kidding, u never read Josephus Antiquities of the Jews a day in ur life.

Anyone familiar with this work wouldn't have made the error u made earlier when u said that he clearly claimed Jesus was the Christ. If u making such elementary errors when reading Josephus, there's no way in hell I or anyone should trust your deductions.

Below u replied to my claim that Josephus never claim Jesus was the Christ in the original Testimonium and that he only said he was called the christ.

Then when u realized u were completely wrong, instead of admitting u were wrong - u decided to try and put a spin on Josephus words to make him say something he never did.
So there u go.

What sort of delusion is this?
The reason i first quoted you is because you said Josephus never said Jesus was the Christ, and my response was clearly based on what i could remember from his works, I only posted one passage at first before we progressed to this level.

You're are not the first person i'm discussing this case with.
Even the person i had a debate with(here on nairaland) on this issue is way more knowledgeable than you about history(that's if you know much about history anyway).
Though during my discussion with him i used Sarassin's point of view of Christian fathers not mentioning the Testimonium when they were propagating Christianity and during debates with guys like Celsus.
Here was his response to the Josephus interpolation at the end of the day:

I agree that the belief in Eusebius' possible interpolation is warranted and this is the major reason why scholars in the 19th century doubted the testimonium flavanium since Eusebius was the first to quote the text, but with other manuscripts such as the Arabic manuscript devoid of reference to Jesus as messaiah or other possible Christian interpolation, it is more reasonable to believe that an original core existed which was then interpolated, the original remained but additions were made to it to make it align with Christian beliefs. But you can hold on to your belief though if you so which, we agree to disagree.

Here's the thread --> https://www.nairaland.com/3267097/athiest-view-arguement-against-christianity/1#48188935

Though your close-mindedness is not surprising, i just want to let you know that issue(or most other historical events) is not a fresh one to me.

Don't know, never consider that when reading the bible. But irrelevant since we specifically discussing Josephus, we know he did it and we know it was not uncommon in the ancient world - but that doesn't mean every writer in the ancient did so.

A simple answer to this is that you've never observed this.
Observing it in another literature should come up strange and fishy, but again i'm not surprised at your close-mindedness.

No one said it was an appendix, Mary Smallwood just gave a explanation on why our historiography don't have these digressions, namely becuz we have footnotes and appendices.

Can you give me any other digression from any old literature that you can remember?

Her explanation could be dead wrong for all I care but that wouldn't change the fact that Josephus writings has such digressions, points in his narrative where he wrote something that interrupted the flow of his narrative - something which u deny.

@bolded, shows that you don't even understand the point you quoted(or care to understand) as long as it supports your belief, smh. I'm not surprised, honestly.

But you made a strong statement here: "that wouldn't change the fact that Josephus writings has such digressions"
Can you point out any other digression in Josephus work?, maybe i don't understand what this digression is all about.

Richirich713:
You the one who's bias here my friend, If i gave u several academical sources written by non-christians making this point yet u will still denial it.

"several academic sources" really?
So you were even copying and pasting, i thought it was just the last post, smh.

Well i don't need a title, position or an authority to make my point for me, i make deductions from things i've read, so does your sources.

Deal with the main point, I don't have time for word games since I've seen ur dishonestly in spinning stuff when u tried to force Josephus to say something he never did .

How did i do this?
All assertions i've made so far are from Josephus writing, so where is this coming from?
Are you not the one trying interprete the words in another manner?

Her main point was this was common in Josephus writings, it is also known to be common in the ancient world, another point made by several historians.

In what ancient world?
Is the bible not also an ancient writing, are there verses in chapters of scriptures that are out of context from what the subject of discussion is about?

Talking about context, Antiquities 18, started by talking about all the misfortune that befell the Jews for the period of 32 years from Taxation by the Romans, arrival of Pilate, Pilate massacre action on jews then up until the "Jews messiah(Jesus) death"/Testimonium, then the fourth paragraph emphasizes how these were great misfortunes for the Jews.
Each Paragraph had a story to tell, why must the Testimonium be the one that is supposed to be in an appendix. Mr. man?

Richirich713:
It was common for ancient writer's to insert passages that interrupted the flow of their narratives. As professor of history E. Mary Smallwood points out:

"One feature of Josephus' writing which may be disconcerting to the modern reader and appear inartistic is the way in which at times the narrative is proceeding at a spanking pace when it is unceremoniously cut short by a paragraph or a longer passage of material unrelated or only marginally related to the subject in hand, and then resumed equally abruptly. Basically, these interruptions are of two types, with different reasons behind them, and it may therefore be helpful if a word is said here about the conventions of ancient historiography, which differed considerably from ours. One type of interruption, such as a sudden move to another theatre of war, occurs because ancient historians usually wrote annalistically---literally, by years ... A quite different explanation lies behind other interruptions to the flow of the narrative. The ancient world never invented those useful lay-bys in which the modern author can park essential but intractable material, and thus avoid breaking the main thread of his argument, the footnote and the appendix ... what we relegate to notes and appendixes appeared as digressions." G.A. Williamson translation, Josephus, "The Jewish Wars". Revised with introduction by E. Mary Smallwood. Penguin Books 1981, pp20-21

This is a ridiculous rationalization based on choice-supportive bias.

Now it's appendix and notes abi?

Do you even understand what appendix and footnotes are for?
Abeg i no get time for this one...

stealthtiger please continue na...

Meanwhile Seun, you've not answered me oo: can you disable the emoticons code when inside a code tag?

Richirich713:
That refers to the massacre Pilate committed against the Jews. Which was mention before the Testamentum Flavianum.

Na wa for you sef.
That's why it's believed that the paragraph was an interpolation.

After the massacre then the paragraph about Jesus was introduced, before that statement in the next paragraph.
So why you dey jump.

Very educative.

Richirich713:
nice spin there,

but I don't see the logic, Josephus clearly didn't claim he believed Jesus was the Christ, all he said was that he was called that, which is true.

hmmm

I'm aware of this passage, that's why I said:

OK

Scholars have a broad consensus regarding the original rendering. As I said earlier:

As you can see, there's no mention of Jesus being the christ in the above formulation.

Before you conclude, here's what the writer says next:

“And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ...”
Why would a Jew make this statement, if he didn't think Jesus was the Messiah?

Seun can you disable the emoticons code when inside a code tag?

Richirich713:
Saying "who was called Christ" is different from saying "he was the Christ".

Na wa ooo.
This is similar to Mathew 10:2 "The first, Simon, who is called Peter".
We can also apply that logic here.

But anyway, that was not the only place Christ was mentioned, it seems you're unaware of this.
Here's another paragrapgh from the writing:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day

I hope this is settled.

Richirich713:
Are you talking about this?

"...brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James..."

yep...

Richirich713:
I don't get your point, Josephus original reference to Jesus never claim he was the Christ, all Josephus said was he was called that. Also why would Justin Martyr quote Josephus to prove Jesus was the messiah to a jew when the Jews considered Josephus a traitor? There isn't really any use for quoting Josephus for apologetic concerns regarding Jesus.

Nah, this is very wrong.
That verse clearly referred to jesus as the christ when he was talking about James and his eventual death

Following...

felixomor:
Yes, but u must first withdraw your foolish "coins" argument


Actually its your kobo abi " coins " argument that brought stupidity into this argument
LMAO




Sorry, I have already given u a claim on Jesus Christ and Caesar.
You have not provided any meaningful rebuttal.
So your cop. - out is understandable

This guy get wahala, i no get your time...

Muafrika2:
Not to say he is not divine. He just has ... And knows his place.

(Same goes to KingEbukasBlog )

Whoever call it anything else is expressing their own understanding. This is mine.

Cool...
I hope KingEbukasblog can learn from this.

KingEbukasBlog:
Again my brother , it behooves you prove that Paul was a Gnostic ; repeating that he was ad nauseum does not automatically make him one . But err , let's focus on the topic . You had your chance on that thread .

Are you talking about the thread where you could not figure out any Gnostic misinterpretation, but just kept on saying that i was fixated on a conclusion.
You must be joking...