₦airaland Forum

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

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

lepasharon:
Did I ever tell you I am an atheist? You so myopic. Foh

That guy has issues...

May atheism not lead him to a bad position one day like MrMontella said.

KingEbukasBlog:
Eusebius came 200 years after the Ebionites and Nazarenes .

Go back to bed .

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

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

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

A Gnostic can also come up with those same argument.

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

KingEbukasBlog:
Help me ask am oo .

Everybody is now claiming deism oo

Make them go sit down .

We go pay attention the day they start countering atheists arguments though there is nothing serious they table as arguments . The deists are usually the allies of theists not atheists .

I've engaged in small argument with some atheists here including Seun.
Funny enough, you know this..

And what do you mean by "claiming deism", when I told you I was a deist, there weren't much here(that I knew) apart from Anonynymous DeepSight and Uyilredia.

Stop mentioning my name and making rubbish claims.

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

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

Why was Paul not a Gnostic?

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

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

What "multiple sources" are you talking about?

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

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

“You catch anyone that looks like them, kill him!” “There is no reporting to anybody. Kill him! Pull off his neck! And we spill his blood on the ground. What nonsense.”

---

Woww, Oyedepo actually said this?

randomperson:
Yeah, those psychotic atheists. They don't want to imprison two adults men for sleeping together. I mean, who does that?!
They really should be like the Christians who are siding with the murder and genocide carried out by our ever-benevolent god. And the future eternal burning of all people who don't agree with them. Who on earth doesn't know that burning sinners for eternity is proof of sanity??

lmao

hahn:
Unfortunately, kingebukasblog is anti-commonsense

No mind that boy...

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

4kings : My dad said the earth is flat

King Ebuka : Is he a cosmologist , geophysicist ?

4kings : No , he is a businessman

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

4kings : He is my dad so he is right

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

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

Yikes!

KingEbukasBlog:
So done and dusted .

More contributions on the topic please

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

Amen

You wish

KingEbukasBlog:
Lol , mi good bro

Relax

No slying here

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

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

End of story

Case closed .

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

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

Case not Closed

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

Case closed .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers

KingEbukasBlog:
Abeg go and sit down

You are the trying to evade your shitty logic

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

Next time you think before you type

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

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

KingEbukasBlog:
So the logic is that since Mark never mentioned the virgin birth , therefore it is not true . Right ?

The same logic should go : The death and resurrection of Jesus was recorded in the four gospels , therefore the resurrection is true ... right ?

Ya, from a Gnostic point of view.

KingEbukasBlog:
Are you okay ?

I gave you two different sects that emerged immediately after Jesus died and they both believed in the virgin birth . So stop talking trash .

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm

Here is another source stating that some Ebionites accepted the virgin birth

I just enjoy shattering the beliefs of dishonest people

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

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

MrMontella:
maybe late first century..

50 years is enough for the myth to build up.

Nah, one of the first Gospels written(during the late first century) Mark, never mentioned a "virgin birth".

This is a pagan idea from the Egyptian stories and Krishna, permitted by Eusebius and Constantine.
Jesus == Krishna

pahars:
Jan 29

Damn, very close to late.

I'm Jan 28th

KingEbukasBlog:
There is evidence for the existence of God .

Please make your researches on the complexity of life alone and then ask yourself if you are in your right senses to deny the existence of God .

Please don't respond with 'who designed the designer' BS as if that has anything to do with acknowledging that indeed the complexity of life should be attributed to an eternal designer .

Atheist logic : because we can't understand the complexity of the eternal designer , therefore the life and the universe were not designed.

MrMontella Is not an atheist na...

MrMontella:
i wonder why you think the existence of the nazaranes validates jesus...they are no better than paul.

I DOUBT anyone heard of the idea of "virgin birth" in the first century.

Sorry for late reply oo, I didn't know much about Nazarene unlike Ebionite(who were mostly Gnostic ). So I had to read up to make reasonable comment unlike someone reading this.

KingEbukasBlog:
Because many factions claim to have seen Christophanies therefore every experience is false ? I dey hail your freethinking oo

Is Mr.President1 Christophany true?
Or have you had one before?

I gave you a link where scholars and intellectuals from different top universities gave their contributions to support the evidence for Christ's life on earth and you said it was an appeal to authority ? I didn't bother responding to that because I felt it was a joke

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

Exactly ! This is what I'm talking about . You won't show any modicum of skepticism on whatever that piques your interest like Gnosticism but you quickly attack anything as false that impugns your position.

Have I ever accepted being a Gnostic.
I've told you their "belief system" is somewhat psychological and I find it interesting, there's hardly any contradiction(or fairy tales) like mainstream Christianity. Though they make some claims on Christian beliefs, I have never made a definite opinion on this. It seems you can't absorb "Freethinking" and "Skepticism" very well...

I'm giving you strong evidence that requires you to make quick connections and discover the truth . I gave an example of Paul who was Christ's coeval ; he conversed with the Apostles whom Christ appeared to and he also had similar experiences

I also mentioned the Ebionites and Nazarenes : these sects quickly emerged after Christ's death . The Nazarenes accept the Virgin Birth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect) and according to this link half of the Ebionite accepted the Virgin Birth .

The Nazarene was a commonly known name given to followers of Christ (Act24:5).
The Ebonites were also Nazarene(at least for a while) (just like Catholics are Christians) who were followers of John the Baptist then Christ
The split of the Nazarene occurred during the late 2nd Century, obviously due to beliefs which we are discussing.

Now, we know the the concept of Virgin birth, never appeared in any of the Epistles, Book of Acts, Revelations, and Mark these books had been(though some modified later) long before the split.
It only appeared in the revised edition of Mathew and Luke.
***I don't wanna go further on this, but if you have time to defend the veracity of the Gospels, then... ***

Mark Zuckerberg's on his rejection of atheism . You just didn't want to accept that he was a theist from the onset .

I gave you reasons while other options are welcome.
O ye of big Faith, Skepticism must be difficult for you.
So because I didn't admit Mark was a theist, that makes me an Atheist. SMH

And you have many opinions that resonate with atheism ?

Oh 4kings , praise ye nothingness for that

Freethinking!!!
I have opinions that resonate with some atheists(not atheism) and others that don't.
Same for theists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect)

This link repeated the same thing : half of the Ebionites accepted the virgin birth

Another Wikipedia page author, typing without references.
Eusebius and other early authors already made this distinction, I don't know where the author of that page is getting his/her info from.

Can you prove those stories were not true ? Or are you gona appeal to common sense ? You have a wont for committing logical fallacies .

I asked you a question.
Don't you understand basic communication skills

MrMontella:
paul didnt even believe in a virgin birth...
I just they laff modern day christians

I know that one too...
Ebuka no dey hear word.

Anas09:
Thanks for the compliment. Wen u r done, you can join dem. Like i said, i dont give two hoots.

Haba, I'm not like that now..
I actually like your stubbornness

Anas09:
How old do you think i am?
Am alive, i live amonsgt human beings, and humans talk. So i know. Get out Frank. Leave my sexuality alone. If i am a prostitute, e concern you oo. I no be your sister biko. Walk away.

Why are people always on your sexuality?
From transgendered to this, you are indeed a funny case in Religious section.

MOSTEC:
Should i send u a pic of it

Yes.

KingEbukasBlog:
Yikes !

Christ said that He has sent the Holy Spirit to help guide us as He was departing . Christ does not need to discuss spiritual matters with Paul before He could understand . Besides its possible that Paul experienced many Christophanies but the bible documented just two .

Just like many factions of Christianity in history experienced "Christophanies"
BTW, this is the first time I'm seeing this word. Na wa oo

The evidence is glaring that Christ did exist and performed all miracles , died ,resurrected and ascended .

What EVIDENCE!!!

Paul made the explication in 1 Corinthians 15 where He also mentioned James as one of the people Christ appeared to after His resurrection . He must have conversed with James.

I'm wondering what this changes.
What if I said that passage Is open to different interpretations like docetism or Gnosticism(psychic to Pneumatic by getting Gnosis)

You doubt bible stories for the wackest reasons and the story you seem to accept has less credibility than the myth of Narcissus .

Maybe you should try to debunk my reasons then.
And can you give an example of these "stories" I ACCEPT.

You also quickly accept whatever these atheists say without any soupcon of skepticism. It shows that clearly you are repulsed by Christianity and are attracted to atheism .

Lets analyze this, please do cite an example of atheist (irrational)claims that I quickly accepted.
Atheism does not have doctrines, so whenever an atheist says something(irrational) and I accept it, then please correct me if my reasoning is wrong(remember I'm open-minded ), it's not like I'm being paid to support them, I have obviously, many opinions that don't resonate with Theism.

It clearly said that some Ebionites believed while some didn't. The last time you posted a link to me as your source , it was from an atheist's site

What link are you talking about?
I can remember giving you a Christian link on Zuckerberg's issue.
Anyways, as far as the link doesn't say nonsense, then it's alright.

BTW, read that Wikipedia page again, the author was clearly not sure if they were indeed Ebionites.

What message ? You mentioned it to tacitly discredit the credibility of the bible's miracles by mentioning what Alexander the Great did .

I was almost disappointed.

So do you believe those stories?

Anas09:
You seem not to have noticed that am not in the least concerned about what people's opinions of me are. I do what i do as i choose, not as you expect me to.

My apologies... Madam.

Teempakguy:
booked.

I'll return with a solution.

**twenty minutes later**

I'm back.

At this point, I probably wouldn't be surprised if I was diagnosed with OCD. couldn't sleep until I solved it.

Anyway,

The key is to follow the instructions from bottom to top.

Subtract your date of birth.

==> -19XX

add 1766

==> 1766 + . . .

multiply the answer by 50. this implies that there's some expression to be multiplied by 50. hence,

==> 1766 + 50()

add five to it. this implies that we're adding 5 something. but it's being multiplied by fifty.

==> 1766 + 50(5 + . . . )

multiply by two. Hence,

==> 1766 + 50(5 + 2())

take the last digits of your phone number. the last two digits, to be precise, you didn't specify that, but the puzzle only worked when I took two. since you said you tried it with two of your lines, I assumed this was what happened. let's take yy. for example. it will illustrate things beautifully.

==> 1766 + 50(5 + 2(yy))

at this point, the answer is obvious. opening the bracket on the first term and adding immediately, we find that

1766 + 50*5 + 50*2(yy)

== 1766 + 250 + 50*2(yy)

== 2016 + 50*2(yy)

just look at that. if you try to remove your date of birth from that, you will simply be getting your age, plus a number. for now, let's denote your age by AA.

the actual trick depends on you having a two digit age. if Niklaus Michealson took this test, it would fail miserably, and he would probably hunt you down and suck your blood for wasting his time . . . anyway,

if you open the second part of the bracket, you get . . . . *drumroll*

2016 - 19XX + 100(yy)

and that equals AA + yy00

add that and you have yyAA

your phone digits, and your age, nicely arranged.

You are free to replace yy with any number you like, and XX with any number you like. just make sure both are two digits.


It should be already be apparent. IT'S BLOODY MATH.

Beautiful!!!

MOSTEC:
When u get to oshodi, ask any agbero u see under the bridge where bose alagbo is located,when u get there, ask her for PONKIRIYON.that should help.

Have you or anyone you know, used this "PONKIRIYON" before?

KingEbukasBlog:
Paul the Apostle was alive during the ministry of Jesus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle

Wow . Just wow !

What's the meaning of this , even a passive Christian or even most Muslims know this.
Anyway, I know you are "seeing things" as usual, because of Lack of Evidence...
Paul Never Met Jesus one on one(even a gathering where he taught possibly) to discuss spiritual issues, if you still don't get it, well...

KingEbukasBlog:
I have this feeling that you detest God and Christianity . And you would say anything no matter how unreasonable to defend your position . Can you prove the resurrection was the idea of the Romans ?

Simply because I doubt the stories of the Bible means I hate God. Woww, I think this has gotten too far...

The pic you posted does not indicate that those that believed in the resurrection were "ebionite", the writer clearly did not know what to call them. However , a direct link to those who actually believed this would be helpful here, and not writings from someone in Wikipedia.
I think the bible said many people saw Jesus ascend to Heaven, if this is the case and the Ebionites were alive during Jesus days, then the resurrection would not be an issue. But I know you no go "see" this one

KingEbukasBlog:
How is this my business ? Or how does it affect my Christian faith ?

Didn't the rods of the Egyptian magicians also turn to snakes to contend with Moses' miracle ?

Didn't Simon the Magician attempt levitating as documented in the history books ?

Wowww, you didn't get my message, now I'm a little bit surprised.

KingEbukasBlog:
I just gave surmises to why they rejected Jesus' divinity since the movement began just few years after Jesus died. Let me reiterate : prophets performed miracles and wondrous acts , Jesus did same ; Two prophets were taken to Heaven by God , Jesus did same through his ascension ; Its a somewhat common miracle for the dead to be raised by a prophet , perhaps they thought , God raised Jesus from the dead too - a manifestation of God's power in both cases ;Rabbis were great men who taught the word of God , Jesus did same ; Prophets conversed directly with God especially Moses , Jesus had the same experience.

These possibilities may have been the reasons why they rejected Christ's divinity .To them ,possibly , similar occurrences have happened in the pasts with other prophets so why should Jesus be an exception . The nature of Christ's teaching , they thought possibly , could be by an inspiration from God .

And for the virgin birth which Christ came to this world through could be a special way , they must have thought (the once that accept it) , of bringing the Messiah . Remember they accept Christ as the Messiah but not as God .

The patent conclusion is that miracles ,wondrous acts , resurrection and ascension were indeed performed and underwent by Christ but the Ebionites must have felt that they isn't a strong distinction between a supposed 'Son of God' and the Prophets of God .

I don't know why you think "miracle" is an issue here.
Rabbis in those days performed miracles, I think I've read about one healing a sick daughter of a king and some reviving the dead.
Alexander the Great was thought to have parted the sea like Moses and won elephant battles.
I think Tacitus also wrote about an adventurer rising from the dead.
And many others...

Let me not say another word, I think you get my point already...

---

By the way, Messiah during that time just meant "The Annointed" King or Priest, no ebionite believed in Virgin birth(that was the Roman's Idea) and they didn't believe in the resurrection and ascension stories.

And you are accepting Paul's(who never met Jesus) and the Romans & Eusebius lies, to the true believers