But Jesus rose and went back to heaven.

Amotolongbo:
The fact is that crucification was one of the numerous punishments in the ancient Roman Empire.

Jesus Christ wasn’t the only person crucified then, many men would have also being crucified. Some earlier apostles of Christ could have also being crucified like him.

The nail could have been the one for Christ or someone else.

this one they specifically said its Christ own, did they do DNA test.

My Christ was crucified,he died and was buried and in the third day he rose again and went to heaven.... therefore I ask how will the nail used on Him be found on the bone because Joseph took his corps and buried him,he wouldn't have left the nails on his hands or legs.....it must be one of the thieves that where crucified with Christ.

Pelecius:

The bone and nail have nothing to do with any Jesus[b] because there was no virgin born, crucified, resurrected Jesus[/b]. Its mythology
This is a very serious claim. How can you prove this? You make this claim as if you are omniscient – you know ALL THINGS.

The Roman empire has been crucifying rebels or criminals for thousands of years before Jesus supposed time because crucification was the Roman way of punishing severe crimes. Rome used to crucify up to 500 rebels per day in Judea alone!.
Yes, the Romans crucified folks as a capital punishment but how come you miss the part that it was not thousands of years before AD.
If you can get a simple factual claim wrong, why should we trust you on any other unproven claim?

In the book, Jesus never existed, the author Kenneth Humphreys, wrote ''at the height of the siege of Jerusalem the Romans were crucifying upwards of five hundred captives a day before the city walls – dead heroes called Jesus would (quite literally) have been thick on the ground. Not one merits a full-stop in the great (bible) universal history.'' The bone and nail some of you adore here could actually have been that of a murderer!!.
Very funny. I read your quote over an over again to see how it follows. I can only conclude that this is another example of non-sequitur
Again, if you read the article, it was not concluded that it MUST belong to Jesus; rather, someone else linked it to Jesus because of… (you should read the article to find that out). And as being shown already, many Christians reject the idea that it belongs to Christ; quoting the scripture which says ‘none of his bones shall be broken’

Yet, among the thousands of crucified rebels and criminals, Rome never knew the Jesus in your bible!!.
Another blunder. Get informed on topics before you embarrass yourself. Read about Tacitus, Josephus and others. For the record, the two mentioned are regarded as great Roman historians. If you disagree, I won’t be surprised

Stop this Jesus nonsense because you're making a fool of yourself
Let me edit this since it looks like it was meant for you
Stop this (anti)Jesus nonsense because you're making a fool of yourself

Find your church members or dumb people you can pally with. Don't quote me without a historical backing to support that Rome knew your Jesus.

But I understand, the problem is that you church goer's don't know that history and your bible stories are in parallel. History is past events that actually happened, while your bible is mostly work of fiction.

Even elementary history tells you that Rome converted to christianity in 325 AD. That's 295 years that your Jesus (if he existed) was supposed to have died. 295 years gap!!. Before this period, Rome dismissed the Jesus story as nonsense (which it is) and they persecuted the early christians. The punishment included feeding them to lions. Later, when they found it useful to use religion to control their ever spreading empire, they adopted christianity as a state religion. Rome never met your Jesus!!.

If you argue otherwise, get back to me with historical information that Rome indeed knew a living Jesus and I'll apologize to you, in fact, I'll convert to christianity if you can do that.

leofab:
prior to your signature... in what language did Adam named the animals and who named the animals in the remaining languages of the world ?

There was one language which was the original language God gave man to communicate with until the confusion of language at the tower of Babel.

The languages that cause confusion were another set of languages.

You are an Evolutionist right

boyjo:

GOD bless you for not believing those liars.

when i saw the headline, i didn't even bother to read that. Coz most of these discovery of this and that is based on assumptions

musicwriter:


Find your church members or dumb people you can pally with. Don't quote me without a historical backing to support that Rome knew your Jesus.

But I understand, the problem is that you church goer's don't know that history and your bible stories are in parallel. History is past events that actually happened, while your bible is mostly work of fiction.

Even elementary history tells you that Rome converted to christianity in 325 AD. That's 295 years that your Jesus (if he existed) was supposed to have died. 295 years gap!!. Before this period, Rome dismissed the Jesus story as nonsense (which it is) and they persecuted the early christians. The punishment included feeding them to lions. Later, when they found it useful to use religion to control their ever spreading empire, they adopted christianity as a state religion. Rome never met your Jesus!!.

If you argue otherwise, get back to me with historical information that Rome indeed knew a living Jesus and I'll apologize to you, in fact, I'll convert to christianity if you can do that.

Just a simple response since, you seem to miss the part where I advise that you read the works of ROMAN HISTORIAN - TACITUS and Jewish and ROMAN CITIZEN- JOSEPHUS. (These guys wrote their works long before the 4th century that you wrote)
I believed that if you read about them and there reference to Jesus, you wouldn't have responded the way you did.

boyjo:


GOD bless you for not believing those liars.


GraceMicheall
obojememe
GolDRoger
Zchi1052
somehow
ehinmetan123
michoim
Emmyloyalty
crackhaus
crackhaus
pozehnani
gensteejay
IJOBA2
Harrykn
Nancy1986
daddytime
kingxsamz
Oizatobad
Davash222
Gudiza
Breadnote
BlackTrice
Shadysen
buttlover
thaoriginator
Lifepodcastng
ifyy07
chrisbisi

Pelecius:


Just a simple response since, you seem to miss the part where I advise that you read the works of ROMAN HISTORIAN - TACITUS and Jewish and ROMAN CITIZEN- JOSEPHUS. (These guys wrote their works long before the 4th century that you wrote)
I believed that if you read about them and there reference to Jesus, you wouldn't have responded the way you did.

Why not tell me what they said? Ok, let me help you on that.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus was born in 56 AD, which means he was born at least 26 years after Jesus's supposed death. So, Cornelius never met Jesus.

However, this's what Cornelius said ''consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.''............... Cornelius Tacitus.

As I have said in my first post, crucification was the Roman way of punishing severe crimes, and thousands of ''CristusES'' were killed that way. Christus was the alias of anybody who came forward as leader of the Jewish/Israeli movement against Roman occupation- the same thing Muslims today call MUJAHEDDIN- a holy warrior. All the rebels who came forward to free their people from Rome were called ''Cristus,'' ''messiah'', ''savior'', redeemer''. Thousands of such ''ChristusES'' were killed by Rome. I said Rome was killing up to 500 ''CristusES'' a day!. Tacitus Cornelius could have been talking about any of them.

On the second. Flavius Josephus was born in 37 AD, at least 7 years after Jesus supposedly died. So, Josephus never met Jesus.

Here's what Josephus supposedly said ''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 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.'' .............. Flavius Josephus.

Historians have long discredited the above quote as a forgery!!. Josephus never said so. Rome did!. If you even take a good look at the quote, you can see clearly it is an over ambitious effort to make a point about Jesus being God.

However, Flavius Josephus was a Jew and a sell-out to Rome, who joined foreigners (Rome) to enslave his people. He was captured in Jerusalem by the Roman army and when they interrogated him they discovered he was educated. They took him to Rome to live under the king and used him as a Jewish insider to have him write something that can pacify his people. His name was formerly Josephus Bar Matias, but the Roman emperor, Flavian, who adopted him added ''Flavius'' to his name. Flavius is a name of a Roman dynasty not a Jewish name. That's just to show you how much a sell-out he was, so he cannot be trusted. And for your information, Josephus is suspected to be the writer of the new testament part of the bible because the first 1611 AD king James version also contained the history of Josephus. It was removed to conceal that information.

LORD JESUS, THANK YOU FOR DIEING FOR ME, THAT'S AGAPE LOVE.

saaphiere:
The Lord liveth.

That's the image of the beast. Not the MESSIAH

musicwriter:


Why not tell me what they said? Ok, let me help you on that.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus was born in 56 AD, which means he was born at least 26 years after Jesus's supposed death. So, Cornelius never met Jesus.

However, this's what Cornelius said ''consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.''............... Cornelius Tacitus.

As I have said in my first post, crucification was the Roman way of punishing severe crimes, and thousands of ''CristusES'' were killed that way. Christus was the alias of anybody who came forward as leader of the Jewish/Israeli movement against Roman occupation- the same thing Muslims today call MUJAHEDDIN- a holy warrior. All the rebels who came forward to free their people from Rome were called ''Cristus,'' ''messiah'', ''savior'', redeemer''. Thousands of such ''ChristusES'' were killed by Rome. I said Rome was killing up to 500 ''CristusES'' a day!. Tacitus Cornelius could have been talking about any of them.

On the second. Flavius Josephus was born in 37 AD, at least 7 years after Jesus supposedly died. So, Josephus never met Jesus.

Here's what Josephus supposedly said ''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 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.'' .............. Flavius Josephus.

Historians have long discredited the above quote as a forgery!!. Josephus never said so. Rome did!. If you even take a good look at the quote, you can see clearly it is an over ambitious effort to make a point about Jesus being God.

However, Flavius Josephus was a Jew and a sell-out to Rome, who joined foreigners (Rome) to enslave his people. He was captured in Jerusalem by the Roman army and when they interrogated him they discovered he was educated. They took him to Rome to live under the king and used him as a Jewish insider to have him write something that can pacify his people. His name was formerly Josephus Bar Matias, but the Roman emperor, Flavian, who adopted him added ''Flavius'' to his name. Flavius is a name of a Roman dynasty not a Jewish name. That's just to show you how much a sell-out he was, so he cannot be trusted. And for your information, Josephus is suspected to be the writer of the new testament part of the bible because the first 1611 AD king James version also contained the history of Josephus. It was removed to conceal that information.

Why not tell me what they said? Ok, let me help you on that.
At least, you’ve checked. Now we can discuss. By the way, I never asked you to help me on that. I only ask you to check what you seem not to know before.
Let’s proceed to see how you tried to twist and fallaciously interpret history in a desperate attempt to hold on to your believe that Jesus never existed or Rome don’t know who Jesus was.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus was born in 56 AD, which means he was born at least 26 years after Jesus's supposed death. So, Cornelius never met Jesus.
I have to laugh when I read this statement. Give me a break! It seems you don’t know how history in antiquity were collected. Most works on ancient historical figures were written far from the events which they describe. Take Alexander the great as example, the primary sources we have for him were written by people removed from the events at least, by 100 years - historians, such as Diodorus Siculus, Quintus Curtius, Plutarch, and Arrian. Now, I don’t believe that you would deny historicity of Alexander the Great. Then simply apply same to Jesus (I’m actually just faulting your logic that Jesus never existed and not proving he existed since there are tons of evidence for the latter).
Secondly, I’m not sure you would want to discard the works of Tacitus just because he mentioned Christ. That would mean that you have to prove your case to real scholars of history; which is simply impossible.
As I have said in my first post, crucification was the Roman way of punishing severe crimes, and thousands of ''CristusES'' were killed that way.
All the rebels who came forward to free their people from Rome were called ''Cristus,'' ''messiah'', ''savior'', redeemer''. Thousands of such ''ChristusES'' were killed by Rome. I said Rome was killing up to 500 ''CristusES'' a day!. Tacitus Cornelius could have been talking about any of them.
Now, this is where you twist history. Can you please show me and the world where these are claimed with good scholarship (not just one biased anti Jesus writer)? Must you lie in order to hold on to your erroneous belief? Some Jewish rebels were crucified. Simple! That’s what history tells us but you want us to believe you that those were called cristus. SMH

On the second. Flavius Josephus was born in 37 AD, at least 7 years after Jesus supposedly died. So, Josephus never met Jesus.
As shown above, you’ll have to discard all works on many historical figures with such argument.

Historians have long discredited the above quote as a forgery!!. Josephus never said so. Rome did!. If you even take a good look at the quote, you can see clearly it is an over ambitious effort to make a point about Jesus being God.
Even if the first statement (which you quoted in your response) is being heavily contended and that it contains some ambitious Christian’s interpolation, it does not rule out the fact that he mentioned Christ as an historical figure.
Secondly, that what not his only reference to Jesus. Maybe you saw it and tried to ignore it or you didn’t know about it. In any case, here is what he said "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." in the Antiquities, found in Book 20, Chapter 9
You may deal with that. FYI, this last quote has no contention among secular historians not to talk of conservative scholars.

That's just to show you how much a sell-out he was, so he cannot be trusted. And for your information, Josephus is suspected to be the writer of the new testament part of the bible because the first 1611 AD king James version also contained the history of Josephus. It was removed to conceal that information.
Your las paragraph is another desperation to hold on to your sinking boat. We know that already about him but your argument of him being a sell out, hence “cannot be trusted” is a genetic fallacy.
Secondly, how does a translation of manuscript which decides to add foreign materials to the translated work makes the foreign material part of the original manuscript? Your desperation is out of this world. Maybe you should read about New Testament manuscript first to understand what I am saying. And like I advised earlier, you should be informed on a subject before diving into it. Also, a good knowledge of logic and fallacies may be helpful to you

So far, we have seen couple of misinformation
1. The Roman empire has been crucifying rebels or criminals for thousands of years before Jesus supposed time
2. there was no virgin born, crucified, resurrected Jesus (you’ll have to discard history or show that Luke is inconsistent in any other form of history to be able to make this claim)
3. Rome never knew the Jesus in your bible!!.
4. thousands of ''CristusES'' were killed that way
and others that I left because they were not stated categorically but can only be implied from what you said. For example, claiming that because an historian never met his subject (less than 30 years) then his work should not be taken seriously
All these are just desperate attempts to hold on to a fanciful wish that Jesus never existed

The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him. (Proverbs 18:17)

American researchers will not kill us with their findings...

Naija, we still dey learn work!

Nonsense upon stilts.

Pelecius:

Why not tell me what they said? Ok, let me help you on that.
At least, you’ve checked. Now we can discuss. By the way, I never asked you to help me on that. I only ask you to check what you seem not to know before.
Let’s proceed to see how you tried to twist and fallaciously interpret history in a desperate attempt to hold on to your believe that Jesus never existed or Rome don’t know who Jesus was.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus was born in 56 AD, which means he was born at least 26 years after Jesus's supposed death. So, Cornelius never met Jesus.
I have to laugh when I read this statement. Give me a break! It seems you don’t know how history in antiquity were collected. Most works on ancient historical figures were written far from the events which they describe. Take Alexander the great as example, the primary sources we have for him were written by people removed from the events at least, by 100 years - historians, such as Diodorus Siculus, Quintus Curtius, Plutarch, and Arrian. Now, I don’t believe that you would deny historicity of Alexander the Great. Then simply apply same to Jesus (I’m actually just faulting your logic that Jesus never existed and not proving he existed since there are tons of evidence for the latter).
Secondly, I’m not sure you would want to discard the works of Tacitus just because he mentioned Christ. That would mean that you have to prove your case to real scholars of history; which is simply impossible.
As I have said in my first post, crucification was the Roman way of punishing severe crimes, and thousands of ''CristusES'' were killed that way.
All the rebels who came forward to free their people from Rome were called ''Cristus,'' ''messiah'', ''savior'', redeemer''. Thousands of such ''ChristusES'' were killed by Rome. I said Rome was killing up to 500 ''CristusES'' a day!. Tacitus Cornelius could have been talking about any of them.
Now, this is where you twist history. Can you please show me and the world where these are claimed with good scholarship (not just one biased anti Jesus writer)? Must you lie in order to hold on to your erroneous belief? Some Jewish rebels were crucified. Simple! That’s what history tells us but you want us to believe you that those were called cristus. SMH

On the second. Flavius Josephus was born in 37 AD, at least 7 years after Jesus supposedly died. So, Josephus never met Jesus.
As shown above, you’ll have to discard all works on many historical figures with such argument.

Historians have long discredited the above quote as a forgery!!. Josephus never said so. Rome did!. If you even take a good look at the quote, you can see clearly it is an over ambitious effort to make a point about Jesus being God.
Even if the first statement (which you quoted in your response) is being heavily contended and that it contains some ambitious Christian’s interpolation, it does not rule out the fact that he mentioned Christ as an historical figure.
Secondly, that what not his only reference to Jesus. Maybe you saw it and tried to ignore it or you didn’t know about it. In any case, here is what he said "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." in the Antiquities, found in Book 20, Chapter 9
You may deal with that. FYI, this last quote has no contention among secular historians not to talk of conservative scholars.

That's just to show you how much a sell-out he was, so he cannot be trusted. And for your information, Josephus is suspected to be the writer of the new testament part of the bible because the first 1611 AD king James version also contained the history of Josephus. It was removed to conceal that information.
Your las paragraph is another desperation to hold on to your sinking boat. We know that already about him but your argument of him being a sell out, hence “cannot be trusted” is a genetic fallacy.
Secondly, how does a translation of manuscript which decides to add foreign materials to the translated work makes the foreign material part of the original manuscript? Your desperation is out of this world. Maybe you should read about New Testament manuscript first to understand what I am saying. And like I advised earlier, you should be informed on a subject before diving into it. Also, a good knowledge of logic and fallacies may be helpful to you

So far, we have seen couple of misinformation
1. The Roman empire has been crucifying rebels or criminals for thousands of years before Jesus supposed time
2. there was no virgin born, crucified, resurrected Jesus (you’ll have to discard history or show that Luke is inconsistent in any other form of history to be able to make this claim)
3. Rome never knew the Jesus in your bible!!.
4. thousands of ''CristusES'' were killed that way
and others that I left because they were not stated categorically but can only be implied from what you said. For example, claiming that because an historian never met his subject (less than 30 years) then his work should not be taken seriously
All these are just desperate attempts to hold on to a fanciful wish that Jesus never existed

The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him. (Proverbs 18:17)

I don't want to deal with lot of things you said here because if you eventually free your mind, you'll be ashamed you wrote those things with your hands.

Yes, Alexander the so called great was a historical figure and wasn't just recorded in one book chosen by Rome. As you mentioned, several people wrote something about him in Arabia, Persia, Egypt, Greece. But if the historians claimed he resurrected from the dead, then they would be challenged.

And no, Luke never met your Jesus. Oh yes!. Even Luke never saw a so called Jesus, he never even claimed to be an eye witness to what he was reporting about Jesus. He said so himself in Luke chapter one!!.

Luke said that the event he was reporting in the bible ''were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses.'' Luke never met Jesus!!.

[img]https://1.bp..com/-RawZGMXXBLI/XbbuQmOCtyI/AAAAAAAABbI/3jxtE-63FLolTDRB_vN0dhzeFP8I5V4KwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/luke%2Bwas%2Bnot%2Ban%2Beye%2Bwitness.jpg[/img]

musicwriter:


I don't want to deal with lot of things you said here because if you eventually free your mind, you'll be ashamed you wrote those things with your hands.

Yes, Alexander the so called great was a historical figure and wasn't just recorded in one book chosen by Rome. As you mentioned, several people wrote something about him in Arabia, Persia, Egypt, Greece. But if the historians claimed he resurrected from the dead, then they would be challenged.

And no, Luke never met your Jesus. Oh yes!. Even Luke never saw a so called Jesus, he never even claimed to be an eye witness to what he was reporting about Jesus. He said so himself in Luke chapter one!!.

Luke said that the event he was reporting in the bible ''were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses.'' Luke never met Jesus!!.

I don't want to deal with lot of things you said here because if you eventually free your mind, you'll be ashamed you wrote those things with your hands.

Lol
Very funny and I am not surprised. After showing your logical inconsistencies, all you can say is that I should be ashamed of what I wrote without telling me WHY I should be ashamed.
You should be ashamed rather as I gave list of your misinformation and you really can’t do anything about it. Instead, you resort to emotional defense
How about you free your mind first since you were unable to show consistency in your argument as will be shown

Yes, Alexander the so called great was a historical figure and wasn't just recorded in one book chosen by Rome. As you mentioned, several people wrote something about him in Arabia, Persia, Egypt, Greece
Here you claim that Alex is historical figure (which I don’t dispute) because people wrote about him in different places. But using your logic, we should not take their account serious because they never met him. What will you say about that? Who needs to free his mind now?
After all, you still said that “Luke never met your Jesus”. We can see the double standards now. You even when on to say that “he never even claimed to be an eye witness…” but I will ask same thing concerning those who wrote about Alexander. Were they eye witness? No! but you agreed that he was a historical figure.
I guess someone dished out an important advice that was meant for him

But if the historians claimed he resurrected from the dead, then they would be challenged.
This is clearly were I am going to.
Your argument was that: “Rome never knew the Jesus in your bible!!” I gave examples of first century Historians in Roman empire who mentioned him in their works.
You came up with “they never met him” rebuttal. I responded that other historical figures are taken as authentic even when the first person to pen something down did after over 100 years of the subject’s death. So, not meeting the subject is clearly fallacious.
Then you seem to agree that figures like alexander was real because “several people wrote about him…”. But several people also wrote about Jesus; his disciples, their disciples, Roman Historians, etc.
Now you are moving to report of miracle. Why can’t you be consistent? Why do you seem to lock your mind?

And no, Luke never met your Jesus. Oh yes!. Even Luke never saw a so called Jesus, he never even claimed to be an eye witness to what he was reporting about Jesus. He said so himself in Luke chapter one!!.
Luke said that the event he was reporting in the bible ''were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses.'' Luke never met Jesus!!.

You keep repeating this fallacy when you can’t defend your position. You can only use it if ALL historians met their subjects, especially, ancient historians.
Your double standard is noted, your misinformation is seen, your closed mindedness is revealed.
Your advice is clearly for you and I’m sending it back to you
“…if you eventually free your mind, you’ll be ashamed you wrote those things with your hands”

Pelecius:

I don't want to deal with lot of things you said here because if you eventually free your mind, you'll be ashamed you wrote those things with your hands.

Lol
Very funny and I am not surprised. After showing your logical inconsistencies, all you can say is that I should be ashamed of what I wrote without telling me WHY I should be ashamed.
You should be ashamed rather as I gave list of your misinformation and you really can’t do anything about it. Instead, you resort to emotional defense
How about you free your mind first since you were unable to show consistency in your argument as will be shown

Yes, Alexander the so called great was a historical figure and wasn't just recorded in one book chosen by Rome. As you mentioned, several people wrote something about him in Arabia, Persia, Egypt, Greece
Here you claim that Alex is historical figure (which I don’t dispute) because people wrote about him in different places. But using your logic, we should not take their account serious because they never met him. What will you say about that? Who needs to free his mind now?
After all, you still said that “Luke never met your Jesus”. We can see the double standards now. You even when on to say that “he never even claimed to be an eye witness…” but I will ask same thing concerning those who wrote about Alexander. Were they eye witness? No! but you agreed that he was a historical figure.
I guess someone dished out an important advice that was meant for him

But if the historians claimed he resurrected from the dead, then they would be challenged.
This is clearly were I am going to.
Your argument was that: “Rome never knew the Jesus in your bible!!” I gave examples of first century Historians in Roman empire who mentioned him in their works.
You came up with “they never met him” rebuttal. I responded that other historical figures are taken as authentic even when the first person to pen something down did after over 100 years of the subject’s death. So, not meeting the subject is clearly fallacious.
Then you seem to agree that figures like alexander was real because “several people wrote about him…”. But several people also wrote about Jesus; his disciples, their disciples, Roman Historians, etc.
Now you are moving to report of miracle. Why can’t you be consistent? Why do you seem to lock your mind?

And no, Luke never met your Jesus. Oh yes!. Even Luke never saw a so called Jesus, he never even claimed to be an eye witness to what he was reporting about Jesus. He said so himself in Luke chapter one!!.
Luke said that the event he was reporting in the bible ''were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses.'' Luke never met Jesus!!.

You keep repeating this fallacy when you can’t defend your position. You can only use it if ALL historians met their subjects, especially, ancient historians.
Your double standard is noted, your misinformation is seen, your closed mindedness is revealed.
Your advice is clearly for you and I’m sending it back to you
“…if you eventually free your mind, you’ll be ashamed you wrote those things with your hands”

Very funny you've reduced your Jesus to Alexander the great. Let me remind you this thread isn't about Alexander the great but about Jesus. Yet, you have the audacity to talk about consistency?

I said nobody in history met your Jesus. But people did meet Alexander the great.

Alexander the great was taught by Aristotle in his teens. He studied philosophy and medicine. And this's verifiable via Aristotle himself his teacher. That's one.

King Darius III of Persia fought hand in hand battle with Alexander the great. Again, this's verifiable via Persia (today's Iran) his adversary. That's two. But in the case of Jesus, nobody in HISTORY ever had any contact with him. How could Jesus have done all that's written in your bible and nobody, not even one person ever met him while he was alive? Or is it because Jesus is a myth? Tell me about a first-hand contact with Jesus by someone outside of your bible as you have Aristotle and King Darius III for Alexander the great. This's what you should prove. Stop telling me about Alexander the great.

musicwriter:


Very funny you've reduced your Jesus to Alexander the great. Let me remind you this thread isn't about Alexander the great but about Jesus. Yet, you have the audacity to talk about consistency?

I said nobody in history met your Jesus. But people did meet Alexander the great.

Alexander the great was taught by Aristotle in his teens. He studied philosophy and medicine. And this's verifiable via Aristotle himself his teacher. That's one.

King Darius III of Persia fought hand in hand battle with Alexander the great. Again, this's verifiable via Persia (today's Iran) his adversary. That's two. But in the case of Jesus, nobody in HISTORY ever had any contact with him. How could Jesus have done all that's written in your bible and nobody, not even one person ever met him while he was alive? Or is it because Jesus is a myth? Tell me about a first-hand contact with Jesus by someone outside of your bible as you have Aristotle and King Darius III for Alexander the great. This's what you should prove. Stop telling me about Alexander the great.

Very funny you've reduced your Jesus to Alexander the great.
Lol
Must you bring up a straw man argument? How I reduced Jesus to Alexander the great because I want you to use same criteria for HISTORICITY for both is what I don’t get. If you can’t get a simple fact straight and resort to use of double standard, is that my fault?

Let me remind you this thread isn't about Alexander the great but about Jesus. Yet, you have the audacity to talk about consistency?
Of course, you are right and I have maintained my defense for the historicity of Christ. You on the under hand have not been consistent as I showed in my previous response

I said nobody in history met your Jesus. But people did meet Alexander the great.
This is exactly what I just wrote. Your initial argument which was why I decided to expose your misinformation was that “Rome never knew your Jesus”. Now what you wrote above is different from your initial claim. What is the definition of consistency again

Alexander the great was taught by Aristotle in his teens. He studied philosophy and medicine. And this's verifiable via Aristotle himself his teacher. That's one.
King Darius III of Persia fought hand in hand battle with Alexander the great. Again, this's verifiable via Persia (today's Iran) his adversary. That's two. But in the case of Jesus, nobody in HISTORY ever had any contact with him.
Tell me about a first-hand contact with Jesus by someone outside of your bible as you have Aristotle and King Darius III for Alexander the great. This's what you should prove. Stop telling me about Alexander the great

Even if you shift your argument to this new claim that “NOBODY IN HISTORY MET YOUR Jesus”, this is WRONG again. Pontius Pilate is an historical figure, a Roman Prefect who met Jesus. This is recorded in Josephus’ work. Also, a cylinder bearing his name and title has been found which agree with the gospel’s description and that of Josephus.
Again, at least, someone in history met Jesus. Your claim is demolished again. Let’s see what you have about this. And don’t come with the argument of writing after some years of subject’s death as I already showed that you’ll have to discard ALL historical figures

Let’s review your claims and misinformation again:
1. That Roman empire has been crucifying rebels for thousands of years before Jesus’ supposed time. (this is clearly an ignorance on history of crucifixion as they started it after about 400 years before it was first done by the Persians or Athenians according to other reports. And they did theirs less than 100 years before the birth of Christ.)
2. That there was no virgin born, crucified, resurrected Jesus (historicity of Jesus is well attested and evidence is overwhelming. The events surrounding him could be the bone of contention depending on one’s worldview)
3. That Rome never knew Jesus (which we have seen that Pontius Pilate met him, and he was referenced by two great Roman historians)
4. That thousands of “cristuses” were killed through crucifixion (we are yet to see evidence for this deliberate twist of history)
5. That nobody in history met Jesus (we just showed that Pontius Pilate who is a historical figure met Jesus)
And others that are one form of fallacy or the other.

You are defending a lost argument and that’s why you keep on shifting goal post, dishing out false claims and misinformation, coupled with using fallacies in order to keep up. Your advise is still there for you to consider

Pelecius:

Very funny you've reduced your Jesus to Alexander the great.
Lol
Must you bring up a straw man argument? How I reduced Jesus to Alexander the great because I want you to use same criteria for HISTORICITY for both is what I don’t get. If you can’t get a simple fact straight and resort to use of double standard, is that my fault?

Let me remind you this thread isn't about Alexander the great but about Jesus. Yet, you have the audacity to talk about consistency?
Of course, you are right and I have maintained my defense for the historicity of Christ. You on the under hand have not been consistent as I showed in my previous response

I said nobody in history met your Jesus. But people did meet Alexander the great.
This is exactly what I just wrote. Your initial argument which was why I decided to expose your misinformation was that “Rome never knew your Jesus”. Now what you wrote above is different from your initial claim. What is the definition of consistency again

Alexander the great was taught by Aristotle in his teens. He studied philosophy and medicine. And this's verifiable via Aristotle himself his teacher. That's one.
King Darius III of Persia fought hand in hand battle with Alexander the great. Again, this's verifiable via Persia (today's Iran) his adversary. That's two. But in the case of Jesus, nobody in HISTORY ever had any contact with him.
Tell me about a first-hand contact with Jesus by someone outside of your bible as you have Aristotle and King Darius III for Alexander the great. This's what you should prove. Stop telling me about Alexander the great

Even if you shift your argument to this new claim that “NOBODY IN HISTORY MET YOUR Jesus”, this is WRONG again. Pontius Pilate is an historical figure, a Roman Prefect who met Jesus. This is recorded in Josephus’ work. Also, a cylinder bearing his name and title has been found which agree with the gospel’s description and that of Josephus.
Again, at least, someone in history met Jesus. Your claim is demolished again. Let’s see what you have about this. And don’t come with the argument of writing after some years of subject’s death as I already showed that you’ll have to discard ALL historical figures

Let’s review your claims and misinformation again:
1. That Roman empire has been crucifying rebels for thousands of years before Jesus’ supposed time. (this is clearly an ignorance on history of crucifixion as they started it after about 400 years before it was first done by the Persians or Athenians according to other reports. And they did theirs less than 100 years before the birth of Christ.)
2. That there was no virgin born, crucified, resurrected Jesus (historicity of Jesus is well attested and evidence is overwhelming. The events surrounding him could be the bone of contention depending on one’s worldview)
3. That Rome never knew Jesus (which we have seen that Pontius Pilate met him, and he was referenced by two great Roman historians)
4. That thousands of “cristuses” were killed through crucifixion (we are yet to see evidence for this deliberate twist of history)
5. That nobody in history met Jesus (we just showed that Pontius Pilate who is a historical figure met Jesus)
And others that are one form of fallacy or the other.

You are defending a lost argument and that’s why you keep on shifting goal post, dishing out false claims and misinformation, coupled with using fallacies in order to keep up. Your advise is still there for you to consider

You're giving me a Roman source as evidence of Jesus? Who do you think gave you Jesus? You think Jesus wrote your bible?

Rome wrote the bible as its used today.
Rome invented Jesus as known today.
Rome invented Sunday as part of Christianity.
Rome invented Trinity as part of Christianity.
Rome invented Easter as part of Christianity.
Rome invented Christmas as part of Christianity.
Rome basically invented Christianity as practiced today, albeit few modification by various denominations.

You shouldn't use a Roman source to prove Jesus because Jesus and Rome are one and the same, so giving me a Roman source is as good as not saying anything.

Rome never knew your Jesus. Let me say that again. Rome never knew your Jesus. It was only after adopting Christianity as a state religion for the purpose of controlling the populace in the Roman empire that they began fabricating the bible story.

And again, Jesus means Yashua, which means God saves. This was the most common first name of male children in Roman Judea. Rebels named Yashua (Jesus) were mostly the ones leading the rebellion against Roman occupation of their lands and Rome was crucifying up to 500 JesusES per day. Pontius Pilate would have overseen the prosecution of literally thousands of JesusES during his time as Roman governor in Judea. There was no virgin born, crucified, resurrected person, so the Jesus that met Pontius Pilate could have been anybody weaved into the bible story. Its a story not a real event!!. That's why you'll never see a HISTORICAL figure meet Jesus but you'll see Jesus meeting other people. A real person could not meet Jesus but Jesus can meet others because its a story!!. Its the writer creating the characters like in any other work of literature. Bother, you're hooked on a children story!!.

Within the first 300 years of christianity, Rome dismissed the Jesus story as nonsense (which it is) until they found how to use it to control people. It was only then that Jesus all of a sudden became real.

Tell me who met Jesus outside of the bible. For emphasis, by ''outside the bible'' I mean outside Roman sources because Rome cannot be the only source about someone who was walking on water and resurrecting people from the dead. If Jesus existed, the ancient Egyptians would have written about him since Palestine is just few miles from Egypt, in fact, the whole world would have written about it and not just Rome. Free yourself from the bible story. The bible is not history.

musicwriter:


You're giving me a Roman source as evidence of Jesus? Who do you think gave you Jesus? You think Jesus wrote your bible?

Rome wrote the bible as its used today.
Rome invented Jesus as known today.
Rome invented Sunday as part of Christianity.
Rome invented Trinity as part of Christianity.
Rome invented Easter as part of Christianity.
Rome invented Christmas as part of Christianity.
Rome basically invented Christianity as practiced today, albeit few modification by various denominations.

You shouldn't use a Roman source to prove Jesus because Jesus and Rome are one and the same, so giving me a Roman source is as good as not saying anything.

Rome never knew your Jesus. Let me say that again. Rome never knew your Jesus. It was only after adopting Christianity as a state religion for the purpose of controlling the populace in the Roman empire that they began fabricating the bible story.

And again, Jesus means Yashua, which means God saves. This was the most common first name of male children in Roman Judea. Rebels named Yashua (Jesus) were mostly the ones leading the rebellion against Roman occupation of their lands and Rome was crucifying up to 500 JesusES per day. Pontius Pilate would have overseen the prosecution of literally thousands of JesusES during his time as Roman governor in Judea. There was no virgin born, crucified, resurrected person, so the Jesus that met Pontius Pilate could have been anybody weaved into the bible story. Its a story not a real event!!. That's why you'll never see a HISTORICAL figure meet Jesus but you'll see Jesus meeting other people. A real person could not meet Jesus but Jesus can meet others because its a story!!. Its the writer creating the characters like in any other work of literature. Bother, you're hooked on a children story!!.

Within the first 300 years of christianity, Rome dismissed the Jesus story as nonsense (which it is) until they found how to use it to control people. It was only then that Jesus all of a sudden became real.

Tell me who met Jesus outside of the bible. For emphasis, by ''outside the bible'' I mean outside Roman sources because Rome cannot be the only source about someone who was walking on water and resurrecting people from the dead. If Jesus existed, the ancient Egyptians would have written about him since Palestine is just few miles from Egypt, in fact, the whole world would have written about it and not just Rome. Free yourself from the bible story. The bible is not history.

You're giving me a Roman source as evidence of Jesus?
Debating wannabe anti-God (atheist) on NL is always fruitless as they mostly resort to misinformation in order to hold on to their weak life line. You said I should not give a Roman source when you clearly claimed that ROME didn’t know Jesus. I laugh in adjective. So, I should give an Egyptian source (or Chinese, lol) to prove that Rome knew Jesus. Your desperation is out of this world. I bow for it

Who do you think gave you Jesus? You think Jesus wrote your bible?
This is what I say most times. When you debate with someone who is ill informed on the subject, this is the type of outrageous claim that one sees. Who gave me Jesus? And your answer is Rome? Please give me a break!! Then you started another set of misinformation.

Rome wrote the bible as its used today.
Rome invented Jesus as known today.
Rome invented Sunday as part of Christianity.
Rome invented Trinity as part of Christianity.
Rome invented Easter as part of Christianity.
Rome invented Christmas as part of Christianity.
Rome basically invented Christianity as practiced today, albeit few modification by various denominations.
I don’t need to address all these outrageous false claims. I only challenge you to prove your case as my response would be too lengthy for those who may have time to read it.

You shouldn't use a Roman source to prove Jesus because Jesus and Rome are one and the same, so giving me a Roman source is as good as not saying anything.
Like I said before, you expect me not to use a Roman source since all your arguments (that Rome never knew Jesus, nobody in history met Jesus, and others) have been completely refuted to the glory of God. Now I should use who? Chima Amanda? Or a Korean source? Your desperation is really out of this world.

Rome never knew your Jesus. Let me say that again. Rome never knew your Jesus.
Anyone following our debate would easily see your desperation since this claim has been demolished with my first response

It was only after adopting Christianity as a state religion for the purpose of controlling the populace in the Roman empire that they began fabricating the bible story
Please give us reason to believe this your false misinformation. Bring your source (according to your criteria, it shouldn’t be a Roman source and should not be more than 20 years from the time this your alleged claim happened)

And again, Jesus means Yashua, which means God saves. This was the most common first name of male children in Roman Judea.
Yes, at least, you got something right this time

Rebels named Yashua (Jesus) were mostly the ones leading the rebellion against Roman occupation of their lands and Rome was crucifying up to 500 JesusES per day. Pontius Pilate would have overseen the prosecution of literally thousands of JesusES during his time as Roman governor in Judea. There was no virgin born, crucified, resurrected person, so the Jesus that met Pontius Pilate could have been anybody weaved into the bible story. Its a story not a real event!!.
Again, we are back to outrageous claims. Please bring your source (according to your criteria, it shouldn’t be a Roman source and should not be more than 20 years from the time this your alleged claim happened)
Another desperate attempt to stay afloat. Your logical fallacy can make Buhari to be shocked. Person A and B met, it is easy for one to either say that Person A met with B or B met with A. it is a simple ‘Associative law’ in logic. So your logic is severely faulty and you should be ashamed that you resort to this type of fallacy just to stay afloat. Most smart kids would laugh at this not to talk of tertiary level (undergraduate or graduate) students.

That's why you'll never see a HISTORICAL figure meet Jesus but you'll see Jesus meeting other people. A real person could not meet Jesus but Jesus can meet others because its a story!!. Its the writer creating the characters like in any other work of literature.
Like I said, this is just sheer desperation. The argument built around this your claim is a fallacy of begging the question. You tried to shove the "crucifixion of many jesuses" down our throat without proving it, then going on to say Pilate MAY HAVE met with any one of them. I laugh in Fulani

Bother, you're hooked on a children story!!.
Nah! You are hooked on defending a lost argument since you are only committing a question-begging-epithet fallacy. Claiming that I am hooked on a story when you can’t even prove that it just a story than history.

Within the first 300 years of christianity, Rome dismissed the Jesus story as nonsense (which it is) until they found how to use it to control people. It was only then that Jesus all of a sudden became real.
You can’t just stop dishing out your lies. Please show us how this happened (using the criteria that you set up and that I explained above)

Tell me who met Jesus outside of the bible. For emphasis, by ''outside the bible'' I mean outside Roman sources because Rome cannot be the only source about someone who was walking on water and resurrecting people from the dead. If Jesus existed, the ancient Egyptians would have written about him since Palestine is just few miles from Egypt, in fact, the whole world would have written about it and not just Rome. .
You don’t need to be changing goal post as it is already frustrating an objective and intellectual debate. This is clearly a fallacy. The funny thing is you seem to be exporting 21st century to event of 2000 years ago. That is, you seem to think that it is now that we have mass media so that event which happened in a place can be known all over the world.
Also, Coptic traditions says that Christianity was already spreading in mid first century. Though Jesus didn’t go to Egypt in his 3 years ministry, but his influence spread to Egypt after his death which is what he predicted and commanded.

Free yourself from the bible story. The bible is not history
Nah! Free yourself from anti Christianity sentiments since you couldn’t objectively build your case but resort to false claims and misinformation (lying?) and fallacies to hold on to your BELIEVE. What will you lose if your claims are wrong (as shown already that they are wrong)? Your ego that you can't be wrong or what? Or that you promised that you will become a believer in Christ if your initial claim was refuted? Don't worry, I won't hold you on the latter.

The Nail has Head and Eyes like Caiaphas.

Pelecius:

You're giving me a Roman source as evidence of Jesus?
Debating wannabe anti-God (atheist) on NL is always fruitless as they mostly resort to misinformation in order to hold on to their weak life line. You said I should not give a Roman source when you clearly claimed that ROME didn’t know Jesus. I laugh in adjective. So, I should give an Egyptian source (or Chinese, lol) to prove that Rome knew Jesus. Your desperation is out of this world. I bow for it

Who do you think gave you Jesus? You think Jesus wrote your bible?
This is what I say most times. When you debate with someone who is ill informed on the subject, this is the type of outrageous claim that one sees. Who gave me Jesus? And your answer is Rome? Please give me a break!! Then you started another set of misinformation.

Rome wrote the bible as its used today.
Rome invented Jesus as known today.
Rome invented Sunday as part of Christianity.
Rome invented Trinity as part of Christianity.
Rome invented Easter as part of Christianity.
Rome invented Christmas as part of Christianity.
Rome basically invented Christianity as practiced today, albeit few modification by various denominations.
I don’t need to address all these outrageous false claims. I only challenge you to prove your case as my response would be too lengthy for those who may have time to read it.

You shouldn't use a Roman source to prove Jesus because Jesus and Rome are one and the same, so giving me a Roman source is as good as not saying anything.
Like I said before, you expect me not to use a Roman source since all your arguments (that Rome never knew Jesus, nobody in history met Jesus, and others) have been completely refuted to the glory of God. Now I should use who? Chima Amanda? Or a Korean source? Your desperation is really out of this world.

Rome never knew your Jesus. Let me say that again. Rome never knew your Jesus.
Anyone following our debate would easily see your desperation since this claim has been demolished with my first response

It was only after adopting Christianity as a state religion for the purpose of controlling the populace in the Roman empire that they began fabricating the bible story
Please give us reason to believe this your false misinformation. Bring your source (according to your criteria, it shouldn’t be a Roman source and should not be more than 20 years from the time this your alleged claim happened)

And again, Jesus means Yashua, which means God saves. This was the most common first name of male children in Roman Judea.
Yes, at least, you got something right this time

Rebels named Yashua (Jesus) were mostly the ones leading the rebellion against Roman occupation of their lands and Rome was crucifying up to 500 JesusES per day. Pontius Pilate would have overseen the prosecution of literally thousands of JesusES during his time as Roman governor in Judea. There was no virgin born, crucified, resurrected person, so the Jesus that met Pontius Pilate could have been anybody weaved into the bible story. Its a story not a real event!!.
Again, we are back to outrageous claims. Please bring your source (according to your criteria, it shouldn’t be a Roman source and should not be more than 20 years from the time this your alleged claim happened)
Another desperate attempt to stay afloat. Your logical fallacy can make Buhari to be shocked. Person A and B met, it is easy for one to either say that Person A met with B or B met with A. it is a simple ‘Associative law’ in logic. So your logic is severely faulty and you should be ashamed that you resort to this type of fallacy just to stay afloat. Most smart kids would laugh at this not to talk of tertiary level (undergraduate or graduate) students.

That's why you'll never see a HISTORICAL figure meet Jesus but you'll see Jesus meeting other people. A real person could not meet Jesus but Jesus can meet others because its a story!!. Its the writer creating the characters like in any other work of literature.
Like I said, this is just sheer desperation. The argument built around this your claim is a fallacy of begging the question. You tried to shove the "crucifixion of many jesuses" down our throat without proving it, then going on to say Pilate MAY HAVE met with any one of them. I laugh in Fulani

Bother, you're hooked on a children story!!.
Nah! You are hooked on defending a lost argument since you are only committing a question-begging-epithet fallacy. Claiming that I am hooked on a story when you can’t even prove that it just a story than history.

Within the first 300 years of christianity, Rome dismissed the Jesus story as nonsense (which it is) until they found how to use it to control people. It was only then that Jesus all of a sudden became real.
You can’t just stop dishing out your lies. Please show us how this happened (using the criteria that you set up and that I explained above)

Tell me who met Jesus outside of the bible. For emphasis, by ''outside the bible'' I mean outside Roman sources because Rome cannot be the only source about someone who was walking on water and resurrecting people from the dead. If Jesus existed, the ancient Egyptians would have written about him since Palestine is just few miles from Egypt, in fact, the whole world would have written about it and not just Rome. .
You don’t need to be changing goal post as it is already frustrating an objective and intellectual debate. This is clearly a fallacy. The funny thing is you seem to be exporting 21st century to event of 2000 years ago. That is, you seem to think that it is now that we have mass media so that event which happened in a place can be known all over the world.
Also, Coptic traditions says that Christianity was already spreading in mid first century. Though Jesus didn’t go to Egypt in his 3 years ministry, but his influence spread to Egypt after his death which is what he predicted and commanded.

Free yourself from the bible story. The bible is not history
Nah! Free yourself from anti Christianity sentiments since you couldn’t objectively build your case but resort to false claims and misinformation (lying?) and fallacies to hold on to your BELIEVE. What will you lose if your claims are wrong (as shown already that they are wrong)? Your ego that you can't be wrong or what? Or that you promised that you will become a believer in Christ if your initial claim was refuted? Don't worry, I won't hold you on the latter.

The problem as I have said is that you're hooked on a story by Rome, so you're stuck and cannot think outside of what they want you to believe.

Your Jesus (bible's Jesus) never met Pontius Pilate as testified by an early Jesus believer named Banabas in a different book that Rome won't want you to read. Remember Banabas? Banabas was one of the pioneer early christians who ushered Paul to the Jewish sect that would later become christianity, though he later got estranged with him when he (Paul) began fabricating the different version of Jesus known to you and many other christians today.

Banabas wrote a book called the gospel of Banabas. In the gospel of Banabas, your Jesus never met Pontius Pilate neither was he crucified, instead Judas Iscariot was the one crucified. This's a none Roman source that they don't want you to know.

Below is an audiobook of the gospel of Banabas. You can listen to the entire book or just listen from 08: 44: 50 (from where Jesus had a premonition he'll be betrayed) and you'll get a different narrative of your bible story. Your Jesus never existed, so any tales of him meeting anybody is just work of literature. In literature any event is possible. That's why Jesus can do and undo in the bible.

The gospel of Barnabas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keS5Xgc6Gkg

musicwriter:


The problem as I have said is that you're hooked on a story by Rome, so you're stuck and cannot think outside of what they want you to believe.

Your Jesus (bible's Jesus) never met Pontius Pilate as testified by an early Jesus believer named Banabas in a different book that Rome won't want you to read. Remember Banabas? Banabas was one of the pioneer early christians who ushered Paul to the Jewish sect that would later become christianity, though he later got estranged with him when he (Paul) began fabricating the different version of Jesus known to you and many other christians today.

Banabas wrote a book called the gospel of Banabas. In the gospel of Banabas, your Jesus never met Pontius Pilate neither was he crucified, instead Judas Iscariot was the one crucified. This's a none Roman source that they don't want you to know.

Below is an audiobook of the gospel of Banabas. You can listen to the entire book or just listen from 08: 44: 50 (from where Jesus had a premonition he'll be betrayed) and you'll get a different narrative of your bible story. Your Jesus never existed, so any tales of him meeting anybody is just work of literature. In literature any event is possible. That's why Jesus can do and undo in the bible.

The gospel of Barnabas

The problem as I have said is that you're hooked on a story by Rome, so you're stuck and cannot think outside of what they want you to believe.
I remember challenging you to prove this your outrageous claim that the Bible (new testament?) was produced by Rome. To show your inconsistencies, you claimed “Rome DISMISSED the Jesus story as nonsense” but then you later claimed that “it was only after adopting Christianity as a state religion for the purpose of controlling the populace …that they BEGAN FABRICATING THE BIBLE STORY" (emphasis are mine).
Question is now:
1. How could they fabricate that which they already dismissed?
2. How can you show that it was fabricated by Rome?
Again, your initial argument (before you started changing goal post) was that “Rome NEVER KNEW YOUR Jesus”, but after some time, you claimed that “Rome AND Jesus ARE ONE”. Your questions again would be:
1. How come you are one with something you don’t know?
2. Why are you so inconsistent with your claims?
Yet, you are accusing me that my problem is that I am hooked on a ‘story’ by Rome (question begging-epithet fallacy). Anyway let’s go on to see another inconsistency in a desperate measure to just hold on to your belief

Your Jesus (bible's Jesus) never met Pontius Pilate as testified by an early Jesus believer named Banabas in a different book that Rome won't want you to read. Remember Banabas? Banabas was one of the pioneer early christians who ushered Paul to the Jewish sect that would later become christianity, though he later got estranged with him when he (Paul) began fabricating the different version of Jesus known to you and many other christians today.
Now, according to one book as against the Biblical text and secular texts, you want us to place our faith on you who has been shown to be grossly inconsistent. My question would be:
How do you know Barnabas? You went on to explain who Barnabas is as described by the author of the book of Acts – Luke. Now, this book of Acts is in what? The new testament of the Bible who according to you was fabricated by Rome. Please, what is the color of your inconsistency again?

Like I said before, debating with someone who is not well informed on a subject is usually frustrating. This ‘gospel’ that was attributed to Barnabas has so much hurdle to cross for it to be authentic.
1. First, it is far removed from when the alleged author lived (between 400 – 1500 years)
2. It described some historical events that happened many centuries after the alleged author had died. An example is The 100-year jubilee which was declared in 14th century in Western Europe. How would a first century writer describe such thing. This has demolished his authorship of the so called gospel.
3. The gospels and other epistles taught about deity, death and resurrection of Christ while this who was with them is now teaching opposite.
4. Unlike the books of the new testament which were referenced as early as in first centuries and into the second century (as against the nonsense council of Nicaea that skeptics love to parrot which happened in the fourth century), this gospel was not referenced until after the fourth century. This add to the problems of it being authored by a revered Barnabas

Below is an audiobook of the gospel of Barnabas. You can listen to the entire book or just listen from 08: 44: 50 (from where Jesus had a premonition he'll be betrayed) and you'll get a different narrative of your bible story. Your Jesus never existed, so any tales of him meeting anybody is just work of literature. In literature any event is possible. That's why Jesus can do and undo in the bible.

If it is shown already that it was not written by Barnabas, then you just built your argument on a house of cards again and it has been shown. Again, many writers wrote ‘epistles’ and ‘gospels’ using names of apostles after their death. Most of these were written in the second century and beyond. This clearly showed that the so called gospel is among such category, hence should be discarded as a primary source for the historical Jesus.

Sorry bro, you are debating a lost argument which is why you resort to unscholarly methods

Pelecius:

The problem as I have said is that you're hooked on a story by Rome, so you're stuck and cannot think outside of what they want you to believe.
I remember challenging you to prove this your outrageous claim that the Bible (new testament?) was produced by Rome. To show your inconsistencies, you claimed “Rome DISMISSED the Jesus story as nonsense” but then you later claimed that “it was only after adopting Christianity as a state religion for the purpose of controlling the populace …that they BEGAN FABRICATING THE BIBLE STORY" (emphasis are mine).
Question is now:
1. How could they fabricate that which they already dismissed?
2. How can you show that it was fabricated by Rome?
Again, your initial argument (before you started changing goal post) was that “Rome NEVER KNEW YOUR Jesus”, but after some time, you claimed that “Rome AND Jesus ARE ONE”. Your questions again would be:
1. How come you are one with something you don’t know?
2. Why are you so inconsistent with your claims?
Yet, you are accusing me that my problem is that I am hooked on a ‘story’ by Rome (question begging-epithet fallacy). Anyway let’s go on to see another inconsistency in a desperate measure to just hold on to your belief

Your Jesus (bible's Jesus) never met Pontius Pilate as testified by an early Jesus believer named Banabas in a different book that Rome won't want you to read. Remember Banabas? Banabas was one of the pioneer early christians who ushered Paul to the Jewish sect that would later become christianity, though he later got estranged with him when he (Paul) began fabricating the different version of Jesus known to you and many other christians today.
Now, according to one book as against the Biblical text and secular texts, you want us to place our faith on you who has been shown to be grossly inconsistent. My question would be:
How do you know Barnabas? You went on to explain who Barnabas is as described by the author of the book of Acts – Luke. Now, this book of Acts is in what? The new testament of the Bible who according to you was fabricated by Rome. Please, what is the color of your inconsistency again?

Like I said before, debating with someone who is not well informed on a subject is usually frustrating. This ‘gospel’ that was attributed to Barnabas has so much hurdle to cross for it to be authentic.
1. First, it is far removed from when the alleged author lived (between 400 – 1500 years)
2. It described some historical events that happened many centuries after the alleged author had died. An example is The 100-year jubilee which was declared in 14th century in Western Europe. How would a first century writer describe such thing. This has demolished his authorship of the so called gospel.
3. The gospels and other epistles taught about deity, death and resurrection of Christ while this who was with them is now teaching opposite.
4. Unlike the books of the new testament which were referenced as early as in first centuries and into the second century (as against the nonsense council of Nicaea that skeptics love to parrot which happened in the fourth century), this gospel was not referenced until after the fourth century. This add to the problems of it being authored by a revered Barnabas

Below is an audiobook of the gospel of Barnabas. You can listen to the entire book or just listen from 08: 44: 50 (from where Jesus had a premonition he'll be betrayed) and you'll get a different narrative of your bible story. Your Jesus never existed, so any tales of him meeting anybody is just work of literature. In literature any event is possible. That's why Jesus can do and undo in the bible.

If it is shown already that it was not written by Barnabas, then you just built your argument on a house of cards again and it has been shown. Again, many writers wrote ‘epistles’ and ‘gospels’ using names of apostles after their death. Most of these were written in the second century and beyond. This clearly showed that the so called gospel is among such category, hence should be discarded as a primary source for the historical Jesus.

Sorry bro, you are debating a lost argument which is why you resort to unscholarly methods

I never told you I approve of Luke or the book of Barnabas. I can't believe you're naive enough to understand both are works of literature and have little or no bearing in history. I just wanted to show you other narratives out there. But of course, because you're religiously and emotionally biased, Luke is to you a true gospel, while the book of Barnabas is not. So, for you it is about BELIEF and not about historical accuracy.

Did I hear you say unscholarly? You're very funny!. You're researching on the confines of christianity, so you have a closed mind. When I was a christian like you, I was also confined in my research and when people spoke from wider research, like I ironically do today, the ignorant me also considered them absurd and uninformed. When you come to light, you'll be astonished there's a whole lot of scholarship on christianity that has been kept away from you. So, I totally understand you can't see beyond what you've been given by the church as that would be heresy. You're a slave to the very scholarship!! And who gave it to you? The white man!!. Unfortunately, you've been deceived that doing so means being ''scholarly'' but you don't realize it actually takes you away from true ''scholarship'' which should be about research without limits, and should include research into Asian Gods, native Australian Gods, native American Gods, African Gods, the history of African Gods, and what our ancestors believed. Whoever gave you that ''scholarship'' has fooled you!. That's why the gospel of Barnabas is not gospel to you while those chosen for you by white people are, despite Rome and different popes, over the centuries, holding so many councils and issuing countless decrees to pick and choose which books are ''inspired'' and which are not. What a pity!. You don't even know there's a whole lot of ''scholarship'' outside of christianity about 75 ancients books removed as ''non canonical'' by Rome. It was only upon Rome's rejection of certain books that many more books didn't make it into your bible. Funny enough, if Rome chose the book of Barnabas, it would've been regarded today as correct gospel by you. On that note, I am no longer going to debate you because for you its about BELIEF, and belief doesn't require fact, history, science.

Now, lets shift this discussion to my main request which you continue to evade.

Stop evading my request. Provide me pre-Nero, non-Roman source proving your Jesus. This's what the discussion should be if you want me to keep responding. Tell me about people who met Jesus while he was living. Please don't deviate from this.

Nobody in history said Jesus healed me.

Nobody in history said I saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead.

Nobody in history said I was among the 5,000 multitude Jesus fed with 5 fishes and 2 loaves of bread.

Nobody in history said I saw Jesus turn water to wine.

Nobody in history said I was there when Jesus was beaten by a mob.

Nobody in history said I was there when Jesus was crucified.

Nobody in history said I saw Jesus ascend into heaven.

Nobody in history said I saw Jesus with my two eyes.

Nobody in history even said I lived in the same village or city or town with Jesus.

Nobody witnessed it because its MYTHOLOGY. Prove me otherwise.

Hier:
Read this carefully and reevaluate

Islam and Christianity all took their root from one source which is Abraham

Moses himself wrote the Torah while the different Prophets wrote their own books.

My point is, according to the Torah and the Prophets which is the book the Jews still use till date. They believe a messiah would come. They believe the messiah would die for the sins of men as written in the book they read, they believe the Messiah shall be called the Almighty God, evidently, God is a Spirit and that was why the Messiah was born through the power of the Holy Spirit so He would be who He was said to be. Do your findings

Wrong Islam, Christianity, Judaism all took there source from African Spirituality Concepts inwhich they ended up plagiarizing it.

musicwriter:


I never told you I approve of Luke or the book of Barnabas. I can't believe you're naive enough to understand both are works of literature and have little or no bearing in history. I just wanted to show you other narratives out there. But of course, because you're religiously and emotionally biased, Luke is to you a true gospel, while the book of Barnabas is not. So, for you it is about BELIEF and not about historical accuracy.

Did I hear you say unscholarly? You're very funny!. You're researching on the confines of christianity, so you have a closed mind. When I was a christian like you, I was also confined in my research and when people spoke from wider research, like I ironically do today, the ignorant me also considered them absurd and uninformed. When you come to light, you'll be astonished there's a whole lot of scholarship on christianity that has been kept away from you. So, I totally understand you can't see beyond what you've been given by the church as that would be heresy. You're a slave to the very scholarship!! And who gave it to you? The white man!!. Unfortunately, you've been deceived that doing so means being ''scholarly'' but you don't realize it actually takes you away from true ''scholarship'' which should be about research without limits, and should include research into Asian Gods, native Australian Gods, native American Gods, African Gods, the history of African Gods, and what our ancestors believed. Whoever gave you that ''scholarship'' has fooled you!. That's why the gospel of Barnabas is not gospel to you while those chosen for you by white people are, despite Rome and different popes, over the centuries, holding so many councils and issuing countless decrees to pick and choose which books are ''inspired'' and which are not. What a pity!. You don't even know there's a whole lot of ''scholarship'' outside of christianity about 75 ancients books removed as ''non canonical'' by Rome. It was only upon Rome's rejection of certain books that many more books didn't make it into your bible. Funny enough, if Rome chose the book of Barnabas, it would've been regarded today as correct gospel by you. On that note, I am no longer going to debate you because for you its about BELIEF, and belief doesn't require fact, history, science.

Now, lets shift this discussion to my main request which you continue to evade.

I never told you I approve of Luke or the book of Barnabas. I can't believe you're naive enough to understand both are works of literature and have little or no bearing in history. I just wanted to show you other narratives out there. But of course, because you're religiously and emotionally biased, Luke is to you a true gospel, while the book of Barnabas is not.
This is what I actually meant by unscholarly methods. You keep shifting the goal post whenever your argument is refuted. You used the gospel of Barnabas to prove your claim that Pilate never met Jesus and described Barnabas the way he was described by Luke. My simple job is to logically fault your position by showing reasons why your use of “Barnabas’ gospel” argument cannot work
1. It can be shown that it was not written by Barnabas (I gave about three points to buttress this)
2. Form 1 above, it was written even after the council of Nicaea that you subtly referred to. This means that it has no chance of being included because it was not available at that time. And FYI, there are complete manuscript of the entire new testament which predate the fourth century. So the Nicene council argument is just sheer desperation by biblioskeptics.

So, for you it is about BELIEF and not about historical accuracy.
I never know when I told you that I accepted Luke’s work over that of alleged Barnabas’ because of BELIEF. This is one of the reason I talked about being unscholarly. The contexts I used it FOR YOU were to show that you have refused to drop your errors in the face of evidence. This is easily shown by you always changing the goal post. I even went further to list your misinformation and inconsistencies to see if you can address them or accept your mistakes and retract them, you didn’t do any of it. This was why I think you are so attached to you “belief” that you can’t abandon them even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Did I hear you say unscholarly? You're very funny!. You're researching on the confines of christianity, so you have a closed mind.
You keep on dishing out claims as if you are omniscient. How would you know that my researching is within the confines of Christianity? This is another example of my accusation against you. It get worse that after making an outrageous claim, you go further to use it to buttress other unfounded points, thereby committing the question begging fallacy. No one is above mistakes, but I repeatedly pointed out the ones I can detect, yet you still make similar fallacy. It is unforgiveable

So, I totally understand you can't see beyond what you've been given by the church as that would be heresy. and You're a slave to the very scholarship!! And who gave it to you? The white man!!.(another one is) Unfortunately, you've been deceived that doing so means being ''scholarly'' but you don't realize it actually takes you away from true ''scholarship'' which should be about research without limits, and should include research into Asian Gods, native Australian Gods, native American Gods, African Gods, the history of African Gods, and what our ancestors believed. Whoever gave you that ''scholarship'' has fooled you!. (another one) That's why the gospel of Barnabas is not gospel to you while those chosen for you by white people are, despite Rome and different popes, over the centuries, holding so many councils and issuing countless decrees to pick and choose which books are ''inspired'' and which are not. What a pity!. You don't even know there's a whole lot of ''scholarship'' outside of christianity about 75 ancients books removed as ''non canonical'' by Rome.
Like I said already, you make an unprovable claim and most times, emotion take over as is seen in this comment above. Everything in bold commits either begging the question fallacy or question begging- epithet fallacy. You merely assumed your claims and built your arguments on them. Talk about being unscholarly. those in brackets are mine

It was only upon Rome's rejection of certain books that many more books didn't make it into your bible. Funny enough, if Rome chose the book of Barnabas, it would've been regarded today as correct gospel by you. On that note, I am no longer going to debate you because for you its about BELIEF, and belief doesn't require fact, history, science.
Like I said earlier, you Nicene council argument is of no substance BECAUSE the books that we have now are identical to a pre-Nicene manuscript. Nicene only did a form of regulation as many apocrypha were coming out and attributing the authorship to apostles. And virtually all of the 27 books were quoted in the writings of early church fathers with exception of few verses. So your gospel failed all logical test which I showed in my previous response and I also showed that you can’t have your cake and eat it. Why? If you relegate Luke to “Roman book” and you are still using it to prove your case, then you are not consistent. By the way, we will show that you are the one who is stuck with the BELIEF that the new testament is a Roman book

Now, lets shift this discussion to my main request which you continue to evade.
I just have to laugh
Why you keep modifying every refuted claim is what I don’t understand. Let me remind you how it started
Your very first claim was: “Rome never knew your Jesus”. I showed roman historians who referenced him, hence refuting such claim.

You defended it with the historians “never met him” argument. I gave example of a historical figure I knew you won’t doubt and explained that the historians who wrote about this subject wrote more than 100 years of his death. So if your argument will hold substance, then you should agree that such historical figure may not exist.

You still couldn’t give up and you came up with examples of other historical figures that my example met with. Then claimed that Jesus never met with any historical figure. Again I patiently told you that he met with Pontius Pilate which is an historical figure.

Refuted the third time, you brought the outrageous charge that I shouldn’t use a roman source. So funny. That was when I knew that you are just looking for desperate measures to prove that you shouldn’t be wrong. Why should I not use a roman source when we are talking about an event in Rome? Should I use Wole Soyinka or Chinua Achebe?

Then you tried to use a “gospel” to prove me wrong about your third argument. Again, you were shown that the material you brought failed all test for it to be used as a primary source for Jesus and I listed them. Instead of you to address the points or admit your error, you went emotional and was committing the question begging-epithet fallacy.

This is already long, so I will address the remaining as another response
So it should be clear to any reader who is deviating and trying desperately to hold on to his false claims

musicwriter:


Stop evading my request. Provide me pre-Nero, non-Roman source proving your Jesus. This's what the discussion should be if you want me to keep responding. Tell me about people who met Jesus while he was living. Please don't deviate from this.

Nobody in history said Jesus healed me.

Nobody in history said I saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead.

Nobody in history said I was among the 5,000 multitude Jesus fed with 5 fishes and 2 loaves of bread.

Nobody in history said I saw Jesus turn water to wine.

Nobody in history said I was there when Jesus was beaten by a mob.

Nobody in history said I was there when Jesus was crucified.

Nobody in history said I saw Jesus ascend into heaven.

Nobody in history said I saw Jesus with my two eyes.

Nobody in history even said I lived in the same village or city or town with Jesus.

Nobody witnessed it because its MYTHOLOGY. Prove me otherwise.

This is just sheer desperation because after addressing all your objections as i documented in the last response, you want to make a crazy one so as just to justify your errors that I have been showing without you addressing or admitting them.

Before, I address them, you would have to:
1. Admit your very first charge about Rome knowing Jesus
2. Either address or admit the misinformation you made which were listed in some of my response
3. Tell me if it is possible to get a non- Chinese primary source for Tsu Zu, a non Egyptian primary source for Pharaohs of Egypt, a non Roman source for the Nero you even talked about. Note the word "primary"

number 3 should be possible for you since that is exactly what you want me to do

Pelecius:

Tell me if it is possible to get a non- Chinese primary source for Tsu Zu, a non Egyptian primary source for Pharaohs of Egypt, a non Roman source for the Nero you even talked about. Note the word "primary"

Why should I not use a roman source when we are talking about an event in Rome? Should I use Wole Soyinka or Chinua Achebe?

The above are the only two concerns I'll respond because you actually let out the truth probably unknowingly.

The ''scholarship'' around Jesus was created by the Roman empire, therefore, it already exclude other literature and histories not authorized by Rome. What you call ''scholarship'' is what you've been allowed to see, it includes the argument to support it. So its useless talking to you. But note that so many information has been kept away from you.

Therefore, even as non-Roman source abounds but you indeed cannot use a non-Roman source within what you call ''scholarship'' as doing so would mean heresy as I said previously. But here's is what you need to understand: its not that the non-Roman sources are not valid but its because its not deemed ''scholarly'' within your church scholarship. In other words, as I've maintained and as you even appear to eventually acknowledge; Jesus is Roman, Christianity is Roman. And this's why I tell every christian that they're all still Roman Catholics no matter their church denomination.

I as an African I would no longer waste my time talking to someone bound by Roman scholarship and religion. Its like willingly choosing to be in prison. And for me, this underscores the fact that language, education, religion are the three natural brick walls to insulate a culture from foreign intrusion. Once intruded and language, education, religion replaced, the victims would go on enslaving themselves without realizing what they're doing.

I am out.

musicwriter:


The above are the only two concerns I'll respond because you actually let out the truth probably unknowingly.

The ''scholarship'' around Jesus was created by the Roman empire, therefore, it already exclude other literature and histories not authorized by Rome. What you call ''scholarship'' is what you've been allowed to see, it includes the argument to support it. So its useless talking to you. But note that so many information has been kept away from you.

Therefore, even as non-Roman source abounds but you indeed cannot use a non-Roman source within what you call ''scholarship'' as doing so would mean heresy as I said previously. But here's is what you need to understand: its not that the non-Roman sources are not valid but its because its not deemed ''scholarly'' within your church scholarship. In other words, as I've maintained and as you even appear to eventually acknowledge; Jesus is Roman, Christianity is Roman. And this's why I tell every christian that they're all still Roman Catholics no matter their church denomination.

I as an African I would no longer waste my time talking to someone bound by Roman scholarship and religion. Its like willingly choosing to be in prison. And for me, this underscores the fact that language, education, religion are the three natural brick walls to insulate a culture from foreign intrusion. Once intruded and language, education, religion replaced, the victims would go on enslaving themselves without realizing what they're doing.

I am out.

The above are the only two concerns I'll respond because you actually let out the truth probably unknowingly.
Of course, you will always run from answering any challenge to prove your claim. You gave me a criteria that you yourself cannot even meet. How is that scholarly. And you seem to get my context of being unscholarly wrong. It is not about what Rome says, it is the fact that you are being inconsistent and make unprovable claims as I have shown several times in our discussion

The ''scholarship'' around Jesus was created by the Roman empire, therefore, it already exclude other literature and histories not authorized by Rome.
This is another reason I said you are being unscholarly. You may not know that you are dealing with someone who consumes tons of material regarding apologetic. So, I know when you make a false claim which is why I usually challenge you to prove your claims. So we beg you to show us how this your statement is true. (I know you won’t show us, this is synonymous to lying)

Like I said, please prove this your claim again. I know you cannot prove it successfully – I don’t know why Nicene is coming to my mind. Lol

What you call ''scholarship'' is what you've been allowed to see, it includes the argument to support it. So its useless talking to you.
Again, committing fallacy of question begging epithet. What do I call scholarship? How do you know what I have been allowed to see? Answer these questions so that we know what you are talking about. ( i trust that you won't)

So its useless talking to you. But note that so many information has been kept away from you.
The list continues. How do you know what have been kept away from me? From our discussion, do you think I sound like someone who is ill informed. I’m believe that most who would read our discussion (objectively) will notice the difference between us as to who seem ill informed, evading challenges to prove his claim, being inconsistent, committing fallacies and so on

Therefore, even as non-Roman source abounds but you indeed cannot use a non-Roman source within what you call ''scholarship'' as doing so would mean heresy as I said previously. But here's is what you need to understand: its not that the non-Roman sources are not valid but its because its not deemed ''scholarly'' within your church scholarship.
This is another example of what I have been talking about. I would start by you giving me non-Roman source about Jesus which should beat the New testament in their strength, which are:
1. Source should be able to boast of being eyewitness or somehow related to eyewitnesses
2. Time of writing should not be more than 40 years from when the event happened
3. Source should have so many manuscripts to ensure that such works were seen by many and no one doubted the report of the work
4. Source should be corroborated with either archaeology or other writings which are not too far from it
5. Source should be able to get other historical events right so as to agree that what it says about Christ is also true.
I challenge you on this. This is a very fair challenge because the New testament obviously pass the above with flying colors. If it didn’t, I’m likely not going to remain a Christ follower by now. I have challenged everything I can but truth will always prevail.
So when you provide other sources (Roman or not) that beat the strengths of the new testament above, then we can restart our discussion. But I know and is certain that you won’t address the challenge.

And you should note that I am not saying that the New Testament is a Roman source. They were written largely by Jews just as Jesus was a Jew. You are the one who seem to be implying that it is a Roman source which you are yet to prove. So just meet the fair criteria above by bringing a better source than those presented in the New Testament

In other words, as I've maintained and as you even appear to eventually acknowledge; Jesus is Roman, Christianity is Roman.
I never acknowledge that Jesus was Roman nor is Christianity Roman. And you maintaining such position is due to your inconsistencies. How can Jesus be Roman after you claimed that Rome never knew him? This is why I said you are being unscholarly in your approach.
The fact that you are inconsistent in your argument and appears just so desperate to not be wrong is the reason for twisting my responses. You claimed that Rome never knew Jesus and I only need to show that he was known at least by two Roman historians. How you now make a conclusion that Jesus was Roman is what baffles me. If you admit your error with the evidence, you don’t need to make this type of illogical conclusion (non sequitur fallacy)

And this's why I tell every christian that they're all still Roman Catholics no matter their church denomination.
Another claim built on a false premise. Begging the question fallacy. You should read on logic and fallacies, it should help you if you take it serious

I as an African I would no longer waste my time talking to someone bound by Roman scholarship and religion.
Another case of question begging epithet. You are yet to show and prove that I am bound by religion and ‘roman scholarship’. After all, you got my use of unscholarly method wrong, why won’t you be wrong on all that you built on such premise.

Its like willingly choosing to be in prison. And for me, this underscores the fact that language, education, religion are the three natural brick walls to insulate a culture from foreign intrusion. Once intruded and language, education, religion replaced, the victims would go on enslaving themselves without realizing what they're doing.
You my friend, are the one who have locked himself in prison as you can’t agree that you are wrong even in face of evidence. You can’t admit your mistakes and misinformation, but is looking for ways to attack straw man.

Let me tell you something about me that I normally do on NL. When I quote you and such that I am trying to fault your argument, it is because I have seen clearly that you made an obvious blunder which is factual. So it is usually futile in defending it. When someone does that to me and I know that it was due to my carelessness, I will rather admit my errors and learn not to be careless again. This is what happens even on science section where wannabe atheist try to act as ‘science guys’. Anyone I quote most times run away from answering challenges brought to them because I only quote when I can clearly see that they have blundered on a factual event. Like I said, it will be futile defending such blunder. They may only resort to ad hominem (fallacy of attacking someone instead of refuting his arguments) which I would commend you that you avoided. Our discussion was as civil as possible.

You claimed that you were attending a church before but I wouldn’t know what went wrong. The thing is that it is easy for someone to stop loving God (especially if they never have personal encounter before). This is because we want to please our flesh (and as the scripture implied, the flesh is makes us rebellious), which means that we wouldn’t want to be accountable to anyone concerning what we do. This is just a self denial as the epistle to the Romans chapter one explains. It said some verses that

because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of
the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore
God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who
changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. Rom 1: 21-25

letu:
Wrong Islam, Christianity, Judaism all took there source from African Spirituality Concepts inwhich they ended up plagiarizing it.

lol

Dominatrix:

check pm

Dominatrix:

Good morning

Please can I send a message?