LordReed:


This is funny. I responded to your post without any attack on you but you deemed it fit to respond with puerile condescension then tomorrow the likes of you will say atheists just love to insult. Glad you did anyway so I know not to waste my time with the conversation.

AntiChristian:


Is the Bible you are quoting your words and your reasoning or that of others?

Actually i am a graduate with one of the best results in my set. You guys that profess having the Holy spirit are such failures. You can't even guess anything right despite all your Holy Spirit.

When we talk about religion, we seldom use our words or thoughts/reasoning. It's the scriptures and it understandings we state....

LordReed:


No, however corroborating stories allow us to get a better picture of the events of that period. Soldiers love telling tales of their time in service something as wonderful as seeing angels would have been a big story if indeed it had occurred. Besides no way Roman soldiers would report to Jewish elders, that is totally absurd. More likely they would report to their centurions or legates and those ones would keep a record even if they didn't do anything to the soliders, the Romans where very meticulous record keepers. Also the idea that Roman soldiers would be detailed to guard a tomb is another rather unlikely idea. Unless the Romans thought his death or body would be used to forment sedition and according to the tale the Romans didn't suspect Jesus of sedition nor were his followers known to be a seditious bunch.

LordReed:


Why would Roman guards report to the Jewish leaders they had subjugated? Why would Roman guards who witnessed such a thing never have provided some independent corroboration after the fact? Like after their tour of duty in the Levant they didn't tell anyone back home? Seems very far fetched and unlikely.

AntiChristian:


It is strange that you Christians differ concerning the form of the cross which indicates your confusion about this fabrication.

There are differences between your Gospels and your historians regarding everything that has to do with the story of the crucifixion.

They differ concerning the timing of the Last Supper, which according to them was one of the events in the lead-up to the crucifixion. They differ concerning the traitor who led (the Romans) to Christ – did that happen at least one day before the Last Supper, as narrated by Luke, or during it, after Christ gave him the piece of bread, as narrated by John?

Was Christ the one who carried his cross, as John says, as was customary with one who was going to be crucified, according to Nottingham, or was it Simon of Cyrene, as the other three Gospels state?

They say that two thieves were crucified alongside Christ, one on his right and one on his left, so what was the attitude of these two towards the Messiah who was being crucified, as they claim?

Did the thieves scorn him for being crucified, and say that his Lord had abandoned him and left him to his enemies? Or did only one of them scorn him, and did the other rebuke the one who scorned him?

At what hour did this crucifixion take place – was it in the third hour, as Mark says, or in the sixth as John says?

What happened after the so-called crucifixion?

Mark says that the veil of the Temple was torn from top to bottom. Matthew adds that the earth shook and rocks crumbled, and many of the saints rose from their graves and entered the holy city, appearing to many. Luke says that the sun turned dark, and the veil of the Temple was torn in the middle, and when the centurion saw what had happened, he glorified God and said, “Truly this man was righteous.”

But John does not know anything about all that!

These are not the only weak elements and indications of falseness in the story of the crucifixion, as narrated in the gospels. Rather the one who studies the details of the gospel narratives of this story will, with the least effort, notice the great differences in the details of this story, which are such that it is impossible to believe it all or even any part of it!

Apart from the fact that the gospel accounts are not sound, and their authors themselves admit that they were not revealed to the Messiah in this form, nor were they even written during his lifetime, none of the witnesses were present at the events to which they testify, as Mark says:

“Then everyone deserted him and fled.”
Mark 14:50

AntiChristian:


The best explanation is that we've been lied to in the death and resurrections stories!

MuttleyLaff:
What Jeromejnr said didnt deem commenting on
as everyone knows the Talmud isnt God inspired
- at least, not if we're going by 2 Timothy 3:16 guideline
Anyway, trawl through my past posts, to see what my take is on the Talmud is
(e.g. use the search tool with search word muttleylaff+talmud)


Better still, saving your the time & effort,
you should be able to pick out my view on the Talmud from the below snippet touching on another subject

- SNIPPET -

(4) The Oral Law of the Jews (later written as the Talmud)
- the interpretation of Moses' Law by the Scribes and Pharisees.

It is followed by the Orthodox Jews to this day as of equal authority to the Bible.

They falsely claimed it was passed down from Moses by word of mouth.
Jesus clashed with Pharisees over this law. He rejected it and came against it's legalistic spirit (Matt15:3, Mark7:3).

Now when 1 Cor 14:34,35 refers to a law of silence for women, it couldn't be:
(1) because there's no such law in the Old-Testament and he would say 'it is written';
neither is it found in the Gospels (2).
Neither is it (3) because it is clearly a pre-existing law.
Therefore by a process of elimination it must be (4) The Jewish Oral Law (the laws of the Pharisees)

This is confirmed by the phrase: 'As also SAYS the Law.' - a reference to the ORAL law rather than the WRITTEN law (scripture).
(see also Matt 5:21,27,31, 33,38,43)

Also, we know this because it agrees completely with the Talmud and applies to Orthodox synagogues today. The service is for men only. Women are discouraged from even learning, but are sometimes allowed to watch from the gallery, for their place is at home not with things too high for them! And it would be shameful for them to speak in a meeting.

TALMUDIC QUOTES illustrate this:
A Jewish Prayer:'Praise God He hasn't created me a gentile, a woman or an ignorant man.'
'The woman, says the law, is in all things inferior to the man.'
Only men could speak in public (Beraktoth 4,36; Mishnah Aboth 1,5)
No woman could give a testimony or conduct business. (Mishnah Shabbath 4,1)

Women were viewed with disregard and repression, and the Talmud contains many distasteful insults of women's character. They were to be avoided. They were not required to know or fulfil the law and so few were learned.

One said: 'May the words of the Torah be burned rather than be given to women.'
In public worship they were segregated and silenced and so had to ask questions of their husbands at home.

Clearly the writer of 1 Cor 14:34,35 reflected this Pharisaical attitude to women and used this Jewish Law to support his views.

So why would Paul say something that stands in contradiction to the immediate context and the rest of the New Testament? Why would he establish this teaching on Jewish Laws that elsewhere, both he and Jesus rejected?

The simple answer is these verses are not Paul's teaching!
Paul's letters are written in response church situations. 1 Corinthians is the most responsive of them all. Paul had received reports about what was going on (1:11, 5:1, 6:1,8 ), and the church had sent a letter to Paul with many questions (7:1,8,10,12,25; 8:1,4; 12:1; 16:1). There was disunity (1:10-12,3:3). In particular there were 2 groups of people saved from different backgrounds disputing -Jews who tended toward legalism, and Greeks who tended toward license. Paul goes through the issues and questions raised one by one.

Examples of when Paul is clearly responding to what one group has said are 6:15-20 (Greeks); 9:1-11; 11:1-16 (Jews) and 15:12,35,36.

Sometimes he refers what they are saying and then he answers them -e.g.1 Cor 4:8: 'You are already full! You are already rich! You have reigned as kings without us.' (this is what some of them had claimed) --'and indeed I wish you did reign, that we might also reign with you.' (Paul's answer - see also 4:10)

Sometimes he even quotes what they say and then answers them. The problem is that there are no punctuation or quote marks in the Greek and the translators often miss them out.

Some examples of this, are when he responds to the 'loose' Greeks as in 6:12,13:
(You say) 'All things are lawful for me.'
(I Paul) say: 'but all things are not helpful.'
(You say) 'All things are lawful for me.'
(I Paul) say: 'but I will not be brought under the power of any.'
(You say) 'Food is for the stomach and the stomach for foods.'
(I Paul) say: 'but God will destroy both it and them.'
We see the same in 10:23,24.

In questions about idols Paul challenges those who pride themselves in their knowledge but who do not hold it in love. (8:1-3) 8:4: 'We know that -'an idol is nothing in the world and that there is but one God' (again he quotes their words (their knowledge) before he answers as confirmed in v10,11.

Other examples are when he responds to the 'legalistic Jews', 7:1:
'Now concerning what you wrote to me,
(some of you said) 'It is good for a man not to touch a woman.'
(But I Paul say) 'Nevertheless because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife...'

Now we can understand what is happening in 1 Cor 14:34,35.
Paul is quoting what some Jewish converts to Christ, had written in a letter to Paul, complaining about women being involved in church services. Although they were saved they were used to male-dominated synagogue - worship and so found the equality of women in church life hard to take.

They were saying: 'Paul, these women are prophesying, praying out loud, speaking in tongues. The Oral law says it's shameful for a woman to speak in public. Tell them to shut-up!'

So as Paul is teaching on every member participating in church services, it is the natural place for him to deal with their objection. So he quotes what they say: 'Let your women keep silent in the churches, for it is not permitted for them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for women to speak in church' (v34,35)

Then he answers them: 'What, came the word of God out from you? or came it to you only? If any think himself a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write to you (not the Talmud) are the commandments of the Lord (the true authority) But if any (choose to be) be ignorant, let him be ignorant.' (v36-38) Paul replies by asserting his apostolic authority above the Talmud.

This also explains why these verses come out of the blue, interrupting the flow of thought, which is picked up again in v39,40: 'Therefore brethren,covet to prophesy and do not forbid to speak with tongues.'

The placement of v34,35 in the passage as a clear interruption and marked contrast to what Paul is teaching, serves to separate them from Paul's own views.

We conclude that Paul isn't silencing women, rather the opposite!

Those who are too quick to agree with v34,35 have unwittingly submitted to an unchristian pharisaical spirit

- /SNIPPET -

Bottom line, the Talmud is to the Bible, what the Hadith is to the Quran. Enough said

Sweetplum:
Good

AntiChristian:
If the death and resurrection of Jesus was true, his home country would have been more Christian than Nigeria.

Despite all the miracles and preaching to thousands of people...

AntiChristian:


If he does not believe in him will he call him Good Master/Teacher?

Those questions he asked him were not questions you ask a ordinary person!

Ken4Christ:


Prosperity is sure biblical. It depends on the way it is presented and the motive behind the person teaching it.

Jesus taught prosperity. He said;

Luke 6:38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

AntiChristian:


Mumbling and Rumbling....Where was it abolished?

New Living Translation of Matthew 5:17
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

sonmvayina:


I want to see the passages or the prophesies...

Dtruthspeaker:


And HIS FIRST FOLLOWERS, THE DISCIPLES, KEPT THE SABBATHS, AS THE LAW COMMANDED. Luke 23:56

BUT SINNERS AND LIARS WILL REFUSE TO SEE THIS CLEAR PROOF!

AntiChristian:


This is false.

When the man came to Jesus to ask him about eternal life, the man already had faith in Jesus.

Jesus still replied him to obey the commandments which is the laws of Moses.

haekymbahd:
God made a covenant with the isrealite concerning keeping of the sabbath

Exodus 31
16 Wherefore the Israelites shall keep the Sabbath to observe it throughout their generations, a perpetual covenant.

17 [b]It is a sign between Me and the Israelites forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and earth, and on the seventh day He ceased and was refreshed.
[/b]


Now christians don't keep sabbath because it has been abolished.

Why did God breaks his own law of sabbath after saying it was a sign with isrealites forever did God intentionally made the Jews go against Jesus or there is a hole in the narration because I dont see any reason why Jews should beleive Jesus with that Statement does it make sense to you?

haekymbahd:
New King James Version
Galatians 2 vs 16
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.


Are christians following the law I thought law has been abolished e.g circumcision, keeping sabbath... or what does Paul meant by work?

AntiChristian:


Jesus emphasized faith and works just as James did. Paul on the hand was different. Paul doesn't believe in works at all but grace.

When Jesus met the rich man who asked about eternal life, the first thing Jesus commanded was to obey the commandments.

This is work.

haekymbahd:


18 For truly I tell you, until the sky and earth pass away and perish, not one smallest letter nor one little hook [identifying certain Hebrew letters] will pass from the Law until all things [it foreshadows] are accomplished.

19 Whoever then breaks or does away with or relaxes one of the least [important] of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least [important] in the kingdom of heaven, but he who practices them and teaches others to do so shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness (your uprightness and your right standing with God) is more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
[/b]



What did Jesus really teach?

haekymbahd:
what does work mean and are christians doing it?

Jennyclay:
How many similar cases have we read on nairaland that broke out from a government school?

Is Dowen college a government school?
Is Chrisland college a government school?
Is kings college a government school?

Yet we kept on reading heartbreaking cases coming out of private schools.

Jennyclay:
Nigeria Elite schools are just loosing value every single day.

~No good morals
~Lack of discipline
~Bunch of lazy teachers waiting for month end to receive their peanut.
~No code of conduct

I feel Elite schools are just for mere business ground. They are just ripping parents off their hard earned money. I can't be paying over 400k in a term and you can't instill good morals on my kids.

Now, I think parents should consider registering their children in government schools.

finson:
Thank you all for your advice.

To those who have started judging me, I know what I have done was not good and I have also asked God for forgiveness and the strength to avoid such situation. You can still judge me

As I said, I am not from UK but from Africa.

We had sex on 1st Feb 2022.

The report she shared is a pelvic USS report issued from a lab in Lekki.
[img]https://i.ibb.co/Bs0yvjH/uss.jpg[/img]

The report is very strange. According to that report, the age of the fetus is 6weeks 6 days on 15/03/2022 that means she probably got pregnant on 26/01/2022 and I remember that I met her only on 29/01/2022 not on 26 and we had sex on 1st Feb 2022.

She also told me that she has hormon unbalanced and she wanted to abort but the doctor advised her not to because the probability to get pregnant is low for such people. That is why she wants to keep it and to avoid being disowned by her family she suggested to get the opportunity to go to UK as Help Giver.

I told her to get a pregnancy blood test from a specific lab I know in Lekki, she just replied "OK".

She insisted to have my local line in my country but I refused to share with her. At the moment Whatsapps on my preivous Nigeria Line is still active and we use this communication channel. I don't have a facebook account and we used to communicate only on whatsapps.

I know I can be blamed for my bad conduct. I was wrong. I am just looking from some advice.

OLAADEGBU:


Where does the comma belong in Luke 23:43?

OLAADEGBU:
What did Jesus mean when He said, "Today you will be with me in paradise"? Where does the comma belong in Luke 23:43?

otipoju:


Until the wife carry disease come meet you.

Also Gods illustration with Hosea's wife was to describe how the children of Israel were treating him and yet he still loved them in spite of their unfaithfulness. It was never a marriage commandment that a man continues to be with an unfaithful woman. It is very risky.

While God does not enthusiastic about Polygamy, he is not against it either nor frowns upon it. It is in the realm of human affairs.

Treat your woman well and take care of your children. Whether na one wife or two...it has zero bearing on your salvation.

Kobojunkie:
[s]I didn't ask you to give me a lecture, nor am I the one who invited you into this. You chose to direct your retort at me without first taking out time to read what has already been stated by me on the issue.. so what did you expect?

Again... See.... the question is simple....did Jephthah actually sacrifice his daughter to get Lord as a burnt offering as the story says he did?.

According to the writer of the story, Jephthah sacrificed his daughter believing he did it onto God, same way billions of so called Christians today claim they serve God this by bowing down ,not directly to God's Law , but to the doctrines and traditions of men(and their churches), even after Jesus Christ denounced all such submission as being against God's Truth and such worship as being meaningless/void. You all still go about claiming your worship is in the name of God so how is that any different from the claim made in the story told of Jephthah and his act.

So, skip over the long talk... no need for unnecessary lectures, go straight to answering the question.[/s]

NNTR:
Judges 11:34-40
'34And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
35And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.
36And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.
37And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.
38And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.
39And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,
40That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.'

<sub>I earlier submitted that Jephthah's daughter played her father. She played him very well, and he knew it.

Watch at Judges 11:37-38, what she said, which is 'I will go to bewail my virginity', notice that she doesn't say, 'I'll bewail my coming burning offering death', but accentuated the fact expressed that she never will marry, meaning won't leave at father's house, meaning she'll perpetually be Daddy's girl for life, living at home, dedicated to God's work.

An animal without blemish that comes out of anywhere in Israel and not his house alone wouldn't necessarily be Jephthah's personal animal that he has a right of, to do as he wishes

Here's the deal, Jephthah was expecting a servant at the very least who will first come out to meet him, and who then will be devoted to God's work, but if it happened to be one of his clean animals, then that is what would be sacrificed as a burnt offering.

The vow was a veiled two-in-one overzealous vow done.

[sub]Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.</sub>[/sub][sub][/sub]