₦airaland Forum

Oh please.

Go play games elsewhere.
You don't have the mental capacity to debate me.

Your comment about Wikipedia is irrelevant. That is why I have ignored it.

As for Jesus? We place his adulthood at 12-13 because we do not know the date of his birth.

Yes. I do dig my heels in. But that is because I am aware of my subject matter. You, on the other hand, questioned me believing that adulthood started in the late teens. Even if you didn't (which I sincerely doubt) the matter of Jesus being at the Temple means that he was an adult.

Wikipedia is your source and reference? Wikipedia of all sources . . .

Are you disputing the fact that Jewish children became adults at that age?

I just pulled a Wikipedia link because the subject matter is not in question.
There are 1000s of links that show that 12/13 was the accepted date of adulthood. Google for yourself. Belitttling Wikipedia in this instance does nothing for your argument.


By the way. I edited to make the point clearer. I felt it better to place it there than to create a new post as the contents was entirely relevant and just backed up the facts that I pointed out.

You miss the point.
It's not "where" it is happening because it is actually occuring all over the Christian West.

The questions you should be asking are "why" it is happening and what will be the outcome.

The answer to why is that Western governments fall over themselves not to offend their Islamic communities; often to the detriment of their own indigienous population. In a way this is understandable as the tiniest perceived slight against Islam is met by outrage or violence by those Muslims in our communities and then translated to the Islamic world as a whole and giving fuel to fundamentalism. By giving Islam what it wants, Western governments are hoping they can keep a lid on it's excesses. But the problem is that they are just creating excesses within their own populations.

The outcome is that there is now a big sceptic pimple of hatred boiling away and aimed at Islam from those populations in the West who are believe that all they are seeing is Islam ride rough shod over their own personal liberties.

The article doesn't make for happy reading for any religion.

Mumu. Why do I need to debate what is plainly obvious?

Do I need to debate that the colour white is white?

Go back to your blanket of ignorance and hide under it. I don't debate with those who are too stupid to see the simplest of truths.

Stop following me around.
It's like being haunted by the Ghost of Stupidity.

we all know that Jesus was twelve years old when that incident in the temple happened (i.e. the incident in the passages I posted ocurred when Jesus was twelve year old)

*sigh*

A 12/13 year old was considered to be an adult in those times. A 12/13 year old was considered to be a man. The relic of this tradition is still passed down today in modern Judaism with the ceremony of the Bar Mitzvah.


Training began for a male child as soon as he was able to walk and talk. We know this because the Bar Mitzvah was the affirmation of all the religious education that the child had received prior.

You're putting the modern era in the way of your view of Jesus.
Put your modern views of adulthood and education to one side and look at the historical contexts.

Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_child

The link states - "The Child Jesus, or Divine Infant, represents the infant Jesus until to the age of twelve. At thirteen he was considered to have become adult, in accordance with both the Jewish custom of his own time, and that of most Christian cultures until recent centuries."

It's a bit confusing because it says he was a child up until he was 12 and an adult at 13. Read like that, it looks like he was in limbo for a year but they didn't use December 25th as his birthday so in Jesus' case he became an adult somewhere between 12 and 13. Some scholars speculate that Jesus was born in April and if this was the case, he would have had his 13th birthday at or around the same time as this incident took place. Remember, he was 12 when they went to Jerusalem but they stayed there for at least a few days. Time enough for him to turn 13 and not contradictory to the Bible. It is entirely possible that this incident took place on his 13th birthday and that is why it was considered important enough to be included in the Bible.
But anyway, we know that in the case we're discussing here that Jesus was considered to be an adult as he was debating with the priests - something that no child was allowed to do.

You aren’t winding me up are you?

As you can see from the above, the answer is no. All I've stated there is commonly accepted fact.
But I could ask the same question of you.



Link regarding Christ's birthdate: http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/Dating%20the%20Birth%20of%20Jesus%20of%20Nazareth.htm

this link is rubbish, complete nonensce. is for the ignornarts

LMAO.
You really are a stupid slowpoke. That link is the Latin Vulgate Bible. It is the Bible which is responsible for all of the editions that we have now. It was the template for the KJV.
So it's "rubbish"? You fucking idiot. Do you realise that you're saying that the Bible is rubbish?

As for your emboldening of the verse? I told you to read the whole thing you stupid cretin. Take the chapter as a whole and read it in the way it was meant to be written. You haven't done that have you? You've just concentrated on two or three verses. How do you expect to understand a book by just reading a couple of sentences from it? You're incapable of logical thought.
Even though you, yourself have posted Isaiah13 which calls itself "The Judgement of Babylon" and then goes onto chastise Bablyon and it's king in plain English, you completely ignore that fact and just see Satan illogically striding into the page halfway through for absolutely no reason.
Really. People like you are too dumb to be Christians. It would be safer to give you a picture book and let you worship that.

Do me a favour - don't post in this thread again. You're far too stupid. You haven't a clue what you are talking about and are way out of your depth.

Note that "Luce Ferrum" was erroneously translated as "Lucifer" when the KJV was compiled as they used Jerome's Vulgate Bible as their main point of reference.

http://godrules.net/library/vulgate/vulgateisa14.htm

@ Huxley.

From your link.

The well known 'Lucifer' passage in Isaiah 14 is another relevant passage, as we consider in section 5-5. This passage is about the rise and fall of the King of Babylon- the words satan, Angel and devil don't occur there at all. But the likening of Babylon's king to the morning star suggests parallels with the Canaanite myths about Athtar, the "shining one, Son of Dawn", who goes up to "the reaches of Zaphon" to challenge king Baal, and is hurled down. Surely Isaiah's point was that Israel and Judah should worry more about the King of Babylon, keep their eyes on realities here on earth, rather than be involved with such cosmic speculations which were obviously familiar to them. It was the King of Babylon, and not a bunch of cosmic rebels, who were tyrannizing God's people. The Babylonian power invaded Israel from the north, down the fertile crescent. And yet "the north" was associated in pagan thinking with the origin of the gods of evil (. The prophets were attempting to steer Israel away from such a fear by emphasizing that the literal, human enemy and judge of Israel for their sin was to come from the literal north. They were to quit their cosmic myths and get real, facing up to actual realities in human life on earth. This is why Ezekiel speaks of the Kings of Tyre and Egypt in language very reminiscent of the myths about Tiamat, Mot etc.- they were to be caught like a dragon [tannin, cp. Tiamat], cut up and bled to death (Ez. 29:3-5; 32:2-31). Again, the point is to refocus Israel away from the mythical beings and onto actual realities here on earth.

It gives a good rundown of what Isaiah is about but doesn't explain how the mistranslation came to be. For that you might want to Google "Jerome+Lucifer" and "Vulgate+Lucifer".
Incidentally, the quote states that "Morning Star" was a parallel to the Athtar myths. It wasn't. It was in fact another translation of "Heylel" (Morning Star) and in turn it's predecessor "Luce Ferrum" which meant "Light-bringer". And this was an official title held by Babylonian kings. Google those words and you will see how the translations went from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English and how we mistakenly ended up with Lucifer equalling Satan.

All OLAADEGBU ever does is post fear, Huxley.

Yet look at it from a Christian viewpoint that even he can't argue with.

Every Christian agrees that God is Love. How can they fear Love?
Fear is slavery yet there is no slavery in true Love. It is the ultimate Freedom.

People like OLAADEGBU fear God and they therefore fear Love and Freedom yet they claim that they are going to Heaven?
How do you expect to get there if you are afraid of it?

What could the priests have taught Jesus? Na-da!

Rather they were baffled right from the start at his superiority (i.e. advanced knowledge; borrowing your phrase)

The passages you have posted refer to Jesus as an adult. Not as a child when he would have received his training. I don't dispute that he had superior knowledge as an adult and that he probably outstripped the scholars of his day.

Literally "What’s the big deal . . . "

You tell me. You decided to argue the point.

You do not have any fear of God not to talk of belief in the Bible as the Word of God

No. I do not fear God. Any god who needs to frighten a person into following him is not a god worth following.
I follow because I choose to. Unlike you, who needs to feel threatened before he will worship.

There is a poles apart difference in "He didn't go to Bible college" and a trumped up "un-educated"

You show no knowledge of the subject.
There is no "poles apart difference". Education was Bible college. All education took place under the authority of the Jewish priests. All education was rooted in religion and scripture.

Please. Instead of trying to act the smart-ass, learn about the subject before questioning me.

are you telling me that Lucifer is a Babylonian king? ok. now can we find it out from the bible?

Yes!!! Lucifer was a Babylonian king!!! And I've already told you how we find out from the Bible

Let me repeat myself:

Lucifer appears only once in the whole Bible in Isaiah 14:12
Isaiah is a proclamation by God against the enemies of Israel. Babylon and it's king Lucifer being one of them. Don't just look at that verse and think that is all there is. It has to be taken with the preceeding chapter which begins - "The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see." The whole of 13 and 14 are a tirade against Babylon - the nation which forced the Jews into slavery.

When the Bible was translated into Latin by a man named Jerome, he mistakenly thought that Lucifer was Satan. Nobody bothered correcting his mistake and the thing snowballed. Lucifer became to be thought of as Satan just because of that mistake. And as most people never even bother to read the Bible properly, the mistake still exists and we get attitudes like yours - you believe something to be because you are just following the herd in believing in a centuries old error.

Read Isaiah properly. Not just that verse but the chapter before and the chapter afterwards.

It wasn't even Howard who said it.
It was his Treasury Secretary - Peter Costello.

The interview can be found here:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1444603.htm

I have to laugh.

OLAADEGBU posted a link that says this:

The Bible is not simply one book compiled by one man as the Muslims claim for their Qur'an, but a compilation of 66 books, written by more than 40 authors, over a period of 1500 years! For that reason Christians have always maintained that the entire Bible shows the imprint of human hands. Evidence of this can be found in the variety of human languages used, the varying styles of writing, the differences in the author's intellects and temperaments, as well as the apparent allusions to the author's contemporary concepts of scientific knowledge, without which the scriptures would not have been understood by the people of that time.

How often have we seen this buffon denying the hand of man on the Bible? Yet here he posts a rebuttal that uses the hand of man as an excuse!!!

@ christ4mi.

Yes. The Bible is full of contradiction - anyone who denies otherwise is just a complete, illogical idiot. But when you realise that it was written by men (no matter how "inspired by God" you will realise that these contradictions can normally be overcome with a little study. True, there are some glaring contradictions that totally go aganist each other, but understand the intentions of the particular authors and the context in which they were written and you can work things out for yourself.

As for your Muslim friends? The Qu'ran doesn't compare with the Bible in either size, history or complexity. Saying "Islam is better because our book has less contradiction" is just utter juvenile drivel. Either tell them to study the Bible properly or shut the hell up with their trivial crap.

May Kelly.

Are you retarded? Were you dropped on your head when you were a child? Do you have special needs? Can you not read plain English?

we christians don't read document as bible, we read the real bible  but not fake ok.

No you fecking idiot bitch. You don't read the Bible. You can't have read the Bible. Otherwise you wouldn't be spouting this total and utter bullshit after I've pointed out to you that there is absolutely and utterly nowhere in the Bible where Lucifer can be confused with Satan. He is a Babylonian king.

This has nothing to do with "articles and documents" as you so cretinously burble. The Bible itself says that Lucifer is the Babylonian king.

FFS. You even quote part of the passage yourself.

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"

Do you know what the above is, you cretin? It's God saying to Lucifer, the king of Babylon - "What goes around comes around". It has absolutely jack shit to do with the devil.
Get this into your dumb, befuddled head - nobody worships Lucifer because Lucifer was a man - he was a human being who died thousands of years ago.

From the same passage:

 
16 Those who see you will stare at you
   and ponder over you:
'Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
   who shook kingdoms

Although that is just one example of many (but the one that utterly proves that Satan is not being referred to) - Read the whole passage, idiot. Not just one verse. You can plainly see that it refers to a king of Babylon.

You are nothing but an ignorant fool.
Go talk to your priest and learn who Lucifer was before giving me any more crap. People like you who spout a religious load of bullshit without having a single clue about what they are spouting make me want to puke. Arrogant, hypocritical scum.

Gadaffi is a nut-case. Even in his own country he is seen as a joke. The only foreigners taking part in violence in Darfur are the Arab militias from the North African states.

This is more posturing for his position as "King of Africa". Gadaffi has a self-confessed vested interest in the area and Bashir is one of the Libyan leader's only supporters.

But this story goes to show just how sick the Islamist mind-set is. Gadaffi throws this lie out there because he knows that there are people who will believe it - no matter how laughably obvious it is that it is false. It is only a matter of time before he accuses the Jews of sinking the Titanic. When he does, you can bet that there will be millions of Muslims climbing over themselves to believe him.
Logic has never stood in the way of hatred.

May kelly.

You are a certified idiot just burbling crap that you know nothing about.
This is what gets me about you so called "Christians". You claim you follow the Bible yet you know absolutely nothing about it's contents or it's history.

The name Lucifer appears once. Isaiah 14:12 KJV. It doesn't even appear in modern translations and is replaced with "Day Star".

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2014:3-14:20&version=47

It is a taunt handed down by God against the king of Babylon.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2014:3-14:20;&version=31;

Nowhere but nowhere does it ever refer to Satan. Never. Ever.

I suggest that you actually read the passage before commenting with any more drivel.
Got it dipshit?

@ May "Dumb Buffoon" Kelly.

OK stupid. Tell me how Lucifer = Satan.

You were bound to come out with that sort of crap Auwal.

Do you know why?
It's because you are an idiot.

Where shall he draw the line?

Why does there have to be a line?

And as I've already stated, they could be referring to a specific topic that he may not have been educated about or could be referring to the fact that they expected him to have no educational background. Are we to suppose that Jesus was uneducated simply because of less than a dozen words in scripture that can be interpreted in many different ways? And when logic dicatates otherwise?

Say you study Physics at school. You then graduate but know nothing about quantum mechanics as it was not on the curriculum, but you decide you love Physics so much you want to learn about it. You dont necessarily have to go to school to start reading quantum mechanics and as you've already got the education in basic Physics, you have a head-start in teaching yourself.

Taking a logical view, Jesus studied at one of the many religious schools. He then graduated and went on to a self-taught, "advanced" degree.

This is absolutely not unusual. Look at the major figures in the majority of religions. Most of them went about it the same way. They learnt their scripture and then went out to preach. In some cases (such as the Buddha and Jesus himself) scripture was then written by and about them.

The idea of Jesus being nothing but an un-educated carpenter defies simple logic.

Also the value of money isnt diminished or lost just because it had changed hands so often.

It's value is diminished if someone defaces it.

And although I would agree that the Bible stands the test of time, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be questioned and it's mistakes rectified. If it were a case to the contrary we wouldn't have needed the thousands of revisions.

The fact remains that Jesus didnt go to Bible college.

That is unthinkable. Every Jewish boy was given a religious education to some degree.

The Bible passages that you have posted are totally open to interpretation. They could be referring to the knowledge that Jesus had picked up after education or alternatively could be a throwback to his Galilean roots - people from Galilee were seen as uneducated village idiots by the Judeans.
Again, we have to take those passages in context.

But look at it this way:

The Bible is said to be handed down from God. It was then written down in the language of men.
There are many times in the New Testament where Jesus quotes the Old Testament. He quotes the language of men. For him to be able to do that, he must have studied the Bible. He must have had an education.

This is what happens to those have rejected the truth and have embraced a lie.

No. What happens is that they start parroting illogical, incomprehensible bullshit and ignore anything that contrasts with their outdated, ignorant and peurile view of scripture.

Remind you of anyone?

I look at the lovers of the Iranian regime here and I laugh.

"How great is Iran? Islam has launched a satellite".

Idiots. It's taken them 30 years to do so. 30 years ago Iran had some of the best universities in the world and some of the best physicists. Then the revolution came and the universities were closed down, reopened under Islamic rules and many of the brightest students were barred from education. This satellite should have gone into space years go. It's taken them 30 years to achieve something that they weren't that far away from achieving when the revolution occured.

The satellite has been launched in spite of Iranian Islam. Not because of it.

The Adam and Eve story is an analogy. Nothing more.

Even the Bible itself is totally contradictory on the subject of the first man and woman:

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

But hang on:

2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


There is a school of thought that Eve was not Adam's first wife. The woman mentioned in 1:27 was the first woman.
They call her Lilith.

http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/delirium/articleview.asp?Post=177#sumerian

Either way, if even the Bible is inconsistent, how can one fanatically claim that Adam and Eve were the first people?

There's no contradiction in what I stated. In the case you have quoted, I was referring to the mistranslation that someone made. Here again, we have a mistranslation of the word "Nazareth". My point if anything is reinforced.


In this case, we have looked at the scripture and found the word Nazareth. We've then looked at it in the context of the times and found that it cannot apply so then we have to look at the other historical applications that it can be used in. We then come across the Nazareans.

But scripture should never stand alone as our only knowledge. We have to look at that scripture and take it in the context of the times.
Scripture is very, very important, but it cannot be the be all and end all.

Your Bible is not "real" scripture. It has been changed and edited so many times by different men that it is almost impossible for it to be taken at face value. To take it as real, you have to understand the times and the motives with which it was written.

Idiots on both sides.

Lucifer is not Satan. The name refers to a Babylonian king and only came to mean Satan because of a mistranslation by the scholar Jerome when he compiled the Latin Vulgate Bible. This mistake has snow-balled through time with works such as Milton's "Paradise Lost".

http://newprotestants.com/LUCIFER.htm
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2215
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

Lucifer has much more in common with Christ than he does with Satan.
The name means "Morning Star" (Venus). Two words that Christ often used to describe himself.

I challenge anyone here: Google it. There is absolutely no proof that Lucifer was Satan.

The idiots here that claim that they follow Lucifer are actually saying that they follow the Morning Star (Christ) and the fools who say that Lucifer is Satan are condemning Christ. Read up people. Don't just swallow drivel because it's been spoonfed to you. Learn the truth.

With all due respects though, I beg to differ concerning the issue of Jesus attending religious college

We can't take scripture as the only source to enlighten us as to what Jesus did in his early years. Not only is it flawed in places but it is also incomplete. We also have to look at the historical circumstances in which he lived.

Jesus is often referred to as Jesus of Nazareth. The problem here is that there was no such place as Nazareth. It didn't exist until long after Jesus' death. Therefore, "Nazareth" is probably a corruption of Nazarean - Jesus the Nazarean. They were a branch of the Essenes and the first Jews to convert to Christianity:

http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/jew.htm

Every Nazarean was trained in scripture and the creed of the sect. It would be very, very unusual for Jesus not to have gone through the same training.

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

The probability is that he was a star pupil. Soon outstripping his teachers and then going onto preaching himself. Again, this is not unusual in itself. Many scholars believe that John the Baptist was also an Essene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Baptist

Then you need to check your sources.

The probability is that (if he existed) he apprenticed as a stone-mason and then attended religious college before graduating and then preaching.

I'm all for atheists stating that they don't believe in Christ, but if you're going to put forward a view at least try to base it in real scripture and not just some drivel you heard.