₦airaland Forum

abdo123:
Bros na motorcycle I say I need oo. Not byc

Good joke though, lol. I'm still cracking up here.

Someone please sell abdo123 a good affordable motorbike.

Found you one for less than a third.
Say thank you.

tobiroja:
Hi Guys,I want to sell my bicycle for a giveaway price,don't really have time to ride my bicycle cus of my work,so I decided to sell it out for those who will need it,,If interested call or whatsapp me 0909.....7....The price is 45k..but it is negotiable

IjeBos:
A good read. A look into the Atlanta Grand Jury Investigating Trump and his attempt to subvert the election.
EXCLUSIVE: Behind the scenes of the Trump grand jury
https://www.ajc.com/politics/exclusive-behind-the-scenes-of-the-trump-grand-jury/6CXLKTFMKNDU7O6TER4B7UTZPE/

They do not comply with our laws, lol.

basilico:
Humams have always believed in a superior deity whom they worship.

Humans also believed the earth was flat until they actually went asking and knocking and seeking and failed to fall of the earth's edge.

Techobeys:
So when God was speaking in Genesis 1, he was talking about Christ. Genesis 2 is when the world begun but before then, it’s been predetermined that Christ will come, and that Christ will be the image of God.

In maths we call this wuruwuru to the answer you wish is the truth. And I wish it worked on my bank manager so that when I deposit 1000 Naira, I can convince him it's a million.

Techobeys:
I think this is reasonable, but I’d have asked you to reason even further.

Have you thought that Genesis creation is actually the last creation?

I am not a creationist, Techobeys, and evidence does not support the creation story in Genesis nor any other myth to be true. And the two in Genesis were not the first nor the last creation myths.

Here's a list if you're interested.

Obrigardo:
This is what we are fighting.

They hide their ignorance and stupidity behind a "praise God", and think we will gullible believe them.

Thankfully, eyes are opening.

Watched. Indeed it is a "state", though geographical references to places that existed make one wonder it might have been a "place" at some point in time. But what state might it be, one should wonder.

A nature of man is described clearly in Genesis 1, where it is described as "in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them". And that nature is very different to that of Adam, a later formation, whom we read "the Lord God formed from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

It should be obvious that the Genesis 1 human formed in God's image is not the same man later formed in Genesis 2 from dust. But it is very common for many to presume they are the same man, despite the difference in instruction they were given and the foods they were given to eat.

Now, if only we could consider that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 describe different "states" of creation. It just might give comprehension to "‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High" who will not die like mere mortals; nor fall like every other ruler, but rise to judge the earth and inherit all nations.

budaatum:
So, according to you, the humankind that "The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat[d] of it you shall surely die.”

Is the same humankind that "God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food".

In your Hebrew, does it also claim the Garden of Eden is the earth?

Or/and why did Genesis 2 God downgrade the food and the task given to Genesis 1 humankind?

fineboynl:
giving him evidence of doubts until tomorrow.

Very fair and decent of you. The person after all just might be busy or otherwise indisposed.

fineboynl:
uploaded the WhatsApp.

But not the monicker? What you hiding?

fineboynl:
There is a nairalander here who told me that he can check car custom duty report via VIN.

He requested for fees. But since I sent the money in the morning I haven't heard from him. He stop responding to chats.

Post the nairalanders moniker if what you claim is true, and save others from falling for the scam you fell for.

Kobojunkie:
1. ROFLMAO


I am afraid that at this point, you have completely abandoned whatever else is left of your ability to comprehend, all in your bid to what?

Open your eyes so you can maybe see that even the verse you quoted makes emphasis the fact that He applies only to the Lost sheep of the House of Israel, and is not sent to anyone else.

The peace of the Lord be with you.

Kobojunkie:
1. I am afraid you have lost me. Does the validity of the claims made by Jesus Christ depend on my person or what?

Perhaps if you read the entire conversation, you might see where you err.

22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.

28. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

The bold verse 24 could be understood as him telling his disciples that he did only come for the lost sheep of Israel, but even if he said that, the woman argued her case and convinced him that others can accept him too, which he agreed with in verse 28 thereby healing her and showing he came for the Canaanite too, and she did not in anyway become an Israelite on being healed.

In fact, I'd go as far as claiming the version you quote is rogue, since there are many other non-Israelites that Jesus healed, like the centurion in Matthew 8:5-13, who also did not become an Israelite upon being healed.

Another example is found in Matthew 12 where it is written, “Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations".

Some Bibles have that "nations" as Gentiles, who are not of Israel, and there is no indication that they become Israelites on accepting Jesus.

Another example is Jesus telling the Jewish “chief priests and scribes” (Matthew 21:15) and “Pharisees” (21:45) that righteous Gentiles will enter the kingdom before self-righteous Jews (like them)!

"`The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you (Israelites) and given to a nation producing the fruits of it.” said he!

Nowhere is it written that anyone who accepts Christ becomes an Israelite, kobo, but you are of course free to believe what pleases you.

basilico:
The left has been waging a war on Christianity.

Not true, basilico. What the left is waging war on is your archaic sort of Christianity that finds it impossible to love your neighbours unless they do as you want them to do. And the proper name for it would be Sharianity!

Kobojunkie:
1. Where in the world did I state that only two verses there explain the entire bible? Why in the world are you even attempting to explain the entire bible when this conversation is simply about something from the context that is the Words of Jesus Christ alone?

It is not about the word of Christ alone. It is about you claiming to be an Israelite, and how!

jaephoenix:
This explains the whole concept of religion. If anyone accepts religion with all its illogicalities, then where would it end? Look how Junkie is expanding his colorful imagination and saying all kinds of illogical shit, which many people would gobble up without blinking if it came outta an authoritative mouth(like a pastor etc). So where does the illogicality end? I can even add that lm also American, using Junkie's illogical logicallity

No one here has gobbled up kobojunkies belief that believing and trusting God makes them an Israelite.

Gone are the days when people just gobble up anything said in god's name, as you'd find in this thread. Start at the beginning of it and be amazed at the many who's eyes are now open.

Kobojunkie:
https://www.nairaland.com/7607919/does-god-authorize-suffering-test/2#121749119

You can not possibly be so dumb as to think a single verse explains the entire Bible. I too quoted chapter and verse to contradict what you posted, or did I not?

Imagine I post Exodus 20:5, and claim God is jealous, would you not counter with verses claiming "God is love", which is not jealous? Or would you argue that being jealous goes with loving?

Read it again here. Just this time, try harder to understand by checking the chapters and verses quoted to see how they contradict your claim. Then perhaps attempt to square the circle of understanding.

Kobojunkie:
1. WOW... So even though those two premises, I directly copy-pasted from the Scriptures, you accuse me still of telling you my own interpretation?

You did not copy them from scripture.

Post chapter and verse for them plesse so every one can go see for themself!

I knew we'd done this many times before so went looking and found the below.

Will consider what you have to say about it when I wake up just in case you've come up with something new.

I wonder why Obi supporter me is not disgraced.

Perhaps because a twit from a twitter is not enough to tell me how I ought to feel since I have a brain in my head and a mind I know well how to use and because his tribe and religion was not what appealed to Yoruba atheist me.

Indeed he may never ever be President, though I wouldn't write him off, but he has managed to motivate many to reason and labour for a better Nigeria.

Kobojunkie:
Sigh! I think I have answered as much as I can in this.

2. I didn't write any of what is contained in scripture so I cannot be said to have inferred the explicit statements found right there in scripture. I can either accept it or reject it.

Kobojunkie, you are not telling me "what is contained in scripture"! What you are telling me is your own interpretation and understanding of what you've read written in Scripture just as we all are. Please note the difference.

And you can try to understand it more too, unless you want to claim you have done all the learning that there is to be done.

Techobeys:
I think it’s the platform that does that to people. Honestly, I do not like arguments either but I tend to respond to give attention to my articles. If you don’t respond then your article will plung downward.

So I think it’s the spirit that controls the platform that does that to people. Yes I noticed kobojunkie some other people like arguing and sometimes it’s a totally blind argument but they can’t help it.

Just learn to observe my friend. You don’t have to respond to every comment.

I will suggest you stop considering it an argument, and stop arguing yourself and discuss instead.

Arguing is what one does when one assumes one is right and the other is wrong, and instead of listening to each other, one only listens to oneself.

Perhaps learn from Jesus when he was tempted on the mount. He used superior knowledge to put his points across such that the devil, we read, departed from him and angels ministered to him instead. It also helps to cultivate the fruits of the spirit In one's dealings with others while remembering to forgive those who know what they say, and know when to dust their dust off oneself and say "the Peace of the Lord" be with them.

Kobojunkie:
1. Am I to take it then that you outrightly reject either or both of the premises in the question asked then? Yes?

I note an edit. The answer is, Yes, I outrightly reject both of the premises in the question you asked.

As explained. Premise A is a wrong premise, and your "only" is a rogue addition, since we clearly read that "God so loved the world that he sent his only Son" to to the world, John 3:16, and not to the Israelites "only" as you inferred, especially considering God must have loved all its creations, which, according to understanding, were all created by God.

And second, by your own statement, "Jesus loved the world", and not just Israel nor it's lost sheep "only", and there's nowhere recorded that those who accepted him became Israelites.

You will find, in Exodus 12:48-49, that "If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. There shall be lone law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you", which implies one has to join the Jews/Israelites to be accepted by God, but Christ made no such demand, so much less Paul who clearly stated that "salvation has come unto the Gentiles to provoke them (the Israelites) to jealousy, whom he had come to minister to.

And to point out the hypocrisy of the Israelites, (assuming interchangeability with Jews), wrote, "If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?". In clear contradiction of Exodus 12:48-49.

Do ask for clarification of any part you do not understand, please.

Kobojunkie:
1. Am I to take it then that you just either or both of the premises in the question asked then? Yes?

No. You obviously should not do that, since you do not understand my stated objections to both premises.

I'd think you should attempt to understand what I typed first just so you do not take from it what I never said. Or do you not know how to seek understanding of that which you do not understand?

raumdeuter:
I am relocating to San fran

I'd suggest you not be too hasty. The question was "What would it take", and not "what are we going to do".

Kobojunkie:
1. I can't make sense of what obviously doesn't make sense.

If a thing said by another does not make sense to you don't you think you ought to ask for an explanation so you can make sense of it? It's not as if you have assumed I write unmeaningful gibberish, or have you? If that were the case, I doubt you'd have understood any of my questions, which you've answered only because you have obviously understood them. Or is that not the case?

Please tell which part of what I typed you do not understand, with specific questions so I may explain it to you so you understand.

jaephoenix:
You're having a discourse with a nigga named Junkie, and you expect something logical?

No, Jae, I do not "expect something logical". My discourse is simply to understand, logical or not.

The Bible is not always logical but it can still be understood for what it is. How much more so anyone here, if one tried. I'd in fact claim that is what makes the Bible a very good book to practise the development of the mind to acquire understanding. Or don't you think so?

Kobojunkie:
1. what you just typed makes absolutely no sense of any kind.

I think what you mean is that, what I typed makes absolutely no sense of any kind to you. And that's perfectly okay, though I do feel you can make sense of what I typed even if you disagree with what I typed, just as I am making sense of what you typed whether I agree or not, by asking you to explain what you type so I can better understand where I don't

If it so happens that there is a desire to understand what I typed, I'd expect you'd ask questions specific to what I have typed so that you may understand what I typed.

That said, thank you very much for your patience and your time. I am certain we will return to it in the future sometime, after we have suitably learnt to understand one another much better.

Kobojunkie:
This na simple logic things here naw....

Premise A: Jesus Christ was sent by the Father only to the Lost sheep of Israel
Premise B: Jesus Christ so loved the world ....
Conclusion: ?

What do you you think the only valid conclusion from the above can and should be?

First, that Premise A is a wrong premise, and that your "only" is a rogue addition, since we clearly read that "God so loved the world", John 3:16, especially considering God must have loved all its creations, which, according to understanding, were all created by God.

And second is that you are trying to twist what's written to justify your own understanding, since, by your own confession, "Jesus loved the world", and not just Israel nor it's lost sheep "only".

In fact, when Jesus said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”, he still responded to the Canaanite woman who was never an Israelite, which might imply he did not mean what we read he said. He also at one time told Israelites to "go and do likewise" as the Samaritan, who was not classed as an Israelite nor was he a lost sheep of Israel.

He also ministered to Gentiles, and that in no way made those Gentiles Israelites nor lost sheep thereof.

What do you think?