₦airaland Forum

MrPRevailer:
The rich man in hellfire asked Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers on Earth and warn them, "so that they will not come to this place of torment".
You don't even know the story of the rich man and Lazarus. The most common story used in church today. Makes me wonder about you!

I just felt like throwing you off your feet.

You're actually the one who doesn't understand the parable well enough.

Jesus had in mind the Pharisees when he used that illustration. Because they were present when he was given counsel to his disciples(Luke 16:14)

The rich man clothed in purple signified the religious leaders in Judea then, that is, the Pharisees .
Lazarus signified the common man who is aware of his spiritual need—or as the KJ put it, ‘poor in spirit’ or beggars for the spirit. (Matthew 5:3)
Meaning that ‘Lazarus’ or the common man was normally looked down by the ‘rich man’ or Pharisees and that what they received as spiritual food from the ‘tables’ of the Pharisees amounted to nothing. Lazarus or the common man in Judea was in a spiritually deprived state.


However a drastic change was to occur. The Mosaic Law and Prophets were meant to lead to Jews to the Messiah. So after John cleared the way for Jesus(Isaiah 40:3, Malachi 4:5), Jesus then arrived on 29CE and was baptized by John.(Mark 1:9)

Shortly after that, on one particular Sabbath, Jesus entered into their synagogue and read a scroll from Isaiah 61:1 that says “Jehovah's spirit is upon me...he anointed me to declare the good news to the poor...”
That is, those who are poor in spirit or aware of their spiritual need.(Luke 4:18)

The Pharisees were in a “place of torment” because of the teachings of Jesus Christ. They felt “tormented” and were often disturbed because Jesus taught real truths about God and God's Kingdom and healed the sick etc.

The rich man in purple, i.e. the Pharisees ask for Lazarus or the common man to quench his thirst i.e. they want to be relieved if Jesus and his disciples would stop preaching the truth about God which exposed all the lies and tradition of the Pharisees.

The religious leaders, i.e. the Pharisees openly claim to obey the Law of Moses meanwhile they were actually following man-made traditions(Matthew 15:3)
So that's why ‘Abraham’ in the illustration said: “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead”
In essence, saying that if they actually listened to Moses and the Prophets then they would realise that the Law was meant to lead the Jews to Jesus Christ.(Deuteronomy 18:15,18; Galatians 3:24)
But since they don't obey Moses, then there's no way they will be persuaded if Jesus performed many powerful works.(see also John 5:46)

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus has nothing to do with your mythical fake hellfire.

FatherOFJesus2:
Another one

Puppet snake.
Different people with different explanations

I'll also call 8.7million other people who will agree with what I've just said. And I'm not exaggerating. Haddeylium for a start. I didn't just manufacture what I said now. It's an established fact amongst a group of men and women you know as
“Jehovah's Witnesses”

FatherOFJesus2:
yes, was the snake satan’s puppet?

In simple terms, yes.

FatherOFJesus2:
So the scripture even hides things. Lol


Maybe the snake didn’t tell, it actually wrote those things to eve on paper

Ever heard of ventriloquism? Or what is commonly called puppetry?

FatherOFJesus2:
Thats because his book said snakes can talk. I have never seen a snake talk

I’m sure you haven’t either

A snake doesn't have vocal cords. What occurred in Genesis 3:1-6 has several things hidden that one can only understand by considering other scriptures.

FatherOFJesus2:
But no evidence that God exist

Anywhere you see me on Nairaland, carry the below in mind.

DappaD:
I can't disbelieve the Bible and believe either you, your evolution or your Wikipedia.

FatherOFJesus2:
But the Bible said snakes can talk

Have you ever seen a talking snake?

If you don't believe in higher intelligent beings in the first place, then what's the need quoting one particular event from the scriptures out of the context?

FatherOFJesus2:
you can’t get fact from Wikipedia but you got a lot of it from the Bible.

Talk of stuppid


I can’t disbelieve Wikipedia and believe you.

In the same manner. Lol.

I can't disbelieve the Bible and believe either you, your evolution or your Wikipedia.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander they say.

This is according to just you. Most of your evolution buddies will never believe in a God because they want to set standards of what's right and wrong for themselves. The world's leading scientists won't agree with the words I've bolded and struck out. Like evidence has shown, there's no substantial evidence that any thing called evolution actually occurred in the past or now. Honest scientists will tell you the truth. Those who pursue their own interests will keep you in the dark and you'll continue dancing around them and picking up whatever they leave for you from their tables.

FatherOFJesus2:
We will believe in God only if you provide evidence that he exist.
Since no evidence is available we cannot believe anything doesn’t has not been proven.
As long as we know, [s]evolution has been proven over and over again.[/s]God does not have evidence. If you can provide evidence, you might win a Nobel prize award for yourself.

FatherOFJesus2:
97% of them agree that evolution is fact.

The remaining 3% believe intelligent design and not the nonsense in the Bible that’s still ok btw

I'm not that stupid to get my facts from a Wikipedia article that can be easily edited to fit the writer's view. What you're saying isn't new. Even your professor Richard Dawkins came to claim that the majority of scientists were in agreement with the evolution theory before several other professors stood up to correct him not to make statements in generalisation.

FatherOFJesus2:
You want to talk about evolution without talking about the nonsense in your bible.

---

---

---

DappaD:
There's no need engaging this man further. He has resorted to using red herring fallacies so that the errors of his evolution theory will not be called into account. It was expected.

At the end of the day your science professors will not still come to one conclusive definition of evolution meanwhile some other higher professors have debunked it as nonsense. The only thing stopping them is that they refuse to believe in a “God” because they feel it's farfetched.
You're just a disciple of rich, greedy men in labcoats so you can continue your rants. Call me when you're up for an INTELLIGENT conversation.

FatherOFJesus2:
if ignorance was a moniker

Do you even know what fossil records are gotten and dated?

What does radiocarbon dating have to do with what I've said? Who's the ignorant one here?
Fossil records do not prove your evolution even in the slightest way. Remains dug up have always been distinct.

@haddeylium, there's no need engaging him further. He has resorted to using red herring fallacies so that the errors of his evolution theory will not be called into account. It was expected.

FatherOFJesus2:
I agree with whatever you say as long as you can tell me how fossil record contradict evolution

I want to learn something sir

What has been the long held view about Neanderthal fossil finds and what is the current view?
Why do fossil records not show species in development phase to another specie? Like why wasn't a specie developing into another and then suddenly died so we can find the remains today?
Those pictorial representations in your science textbooks have been overly exaggerated whether you agree or not.
The fact that distinct species occurs in fossil records is enough reason why it doesn't agree with the popular evolutionary theory.

FatherOFJesus2:
you won case is serious because you don’t even know what mutations are

Now you are digging up research done in 1980

No wonder you also believe in talking snakes and the ribs nonsense

Like I earlier told you. This your “If science can't explain it, then the Bible is faulty” line of thought won't augur well with you. Tell me about clutching at straws right now

Your science emeriti have all agreed that induced mutations and external agents, though alter the genetic code, like DNA, do not result in distinct species.

The backbone of speciation, a procedure that scientists claim occurs under the guise of evolution is different from everything you've been saying on this thread.

FatherOFJesus2:
can we continue

Let’s talk about fossil records as evidence for evolution.

Do you know anything about radiometric dating? Which gives the age of rocks and fossils?

Fossil records actually disagree with the different variation of the evolution theory.

haddeylium:
What's the evidence that the two process produce New species.

I can only observe it in a specie
Don't be this gullible

The guy is just arguing fruitlessly nah. Where was he during the 1940's to 1980's when specially trained scientists worldwide embarked on a project to prove that micro-mutations led to evolution? Their experiments after 100 years have all resulted in failure on a grand scale. Because if humans with working brains can't produce new species through inducing mutations after several experiments, then why would anyone in their right minds believe that some uncontrolled unintelligent process took place to produce complex cells and entirely new species?

MrPRevailer:
No, he was preaching the kingdom of God to them, not the balooney you are trying to makeup.

So you are insinuating that Abraham's bosom and Paradise are symbolic and not literal places?

Luke 16:30:
“But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to these.’”

So that means in your hellfire, they use to teach people Law of Moses? Or is Moses in hellfire?

FatherOFJesus2:
Thats not what Darwin said sir.

I don’t expect you to understand it when we are not even sure that you passed secondary level biology

If it's about academic qualifications and achievements, don't worry I'm not going to get into that debate with you because of the person I am.

haddeylium:
wait for it
he's cooking a new theory

He's been deceiving himself nah
Mutations do not produce new species he has agreed and that proves that the evolution theory is faulty on many fronts.

FatherOFJesus2:
Yes all specie come from one common source and later evolved into other specie overtime.


You have any evidence to dispute that because all evidence we have today is pointing toward that rather than creation from ribs and dirt

Sarcasm will get you no where. You won't accept that you've finally roped yourself now. Look at the highlighted in the above and below and see if you'll see any contradiction.

FatherOFJesus2:
i still do not know why it’s difficult for you to understand that evolution is not necessarily the production of a new specie.

Learn to read other books other than the Bible

Learn to read the Bible more often instead of regurgitating whatever white men in suits and labcoats have told you.

FatherOFJesus2:
i still do not know why it’s difficult for you to understand that evolution is not necessarily the production of a new specie.

Learn to read other books other than the Bible

Your forefather Darwin would disagree with you.

FatherOFJesus2:
story sir. Chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas and bonobos are hominids.

You will know this if you didn’t apply for special Centre during Waec

Sarcasm won't give the answer to the questions we've been asking all this while. Darwin claimed that all species came from one common ancestor. If that's the case, then human beings once came from fishes and amphibians? Abeg abeg I can't be that stupid to accept such a baseless theory with no evidence. All facts point to what the Bible says that all living creatures were created according to their kinds. Not that they evolved. (Genesis 1:21)

@haddeylium, you've noticed what the guy is doing now. He's shying away from the current question but he's the one who went to bring mosquito and chloroquine matter here oo

haddeylium:
Does mutation produce new specie?

We'll go as far as quoting his forefather Darwin who failed miserably when this topic was brought up.

FatherOFJesus2:
sorry that’s what evidence says. I don’t like it either but it’s what it is.

So what happened to the remaining hominids? They didn't evolve too? What's stopping them?
Even your so-called Neanderthals have in recent times, been proven to be actual humans and not apes. Fallacy has met its end.

FatherOFJesus2:
Evolution is fact, if you don’t understand doesn’t mean the nonsense in the Bible is true

I can teach you

We've not even begun to talk about origin of cells and all that.

FatherOFJesus2:
We are getting there.

I know where you problem is.

You think evolution is changing of specie right?

Like transforming from one specie to another? Right

That’s you’re knowledge of evolution

So apes and human beings are the same?

FatherOFJesus2:
so why don’t you look like you siblings?

If mitigation’s doesn’t cause variation.

Did you even pass biology in school?

All these just to prove the nonsense in the Bible

We've gone over this countless times.

---

---

---

DappaD:
Usually when people begin to get sarcastic, you know they've exhausted all they have in store. So the next thing is to act like a comedian.

FatherOFJesus2:
It can’t be period cos you don’t understand evolution. You only read the Bible

Just answer the simple question and show proof that mutations produce a new specie altogether. Oya. No time.

Story story story. Environmental conditions, yes, have a part to play in mutations. But does mutation produce an entirely new specie? Simple question. Not all these gibberish you're uttering now.

FatherOFJesus2:
oh God. Mutation is the cause of variation. Without mutation, variation cannot happen. Variations occur because of mutation which leads to increase in gene pool.
Let me open your world of imagination a bit.
If you buy 10rabbits. 5 brown rabbits and 5 white (mutation). If you release them into a large garden and leave them for one year. You will discover that the initial ratio of 1:1 of brown to white rabbits will drift in favour of the brown rabbit.
Do you know why? I will tell you.
It’s because the environment conditions (garden) will most likely favour the brown rabbits. The easier for predators to spot the white rabbits and eat than than the brown ones. Overtime you will discover than because of those environmental factor, the brown fur gene will adapt better and have better chance of passing on its gene to their offspring.
Now imagine if you live in a snowy Alaska, and you buy 5 white rabbits and 5 brown. Which fir gene do you think is best suited for that environmental condition?

FatherOfJesus:
mutation are not the basis for evolution? Lol
You see that you do not understand evolution.

So what are the basis for evolution as listed?

Nope it's not. Period.