₦airaland Forum

jaephoenix:
Movies about Spiderman show the Statue of Liberty in New York. Does it mean Spiderman is real?

No, but it may show the Statue of Liberty which is real, just as surely as it may show New York which is real, it may show streets in New York and places and people in New York which are real. Listen understand something - I am not a religious person. If you spare a moment to go through my profile you will realize you are preaching to the choir. I doubt you could have criticized religion as much as I have on this board, the bible inclusive.

I am making a simple point to you: no one with half a brain thinks the whole of the bible is historical. My point is that there are historical facts interwoven therein. And it will be simplistic to ignore that on account only that it is a "religious book."

However, overall, this is quite a bad example you have given, for the simple reason that Spiderman is a self-confessed fiction written as a fiction. I am not sure you can say the same of scripture.

rayvelez:
NBC can’t do nothing

But if it was Channels or Arise their preek go rise.

[quote author= post=122638500]GOD bless our Darling Daddy President Muhammadu Buhari and God bless Our President-elect Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
God bless our amiable STARBOY prof Yemi Osinbajo.

God bless all sane, honest and hardworking Nigerians.

God bless Nigeria

God bless the outgoing Vietnam Ambassador.

Reminiscent times,
It was beautiful to watch Jagaban appreciate our darling Daddy, our amiable mom and all members of our darling Family, especially we children of Dad.

That melt our hearts watching the Acceptance speech with Dad at home.
Twas a beautiful sight 😍 ♥️ ❤️ 💕 💖 💜

#TesojuWonSharpSharp 👀 [/quote]You must be suffering from some terrible undiagnosed and untreatable illness.

Rokiat:
Just nasty…..they will marry old azzz pale women but would be saying shit about their own Nigerian women if that is not self hate I don’t know what is.

He needs therapy because this ain’t it.

Just ewwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!

Where is Dr Umar Johnson when you need him?

Might be for papers.

OneTemplate:
Ok. I will be civil in return. I may not be a lawyer and lack your expert knowledge or experience but I believe there is enough real convictions and arrest in Nigerian that shows the law treats it as a criminal offence to spend money you know was transferred to you account erroneously.

Not interested in any back and forth with you so let me even agree with you that you are right and more knowledgeable than me, EFCC etal. What is shown below, daily reality of Nigeria, is wrong and you alone know best.

EFCC is a national crime-fighting entity. We should assume it is so patently incompetent to the extent it has no recourse to lawyers as knowledgeable as you before proceeding on the 'illegal' jamboree shown below abi? Only you know it all right?

https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/more-news/506704-efcc-arraigns-man-for-spending-n20-million-mistakenly-credited-to-his-account.html?tztc=1

All I can say is that Nigeria is a place where anything goes and there are many illegalities perpetuated by authorities everyday. We have seen people arrested for criticizing the first lady. We have seen TV stations fined for statements made by interviewees. In Nigeria it is not unheard of for a fugitive's family to be arrested in order to compel the fugitive to show up. So please I will not easily accept the practices of Nigerian authorities as a golden standard.

If that person who received misdirected funds has/had a sound lawyer with the courage of his conviction, the story may well be different.

PS: I never said I know it all.

OneTemplate:
Please stop wasting your own time and that of others. What exactly are you trying to prove? This is how Nigerians have now gained a reputation for trying to legitimise criminality.

I have been civil to you, perhaps it might not be too much to ask that you are civil in return.

I am actually trying to interrogate a jurisprudential question here. And it does not seem to me that you have averted your mind to the full gamut of possibilities which may work within the mind of any random receiver of such funds.

You see, even under the British law you wrongly cited, one of the factors clearly stated for a crime to be inferred is that the recipient must know that the funds are misdirected. Has it occurred to you to ask the question - what if the recipient alleges that he knew no such thing. Odd as it might sound to you, there are those who believe in miracles of that nature. And even if you and I might find such silly the UK law placed it's emphasis on what the recipient knows, not on what anyone else knows or presumes. Furthermore there are people who could presume misdirected funds to be a random act of charity and there will even be those who may tell you they were expecting a similar payment from another source and assumed the funds to be such. At all events all kinds of scenarios abound in the minds of millions of different people.

Even though it's not important to say it, I am a lawyer of 20 years standing at the bar. I know why I ask what I ask. I am interrogating a principle.

Thank you.

OneTemplate:
https://www.thehopenewspaper.com/can-someone-be-prosecuted-for-spending-money-credited-into-his-account-in-error/#:~:text=Legally%2C%20if%20a%20sum%20of,you%20must%20pay%20it%20back.&text=Keeping%20any%20money%20wrongly%20credited,under%20the%20Theft%20Act%201968.

The Theft Act 1968 is a United Kingdom Law. It does not apply to Nigeria.

Please specify how it is an offense under Nigerian Law.

Thanks.

Wagwanbrethren:
Lol. I'd say a few of them are, however the vast majority of them have no non-biblical evidence to support their existence.

According to many decades of research, non-biblical evidence for just few people out of the thousand or so mentioned in the Bible has been found, mainly Pharaohs, kings, high priests, and other assorted government officials. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of the main biblical figures such as Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Noah, Joshua, Elijah, Jonah, Adam, Eve, Goliath etc., are anything but mythical, often adapted from mythical figures in the stories of other, earlier, cultures.
There’s not even any non-biblical evidence that Jesus was a real person, certainly not as described in the New Testament stories. However, most biblical scholars believe his biblical character was based on a real person, probably a radical Jewish preacher crucified for sedition, but that’s entirely conjectural. Certainly, the biblical descriptions of his family and followers are entirely fictional.

Contrary to popular belief, the authors of the four gospels are completely unknown and they certainly weren’t any disciples/apostles of Jesus, and the events they describe are entirely allegorical.

So, basically the only biblical characters for whom there’s any evidence are a few kings, Pharaohs, high priests, and government officials. The rest, certainly all those in any way connected to any supposed supernatural or miraculous events described in the Bible, are mythical.

I cannot entirely agree (there is much I agree with herein also) but this is a good place to leave it.

At all events much of the very early old testament is adapted from older Sumerian legends.

I will only leave you to consider how realistic it is to expect non biblical collaboration of the existence of certain people. Such as the very early patriarchs. That's extremely unrealistic.

Wagwanbrethren:
Lol. What then do I call it? 🤣

About Paul,he likely existed, and likely not,but if you are trying to use his existence to prove that Jesus did, then you are in for a long run! 🤣

I will give you few reasons why Paul's existence doesn't prove that Jesus existed. The first is that Paul never met Jesus. Paul only knew about Jesus from what he had read in scripture. This means that Paul's testimony is not firsthand evidence of Jesus' existence. The second reason is that there are contradictions in Paul's writings about Jesus. In some places, Paul says that Jesus was a human being and in other places he says that Jesus was divine. This means that Paul's testimony is also not reliable. The third reason is that there is no independent evidence that Paul existed. All of the evidence for Paul comes from later sources, which means that it is not reliable. Overall, it can be seen that Paul's existence does not prove that Jesus existed.

Make I give you something to ponder about concerning Paul's existence. There is little or no record of him outside of the Bible. There are no contemporary references to him, and no archaeological evidence has been found to support his existence. Furthermore, the letters that are attributed to him are not written in the same style as the other New Testament letters, which leads me and some people to believe that they were not actually written by Paul.

Another reason why i believe that Paul never existed is that the stories about him are contradictory. For example, the Bible says that Paul was a Pharisee, but other sources say that he was a radical Jew who opposed the Pharisees. The Bible says that Paul was killed in Rome, but other sources say that he was killed in Spain.

Overall, there is no evidence that Paul ever existed, and the stories about him are contradictory and inconsistent. This leads many people to believe that he was a fictional character created by the early Christians.

Is it safe to conclude that in your view, even aside from the gospels, the rest of the New Testament is a work of fiction and none of the characters therein existed at all?

Wagwanbrethren:
Mtcheww! 😕

It's not a question of hissing. You keep saying the bible, the bible the bible. Please I have said it repeatedly that the bible is a collection of many disparate books. It is useless to address it in singular terms as though it were a singular book in a discussion like this. Because the question at play is not whether the entire collection is history. Anyone with half a brain knows it is not. The question is whether there are historical facts amongst those writings. My submission is that there are.

Look, I am not a religious person. If you skoot over to my profile you might come across sufficient material therein to assure you of that.

Anyway let's test the matter with one or two questions. Do you believe the Apostle Paul existed.

Thank you.

Wagwanbrethren:
Where did I consider it a single work? 🤷‍♂️

Seriously?

OneTemplate:
He still committed a crime though so he has to pay unfortunately.

Can you specify the crime please.

Wagwanbrethren:
1)We have primary source,and secondary source. A primary source is a firsthand account of an event. A secondary source is an account of an event that is based on a primary source.

The Bible cannot be accepted as a primary source of Jesus history because it is a compilation of stories and traditions passed down over many years. Furthermore, the Bible was not written until century/centuries after Jesus' death, and therefore contains many inaccuracies and embellishments. Also, there are a few reasons why something can be considered history when the writer of that piece didn't personally witness the event. One is that history can be based on eyewitness testimony, as long as there is a reasonable level of corroboration. Another is that history can be based on documents or other physical evidence that is still extant. Finally, history can be based on the reconstruction of events by historians, even if they didn't witness those events firsthand.

The Bible cannot be considered an historical book for several reasons. First, it is a religious text, not a history book. Second, it is not based on eyewitness testimony or other documentary evidence, but rather on religious belief. Finally, it has been extensively edited and rewritten over the centuries, so it is not even clear what the original text actually said. You get, son?

If you insist on referring to "the Bible" when i have repeatedly said i am not considering it as a singular work, then this conversation may have failed.

Wagwanbrethren:
The writing about him,are they not hearsay,which of their statement about Jesus can be easily verified and considered true? which have been proven to be true?🤷‍♂️🤣
How does writing about Jesus prove that he existed? 🤷‍♂️
How's the bible an historical ancient writing that should be taken to heart without evidence,is it verifiable,I mean the stories🤷‍♂️. Has it been historically proven to be right?
A book is historically accurate if it is based on documented historical events and/or is supported by archaeological evidence. The Bible does not belong to that category because it is not historically accurate. Although it contains some events, it also contains many myths and legends that are not supported by evidence.

There is no archaeological evidence to support Jesus existence. There are no records of him from any secular historical sources. The only sources of information about Jesus are from religious texts, which are not considered reliable sources of information. There are also many contradictions in the stories about Jesus in the different religious texts.

Another thing is that the stories about him are very similar to the stories about other mythical figures, such as Osiris, Horus, Mithras, and Dionysus. Many of these stories originated in pre-Christian cultures, which means that it is more likely that the stories about Jesus were created by people who were familiar with these myths.
What exactly are you trying to assert? 😆

1. I doubt you can support a claim that all accepted history is only from writers who personally witnessed the recorded events.

2. Last paragraph, I accept. There are indeed many similarities with other myths.

jaephoenix:
Can you point me to the source of these writings?

There are many writings about Jesus left out of the Bible.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gospels

jaephoenix:
Religious books cannot be used as historical sources because of the dangers of embellishments. If you use the bible as a historical source, you might as well use the Qoran, Veda etc. It won't be fair on all

You don't seem to have grasped the pith of what I am saying.

I am not putting the Bible forward as a singular work. It is not even a singular work. It is a compilation of many disparate works.

My point is, there are hundreds of writings about Jesus, only four are included in the bible.

Why are all those writings automatically disqualified simply because they are religious. There are too many to discountenance and they are not all in the Bible.

Furthermore, there are books in the Bible that are not just of a religious nature. Several books chronicle events that can be shown to be historical, such as the destruction of Jerusalem. I don't think it makes sense to dismiss everything there on the simple ground that it's religious writing.

I would not do thia even for the Vedas. Look, I would not do it even for writings presumed to be myths suxh as the writings about Troy by Homer. We should research carefully rather than make blanket presumptions.

Mind you, I do not believe the Bible to be innerrant truth, and it is not my creed by any stretch of the imagination nor do I believe in the concept of God it advances, which I consider hideous.

jaephoenix:
Josephus deposition has been found to be falsified. What it means is that Christian apologists inserted Jesus notes into his writings

This is much debated, but even if conceded, my first question remains.

Much of what we know and accept of history comes from simple ancient writings. I still don't see grounds to dismiss all the writings about Jesus simply on the grounds that they are religious. In this pls note that there are hundreds of writings about him, only four were chosen by the church and made canonical.

Wagwanbrethren:
1)There are a number of reasons why the Bible itself cannot be considered an historical book. First and foremost, the Bible contains numerous contradictions and discrepancies which render it unreliable as a historical source. For example, the Bible claims that the Israelites were in Egypt for 400 years, but archaeological evidence indicates that it might not be historically correct.

Second, the Bible was written centuries after the events it purports to describe, making it difficult, if not impossible, to verify its historical accuracy. The Gospels, for example, were written years after Jesus’ death(the one it describes), and the Book of Daniel was probably written years after the events it describes.

Third, the Bible was written by numerous authors who did not all agree on the facts. The Gospels, for example, were written by four different authors who often disagree on the details of Jesus’ life. The Book of Daniel, likewise, was probably written by multiple authors who often disagree on the details of the events it describes.

Fourth, the Bible is a religious book, not a historical book. It was written to promote religious beliefs, not to record historical events. As such, it is not a reliable source of information.

Finally, the Bible is not a primary source. It is a compilation of oral traditions and second-hand accounts, which means that it is not always reliable. Oral traditions are often inaccurate, and second-hand accounts can be distorted or embellished over time.
Therefore, the Bible should not be used as a source of historical information.

2) Josephus mentioning Jesus does not in any way prove his existence. First, it is possible that Josephus was simply repeating claims that were made about Jesus by others. Even if Josephus was referring to the Jesus of Christianity, it is possible that he was simply repeating hearsay and did not have any first-hand knowledge of Jesus himself. It's also possible that the passage in Josephus' book has been doctored or edited in some way. r.

It appears you chose to completely ignore my words where I said... "Taken on its own, aside from being part of a compendium of books put together at a later date by the Church, and called the Bible...."

Much of what we know and accept of history comes from simple ancient writings. I still don't see grounds to dismiss all the writings about Jesus simply on the grounds that they are religious. In this pls note that there are hundreds of writings about him, only four were chosen by the church and made canonical.

Wagwanbrethren:
There are a few points that need to be clarified before delving into the argument itself. The first is that the Quran is a religious text, not a historical document. Therefore, any mention of Jesus in the Quran does not automatically prove his existence. The second point is that, even if Jesus did exist, the Quran does not provide any historical information about him that could be used to verify his existence.

With that being said, let's explore why the mention of Jesus in the Quran does not prove his existence. To begin with, the Quran does not provide any specific information about Jesus that could be used to verify his existence. All that is said about him is that he was a prophet who was sent to preach the truth. There is no mention of his date of birth, his place of birth, his life story, or his death. This is a problem, because historical information about Jesus is needed in order to verify his existence.

Second, the Quran was written many centuries after Jesus is said to have lived. This means that any information about him in the Quran could have been distorted or embellished over time. In fact, there is evidence that the Quran does contain embellishments about Jesus. For example, the Quran claims that Jesus was able to perform miracles, such as healing the sick and raising the dead. However, there is no historical evidence that Jesus ever performed any miracles.

Third, the Quran was written in Arabic, and the vast majority of people who read it do not understand Arabic. This means that most people who read the Quran are not able to verify the accuracy of the information about Jesus that is contained in it.

Fourth, the Quran was written by a single author, who is not named. This means that there is no way to verify the accuracy of the information in it. In contrast, the New Testament was written by multiple authors, who are all named. This means that the New Testament can be verified more easily than the Quran.

Finally, the Quran is a religious text, not a historical document. Therefore, any mention of Jesus in the Quran does not automatically prove his existence. Do you understand now, son?

1. Taken on its own, aside from being part of a compendium of books put together at a later date by the Church, and called the Bible, what makes a given writing of the time discussing the life of Jesus ahistorical. What makes it different from any other writing.

2. Josephus mentioned Jesus and his activity I believe.

PS - I am not Christian. I am not religious. I do not pray to Jesus. Just saying because many tend to make assumptions once one argues a point.

Administration1:
Oga, it's either of three things
1. The deodorant your use.
2. The perfume you use
3. You be one of the dreadlock guys that keep smelly dreads.


If above 3 are not applicable, kindly consult FalseProphet1 for findings.

His excellency the noble Falseprohet1 herewith conveys to you an invitation to join his support staff.
Kindly contact the undersigned for further directions.

DS,
Attorney to his High Lordship, Eminence Falseprophet1.
The Temple of Intermingled Truth
The Ether

FalseProphet1:
Plastic surgery curves.

This I have seen

Greetings Eminence.
What task have thee for thy lowly servant this fine day.

wirinet:
Prenups are a double edged sword, as nobody can predict the future. The tables might turn and the other party can hit a fortune while the one that had money in the beginning can hit misfortune. I know a situation where the wealthy family of the bride insisted on a prenuptial before they allowed their daughter to marry a "poor" man. After 10 years, their fortune reversed. They guy got a job in multinational oil company while the family business crashed after the Patriach of the family had stroke. The man showed the lady pepper and eventually divorced her leaving her with nothing.

This is exactly why it is more honest and noble to sign a prenup. It should not be signed to protect the wealthier party. It should be signed for the sake of fairness to both parties.

wirinet:
That's why a prenuptial should be negotiated if the parties don't trust each other.

For me, a prenup should always be done, trust or no trust. It is not a matter of trust in my view. Things change. People change. Life happens. The future is simply utterly unpredictable even with the best of intentions on both sides. Best to hedge against uncertainty. Anyone who is honest will not resist a prenup. Only scammers will insist that there should be no prenup.

wirinet:
Cause of death was not undetermined from drugs, it was from asphyxiation as a result of Chauvin's knee to his neck.

It beats me how he cannot even see the yelping contradiction in the phrase "undetermined from drugs" - You cannot say that cause of death is "undetermined" and in the very same breath say "from drugs." That is just a shouting contradiction.

budaatum:
Tell me you did not hold your breathe and hope we wouldn't notice you are not making sense.

In fact do you know you've made no sense?

I was really wondering what basilico was writing there. Aside from the spelling - "exonarate" - which he could claim to be a typo - the proper word still remains meaningless in the sentence in which he used it.

basilico:
.
Cause of death undetermined from drugs which he quickly swallowed on seeing cops, He had them all fentanyl,bhang , methamphetamine etc Or the corona virus or the lnee on the neck that Chauvin a police veteran had used before
Don't forget the Lynch mob baying for blood

My verdict. Do good. Don't let criminal GF be your hero

Remember I told you I am a retard. I thought my question was simple enough. You have not answered it. Please can you try again? I will restate the question -

May I thus infer that in your view, Derek did nothing wrong and was innocent?

Please dumb down the answer. It can look something like this: "Yes, he did nothing wrong and is innocent." or "He acted wrongly and is guilty." No long thing sir. I no sharp like you.

basilico:
Is it your position that Derek Chauvin acted rightly and thus should have been declared guilty?





Derek had used the neck restraints method before. He is white so his restrictions killed a black man causing all hullabaloo
.

Thank you for your kind understanding.

Figure out. I'm on transit, don't have to do grammar checks..
We are after all heading to a nuclear warming

May I thus infer that in your view, Derek did nothing wrong and was innocent?

basilico:
GF tested positive for COVID-19.
Full autopsy report. I'll only focus on his neck and drugs in his black veins

Read in full here.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6936176-Autopsy-2020-3700-Floyd


Toxicology (see attached report for full details ; testing

performed on antemortem blood specimens collected 5/25/20 at
9:00 p.m. at HHC and on postmortem urine)
Blood drug and novel psychoactive substances screens:
1 . 11ng mL
2 . Norfentanyl 5.6 ng/mL
3 . 4 - ANPP 0.65 ng/mL
4 . Methamphetamine19 ng/mL
5 . 11- Hydroxy Delta- 9 THC 1.2 ng mL;
Delta- 9 Carboxy THC 42 ng/ mL; Delta- 9 THC 2.9 ng/ mL
6 . positive
7 . Caffeine.


NECK : Layer by layer dissection of the anterior strap muscles of

the neck discloses no areas of contusion or hemorrhage within
the musculature . The thyroid cartilage and hyoid bone are
intact . The larynx is lined by intact mucosa. The thyroid is
symmetric and red-brown, without cystic or nodular change.
The
tongue is free of bite marks, hemorrhage, or other injuries.
The cervical spinal column is palpably stable and free of
hemorrhage

Pardon me, but I am a bit of a retard. So please help me understand you with dumbed down answers to these simple questions.

Is it your position that George Floyd was not killed by the actions of Derek Chauvin?
Is it your position that Derek Chauvin acted rightly and thus should not have been declared guilty?

Thank you for your kind understanding.

wirinet:
You just cannot resist the urge to defend Trump's words no matter how stupid it sounds. So because the epicenter of a nuclear explosion melts everything within a radius of 1km, that equates to global nuclear warming as insinuated by Trump? Even forest fires spanning thousands of hectares are not said to cause global warming.

You need to be ignorant to join the Trump cult.

A nuclear war will cause a nuclear winter and not a global warming.

Methinks it was a play on words.

wirinet:
Everything is wrong with whataboutism. The courts don't entertain whataboutism.
If you commit a crime, the court would not free you because your neighbour commited the same offence and was not arrested, even if you present video evidence of your friend committing the crime.

If whe justify crimes with whataboutism then no crime would ever be prosecuted.

Save that "whataboutist" arguments are not intended for courts but simply to show up the hypocrisy of a particular position in informal discourse. The argument is most often deployed where the very party condemning something is also guilty of it. Like I said - its not for the courts - just to show up hypocrisy.

apache4:
falseprophet is a Scammer, he's been scamming people here ... You will not go free on this one

Be warned against speaking wrongfully of great dignities.
His eminence, High Noble Lord Alhaji. Dr. Field Marshall Cardinal Falseprophet1 will brook no nonsense.

Give proof of your claims, otherwise prepare for action.

whippersnapper:
The premier league is gradually taking shape-- I see man city winning three EPL in a row, i see Arsenal finishing 3rd. i see Liverpool going to conference league, and chelsea finishing 14-two points above relegation. Man u winning FA cup and europa league

This and more i have seen

Greetings sir. By way of introduction I am special attorney to his high holiness and excellency Alhaji Dr. Cardinal Falseprophet1.

It is the order of my business today to herewith convey to you warnings about the dire consequences of imitating his style, using his catchphrases - whether edited or not - and generally impersonating his distinguished and incomparable excellence.

Please kindly note, that should you fail to desist, calamitous spiritual consequences may follow.

Be guided accordingly.