₦airaland Forum

Mintayo: ^^You see how we ignore him and his post...it is only those do not know tbaba will be moved by the lies he wrote above...i have known him to be double-minded.
I am not surprised,afterall their book was a plagarized work too!
I hope he knows that plagarism is a crime!

tbaba1234: There were all summarised from a book. You will see the author in many many references here...

I have the book so take a chill pill. You will find out that it is mostly my words.

tbaba1234: Evidence 3b

The denial of Peter

It is recorded in the gospels that peter, a disciple of Jesus denied him '3 times' after he was arrested. The story starts from the night, Jesus was arrested. The four gospels agree that Jesus ate a last. meal with the disciples. Matthew, Mark, and Luke portray this meal as being the Passover meal, while John portrays it as being the day prior to the Passover. (Shepherd MH (1971). Page 722.)

The Heroic Peter

According to the bible, when Jesus was arrested, Peter took a sword and attacked the arresting crowd.

He had to have known that his act of heroism would lead to his immediate death, yet he was more than willing to sacrifice his life in his desperate attempt to save Jesus.

He was able to get in one strike and cut off the ear of Malchus, the slave of the high priest. Jesus is said to have stopped the fight (In luke, he is said to have healed the ear). Jesus surrendered himself and the disciples fled into the night.

Cowardly Peter

Brave Peter is said to have followed Jesus at apparent great risk. What happens next is very interesting.

The authors of the four canonical gospels would have the reader believe that Peter did a complete about-face. They would have the reader believe that the heroic Peter, who had single-handedly attacked the Roman legionnaires and Temple police, and who had risked his life in even following Jesus into the outer courtyard, had suddenly become a coward, because he three times denied any association with Jesus before the cock crowed that morning.

The exact wordings of Peter are vital in this regard. Could it be that peter was simply telling the truth? So let us see what peter denied:

Mathew (Matthew 26:69-75.)

Mathew l A: You were with Jesus the Galilean.
D: I do not know what you are talking about.

Mt2 A: This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.
D: I do not know the man.

Mt3 A: You are one of them, for your accent betrays you.
D:I do not know the man.

Luke (Luke 22:55-62.)

Ll A: This man also was with him.
D:I do not know him.

L2 A: You also are one of them.
D:Man, I am not.

L3 A: This man also was with him.
D:I do not know what you are talking about.

Mark (Mark 14:66-72.)

Ml A: You were with Jesus from Nazareth.
D:I do not know what you are talking about.

M2 A: This man is one of them.
D:But again he denied it.

M3 A: You are one of them; for you are a Galilean.
D:I do not know this man.

John (John 18:17-18,25-27.)

JI A: You are one of this man's disciples.
D: I am not.

12 A: You are one of his disciples.
D: Iamnot.

13 A: Did I not see you in the garden with him.
D: Peter denied it.

On a side note, the four canonical gospels agreed that peter made denials but they do not seem to agree on what the accusations were.

Peter is simply stating "I do not know this man", where "this man" may not be Jesus Christ. We will see why.

Luke and John present a united front, Peter is denying knowledge of the man being interrogated. What if that man were not Jesus Christ? In that case, Peter's denials are totally truthful.

We do not have to deal with the bewildering contradiction of a man who singlehandedly wanted to fight Roman soldiers and Temple police, indicating bravery and faith to a coward who denies him just in a few hours later.

The denials in Mark and mathew are far more interesting because they provide us with proof that peter was just saying the truth afterall.

Phrases as "Jesus the Galilean", "Jesus of Nazareth", and "Jesus, the man from Nazareth" in Mathew and Mark are quite significant and important, particularly if you look at it in the context of first century Palestine.

The superficial reader of the bible equates "Galilean" with "a man from the geographical area of Galilee", which the Bible indicates Jesus Christ was. Likewise, most such readers equate "Nazareth" with a town in Galilee, which the Bible indicates was the town, in which Jesus Christ was raised. However, both of these terms had radically alternative meanings during the first half of the first century CE.

So let's travel back to the first century.

Kay 17: Exactly!!

However God cannot be described in moral terms.

lacum: my brother, u dont have a point at all. if thats it, den y do u call catholics, winners etc. when u want to talk about things u believe catholics are wrong at, u wil often say "catholics blieve in images, mary" etc ,y snot say" xtians blieve in images mary etc.
its clear that u guys are ashamed to name ur church because u dont know where u stand so ur not sure of ur church because in d first place its not even supposed to be called a church. u bliev dat jesus founded only one church but cannot identify it but we the catholics know that we are in that church founded by jesus dats y we are not ashamed to talk about it.

cyrexx: Sir Enigma , I agree. As long as you agree that some religious claims are plain stupid , bordering on craziness.

cyrexx: Worthwhile arguments has been presented but they have little effect on religious minds.

cyrexx: Agreed.

And a fool also believe with his heart that..

FrostyZonn: @Cyrexx, stop tripping, will ya?

Saying atheism is a conclusion is the biggest joke of the century...but again, you might have a point

cyrexx: Of course some people will find some sound philosophical and proven scientific arguments "shallow and unworthy" because their minds has been configured to believe apriori that "a fool says in his heart there is no god"

I wonder if their mind will work the same way if their scriptures has configured their mind to believe that "a fool has said in his heart, god is a dead jew that impregnated his own mother to give birth to himself and sacrificed himself to himself in order to appease himself"

Kay 17: Thehomer has exposed a tragic fundamental flaw in Christian morality, that God is actually above morality and hence moral description are insufficient to describe him.

That the Divine in its purity can neither be said to be either good or bad, rather imposes morality on the basis of Strength. Hence for man to ascend divinity or its semblance, morality must be shoved aside.

With regard to thehomer's examples, genocide and the destruction of the weak, namely women, children and the innocent. God expressed his Strength to the extent of tearing down his own laws.



This does not actually justify anything, because you didn't address God intentions behind this action. His intents are the real cause.

Uyi Iredia: You don't have to >>> Anyone knows labels comes with associations that may not be true >>> Watched TAE too for a time and did not and still do not find their arguments worthy.

GeneralShepherd: I believe the topic is in what way is God objectively good and as such I just sighted and example of how 'unfair' God seems to be,but you in your arrogant normal modus operandi makes little of it.

God is not my SKYDADDY? Did Lb hack ur account?

The bible said, ' But my God shall supply all your need according to his
riches in glory by Christ Jesus'. Phillipians 4: 19

No? I implore you not to make light of people's predicaments

chukwudi44: TRUE TALK BUT UNFORTUNATELY NOT WHAT HAPPENS IN REALITY.WE KNOW WE BELONG TO DIFFERANT CONGRAGATION WITH DIFFERANT SCRIPTURAL INTERPRETATIONS

Seun: Dear Manmustwac,


I hereby express my deep gratitude for your selfless, high-quality, and impartial service to the religion section of Nairaland as a just and wise moderator for a very long period of time. Nairaland owes you a lot, and so do I.


I also apologize for the manner in which your removal was handled.

Wishing you the very best in all aspects of life,
Your friend,
Seun.

Seun: @maclatunji: I appreciate your courage and resilience under fire when I dragged you into this controversial situation.

Seun: My Fellow Nairaland Members,

I hereby apologize for adding Maclatunji as a temporary religion section moderator.

I should have known that non-Muslim Nairalanders wouldn't be happy with the decision.

I have decided to mukina2 to stand in his place until I've appointed the 2 born again Christian moderators that I promised to appoint.

What do you think about this?

Ken4Christ: ....

I have been 27 years in the faith, Kenneth Hagin's teachings has affected my life positively more than the teachings of every other ministers put together. ...

Ken4Christ: .... If frosbel and those who join him to speak againt these men of God live more than two years from now, I will call it a miracle. They are just programming their lives for early death. ....

Chibuebem: so how can one know if it is Gods will for him/her to be poor?