LordReed: What is nonsensical is believing what you claim you don't know. It's as nonsensical as a fish in raincoat, rain boot and carrying an umbrella.
I don't, neither do you. But the one person in all of human history who was foretold hundreds of years before his coming. And when he came had attributes we associate with God, said he knew and told us. Who is nonsensical, the person who believes him or the person who doesn't believe him based on nebulous "incoherent" determined by his unknowing self?
oglalasioux: After seeing all these developments over the years we still resent and hate the white men that, through nothing but inspiration and hard work, gave us all these things. Agreed that white men where brutal during colonial times, it should be given to them for practically changing the world positively.
The inventions have NOTHING to do with skin color! All mankind contributed to them!!
DeepSight: From a fellow ChatGTP Master, kudos indeed.
I am telling you this as a Christian, I have never used ChatGTP today. Yet you keep accusing me of using it. But more importantly, what we are after are best answers regardless of where from!
tctrills: Objection 1: "Matthew died in 68 CE, but the Gospel was written between 75–100 CE." Response: The date range of 75–100 CE is based on modern scholarly estimates, many of which assume Matthew borrowed from Mark and that Mark was written around 70 CE. However, early church tradition — including Papias, Irenaeus, and others — suggest Matthew’s Gospel was written earlier, possibly in the 50s or 60s CE. Also, dating ancient texts isn’t exact science. If Matthew wrote his Gospel in the 60s CE, before his death (possibly around 68), that fits both his lifespan and the content’s context — especially since Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 CE is never mentioned as a past event, which you'd expect if it were written after.
Objection 2: "It uses content from Mark, Luke, and Q. That implies a learned scribe, not a fisherman or tax collector." Response: First, Matthew wasn't a fisherman — he was a tax collector, a job requiring literacy, numeracy, and record-keeping. He would have been more educated than most of the apostles and perfectly capable of writing or compiling a structured document. Second, using other sources doesn’t disqualify authorship. If Matthew used Mark and perhaps oral or written traditions (like Q), he may have done so to organize and supplement with his own eyewitness insights. Ancient writers often relied on sources — and it doesn’t mean they weren’t the true authors.
Objection 3: "It was written in Greek, and a first-century Jew wouldn’t write in Greek unless he was a scribe." Response: While many Jews in 1st-century Judea spoke Aramaic, Greek was the lingua franca of the Eastern Roman Empire, including Galilee. A tax collector like Matthew, who dealt with Roman officials and urban merchants, almost certainly knew Greek. Moreover, even if Matthew wasn’t fully fluent in written Greek, he could have dictated his Gospel to a scribe or translator — a very common practice in the ancient world. That still preserves his authorship, even if he didn’t physically pen it.
Objection 4: "The Gospel never says it was written by Matthew." Response: That’s true — the Gospel of Matthew is anonymous, as are all four Gospels. None of them directly say, “I, John” or “I, Mark.” However, the early church universally attributed this Gospel to Matthew — and there’s no competing ancient claim for another author. The name “Matthew” is attached to this Gospel as early as the 2nd century, long before modern debates. Also, the Gospel includes unique details about Matthew’s own calling (Matthew 9:9), and unlike in Mark and Luke, he refers to himself as “Matthew the tax collector” — a humble detail that suggests firsthand authorship.
So while your objections raise good scholarly questions, they don’t disprove Matthew’s authorship. When you weigh:
Early and unanimous church tradition,
Matthew’s background as an educated tax collector,
Common practices like using scribes and sources,
And internal clues in the Gospel itself,
…it’s entirely reasonable — even likely — that Matthew the apostle wrote (or dictated) the Gospel that bears his name.
LordReed: Which of the over 20 Sir Thomas Scotts in the UK alone was an atheist?
How can you understand when you think your brain is limited? LoLz.
Apparently you aren't striving for understanding you just want to believe. Go ahead nobody is stopping you.
It just seems so nonsensical to me to be an atheist or igtheist. I mean, why exactly? It's not as if you know anything for certain. Consider last words of Steve Jobs above, do you think he'd be an atheist at that point? For what reason exactly? Question is WHY?
Everyday247: If I may ask, why were religious people by their side when they died?
Are religious people Grimm reapers?
No, they were NOT surrounded by religious people at all. Research it and you'll find most of these are from disinterested care givers. Like the last words of Steve Jobs: "Oh wow! Oh wow! Oh wow!" and also these below
tctrills: Trust me, if you and 3 of your friends in secondary school wrote a record of your class from SSS1 to SSS3, we would be reading 3 different records. That the 4 gospels agree more than 80% of the time actually proves the authenticity of the records and writers.
You really think this accounts for people not being able to remember dead people waking up from their graves and walking around, and all these below?
LordReed: Which of the Sir Thomas Scotts? The preacher? the multiple MPs? the cricketer? the army general? The painter? Which one is he referring to? Why do believers never look into some of these things before sharing as if they are true?
DeepSight: Emotional BS borne of fear of the unknown. Also mostly unverified/ unverifiable.
Sir Thomas Scotts the atheist.
See, what I don’t understand about you folks is, you know our brains and senses are quite limited. And you know the majority of knowledge are things we don't know that we don’t know. Someone is foretold way in advance as God coming. He comes and says he's the only way to God. All you have to do is believe in him. WHY NOT BELIEVE IN HIM??!! What do.you have to lose?? And WHY would he be lying - he was never after money or anything material. Do you folks really think death is the end of this energy??
LordReed: Right from the get go this already a failure. Cesare Borgia was not an atheist. In fact he was an Archbishop. This how believers easily gravitate to and believe nonsense.
DeepSight: A cardinal, I believe. Albeit along with his father the Pope a most corrupt one.
He did not explicitly renounce his faith but is considered an atheist because he renounced his religious calling and because of his subsequent actions. He is included among atheists for a reason
tctrills: Your last statement is more of guesswork than the work of historians or scholars.
Now this will help. Proving that the Gospel of John was written by John the Apostle
1. Early Church Testimony (External Evidence) Several early Christian writers affirm that John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee and one of Jesus' original twelve disciples, wrote the Gospel:
Irenaeus (c. 180 AD), a disciple of Polycarp (who was taught by John), explicitly states:
“John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.” (Against Heresies 3.1.1)
Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen also attributed the fourth Gospel to John.
The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170 AD), one of the earliest lists of New Testament books, mentions John as the author.
These sources, written within 100–150 years of the Gospel, are consistent and widespread geographically.
2. Internal Evidence (Within the Gospel) The Gospel refers repeatedly to “the disciple whom Jesus loved” as an eyewitness (e.g., John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21:24).
John 21:24 says:
“This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and who wrote them down. And we know that his testimony is true.” This implies eyewitness authorship and links the unnamed “beloved disciple” to the Gospel’s content.
The author clearly had intimate knowledge of Jewish customs, Jerusalem geography, and private events, indicating he was a close disciple of Jesus.
Of the 12 apostles, John is the most likely candidate:
He was part of Jesus’ inner circle (Peter, James, and John).
He was present at key events (e.g., crucifixion) described in the Gospel.
The Gospel never mentions John by name, which fits with modesty or anonymity if he were the author.
3. Style and Theological Themes The Gospel’s distinct theological depth (e.g., "In the beginning was the Word…" aligns with what early Christians believed John emphasized in his later years.
Similar style and themes are found in 1 John, often attributed to the same author due to language like “light,” “truth,” “love,” and “eternal life.
If written by eyewitnesses why are their recollections of things like the resurrection so totally different? These were things they participated in
FreeIgboho: Yes I did. The flaw is that they don't claim Paul was also not a real person. The problem with claiming Jesus never existed is the existence of people like Paul! Maxindhouse and Janosky will like it. Lordreed will love it. tctrills, Everyday247, Dtruthspeaker, what you think of it?
Reed, plaetton, DeepSight, will not like this one. Last words of famous atheists. It is only one minute long. Max and Jano, note what they say about the hell that you don't believe exists
tctrills: Then my question would be, who wrote the books of Matthew, the Gospel of John, Peter, the 3 books of John and Revelations?
Again what are the historic evidence that show that the gospels of Matthew and John were written by some other person's?
I believe the letters of Paul were written by him because he had a lot of time durring long imprisonments and because he had to write to budding churches. Also Acts written by Luke and Revelation by John while imprisoned at Patmos - which John exactly though? Common sense would seem to suggest that books not addressed to anyone were likely not written by the original apostles as they wouldn't have had the time or leisure and there was no compelling reason to write them
DeepSight: The AI quote again is pure speculative bunkum. It even reads "might have" and you cant see the nonsensicalities in the ensuing suggestions. Direct exchange ko, indirect exchange ni. With what systems? Please do better.
I have left you enough material from actual scientists to read. Good luck.
So from now onwards if someone asks you the child-like question (truly the type of question a child would ask), how were they reproducing while evolving sex organs, you know what to tell them. Been nice chatting witcha!
tctrills: The creator of this video began with a lie. I guess he forgot the Gospels of Matthew and John
The video is saying, and historians generally agree with Lordreed, that those were NOT written by the apostles Mathew and John. The problem is Paul and Acts. Unless they're saying those also never happened, then they're talking nonsense
DeepSight: I cant take you seriously if you are just using AI. AI cannot reason in matters like this. It simply throws up what it finds online. If you put in the question differently e.g: what are the problems with the evolution of sexual reproduction - it wil also throw up articles.
I cant waste my time debating ChatGTP. i give my co-discussants enough respect to actually discuss from my mind, and not from AI.
DeepSight: Point to the sentence in your AI scheenshot where it provides the answer thanks.
You ask a question and receive a very satisfactory answer then start harping AI. What do you care if it is AI or BI. Furthermore, these are the most satisfactory answers from PEOPLE. AI has no answers. The encircled is the statement you asked for
DeepSight: You are just being escapist. Stop telling me how childlike the question is. I repeat it for clarity - how was the organism reproducing during the million of years it required to evolve its sexual reproductive system. Its a very simple and straightforward question. Admit you dont know the answer instead of hiding behind cowardly ad-hominems which I am used to from everyone who this queston is posed to.
As regards the bold, your comprehension skills are really alarming. I am not assuming any such thing. Qute the reverse actually. I am pointing out the exact difficulty in how the organism could have continued in exstence while its reproductive systems were evolving for millions of years.
Please go and read the article I posted - It will show you that this is a real issue even for the most advance evolutionary biologists. The writers have PHDs in Evolutionary Biology.
Please read the below and come back and tell me why your question is not child-like
DeepSight: With every respect you are not just being child-like, I lack the words to describe your inability to comprehend. Please see the bold.
I ask again, during the process of evolution of the requisite sexual organs, how was the organism reproducing.
Are you suggesting it was reproducing asexually? I hope not, because that would be the height of absurdity.
I have at all events left other posts for you - including an article by advanced scientists, showing how this is a problem. Also, if you yourself research a little, you will quickly realize that there is no easy answer to this question and it remains an enigma even in scientific circles.
So please school up.
This is a very child-like question indeed. You are assuming evolution of sexual organs happened sepatate from evolution of organisms. They are all intertwined. Asexual reproduction in simple organisms gradually become sexual reproduction as more complex organisms evolved. Look, this type of discussion is beyond this forum. I bet you don't have a PhD in evolutionary biology!
DeepSight: You are funny. Perhaps yu didnt understand the queston. That's not unique to you. Almost everyone either fails to understand it or pretends not to understand it. I will try and help by rephrasing it -
- During the millions of years it took for the sexual organs and all their functions to evolve, how were the organisms they belonged to reproducing?
Deal with this first. In doing so think carefully. Remember that each aspect of the sexual reproduction system must have synchronized with its opposite in the other gender. So as sperm was evolving for example, eggs must have been evolving in the other gender. And since this process takes millions of years as is always claimed, how was the organism reproducing during that time?
I will reproduce my other questions in my next post.
PS: THE extracts you posted are way off the mark in addressing this question Waaaaaaaaaayyyyy off the mark - embarrasingly so - whch proves my point about how you people just like to quote any scientific terms that sound good - without thinking carefully.
Respectfully, these are really child-like questions of someone who knows almost nothing about biology. Asexual reproduction was all there was and there was no male or female. Eventually rudimentary sex organs had to gradually appear as the most efficient way and over time evolve to what we have. Once again, this type of discussion is not suitable to this type of forum. There are highly specialized forums that have this type of discussion. Otherwise it amounts to a waste of time because people don't know what they're talking about. Example, Charles Darwin and others have written volumes explaining evolution, but someone reads this vague summary below and runs to Nairaland to argue evolution!
DeepSight: It's easy to say without giving detail. Too often, people think dropping certain words is a get out of jail free card. So terms like "natural selection", "millions of years" and "quantum physics" are used like this. Quite often people feel once these phrases are used the questions are answered.
Let me give an example. I have queried the evolution of sexual reproduction on this forum with detailed questions several times. Most people like Plaetton, wirinet and yourself are content to just drop the "millions of years" escape card and leave it at that.
What they fail to ever task themselves with is the problem of how the organs of both sexes must have simultaneously evolved to complement one another. And the fact that this could not happen over millions of years because there would be no reproduction during that period if the organs did not already complement one another.
Because the details are too long to be discussed here. You'd have to be ready to spend months reading volumes. Remember these are branches of studies that people spend years specializing in. So whatever is written here, like this below, necessary has to be a vague summary
DeepSight: These robotic answers written by thoughtless scientists are not helpful. How, for example, does the answer you sourced explain the behaviour of Salmon on homing journeys?
See how you dismiss people's life's work. Thoughtless scientists . If you have the time to research you'd find out the nuts and bolts of how it all fits in. It all can be explained by natural selection. Only thing I haven't been able to have it explain is why humans love food that's NOT good for their health.
DeepSight: Did you listen to it through to the end?
Yes I did. The flaw is that they don't claim Paul was also not a real person. The problem with claiming Jesus never existed is the existence of people like Paul! Maxindhouse and Janosky will like it. Lordreed will love it. tctrills, Dtruthspeaker, what you think of it?
I've told him that "reality" itself is incoherent not only God
AntiChristian: You still need to review your definition of God?
I missed this. How do you mean?
Ruke1990: This issue has been discussed and concluded here on nairaland last month. Why bringing it up again? Nairaland needs to work toward preventing redundancy.
DeepSight: All your rigmarole about him being God was terribly irrational.
What is your evidence of this?
I have told you repeatedly, traits are not specific instructions of what to do at specific life moments such as at birth or at the start of a homing journey for salmon.
You simply restated your statement on Jesus so that settles that.
As for natal homing, etc, I told you use internet. See example below
DeepSight: Remember I said in my first response to Plaetton that there is actually a suitable answer but I want to see who puts their finger on it.
This genetic memory answer is not it. I have said it repeatedly that it doesn't answer for why the first ancestors did the same thing.
PS: You tend to sound fairly rational once you are not discussing Jesus.
*Please, what have I said about Jesus you don't consider rational?
The first ancestors didn't do the same thing. Very few did. That's why it took millions of years. Example, I'm sure there were humans who never got hungry but of course they quickly died out. Now it seems all humans always got hungry. Nature supplies vast varieties, then through trial and error the "best" traits survive, which makes it seem that's all there ever was or like it was intentionally so from the beginning
DeepSight: And for you, genetic memory then imprints it on the minds of their descendants to be drawn to light at birth right?
This is a speculative attempt with no grounding in reality and it is in fact quite incorrect as per natural selection.
Natural selection is better explained in the case of mutations. Where a specific mutation increases chances of survival then the descendants of the individuals with that mutation are the ones more likely to survive, and so on.
This is altogether different from claiming genetic memory which gives specific instructions on what to do at specific moments in life such as for a homing journey regarding Salmon.
The reason I gave several examples also is to help us think with rigor. So that if you try one excuse in one instance, it must also explain all the other instances for it to be valid. Your excuse is nothing but fanciful imagination with an attempt to bend science towards it.
Your excuse would mean that in the case of pups perhaps there were ancient pups who did not look for the breasts of a mother. And only a few did, and then their descendants began doing that over millions of years from genetic memory. Again, as I said, this is not how genetic memory even works.
Believe it or not, all these traits can be quite logically explained without involving magic or God. Just search the internet. The only issue is that we have no way of being sure that's how it actually worked. It is equally possible that God gave them those traits
DeepSight: Again, easy to write in usual language without thorough thought. Do you imagine that genetic memory is such a thing that is activated in specific moments of life such as at the birth of a sea turtle or at the time salmon begin their homing journeys?
If so, how so? That is not how any genetic memory works. Genetic memory can only go towards natural proclivities, which we may call character - it is not some magical thing that gives you specific instructions on what to do at a specific moment in life which you then faithfully do.
Ok, this is how natural selection explains it. Using turtles again; initially, as with anything, there is variety - some are drawn to darkness, some drawn to loudest sound, etc. Those that survived were only those drawn to light (the ocean). Eventually only turtles naturally drawn to light were born because that's the only trait that survives
Christianity Etc › Re: Why Jesus Is DEFINITELY God * by FreeIgboho(op): 12:14am On Jul 06, 2025
. If you have the time to research you'd find out the nuts and bolts of how it all fits in. It all can be explained by natural selection. Only thing I haven't been able to have it explain is why humans love food that's NOT good for their health.
aligns with what early Christians believed John emphasized in his later years.