₦airaland Forum

Area_boy: I'm sure anyone saying that means it in a different way. we are PRIMATES after all

we are only cousins. anyone that tells you we came from apes has no idea what he is talking about or is confused. We have a common ancestor. I cant remember off the top my head what that ancestor is called tho

So which or what is dat common ancestor??

And how did that our fore-father start??

Was it created or it also has its ancestors too??

Evolution has made u agree that we and apes are cousins....SMH!!!

If oyibo man now call u monkey u go vex.....

Balotteli was thrown a banana during this past euro 2012 competition and he went mad @ d fans.....

Whenever its time for any race to be called monkeys,we d blacks are d victims..

But d white people who founded d evolution theory wuld never call themselves that....

E dey vex me when black man believe in evolution............

Because na we d oyibo people go call ape....

Don't u get it??

Its very demeaning and absurd...

Why shuld we relegate our prestige to this level??

To d level of lower animals that are under our dominion...

I tire for ona o......

Area_boy: wrong!


Let me put you in a cage with a chimp or a gorilla and we'll see who is inferior.

They only developed down another line. We gained brains, they gained strength. Pros and cons can be debated openly anytime

Humans gained strength too...

Infact our abilities out weight a gorillas ability...

We cage them.,we control them...

With our never ending brain we can do almost anything......
Our abilities and that of an ape are far apart no matter hw much u wanna look @ it....

Compare our thinking abilities and d strength of an ape....
Are they commensurate??
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa



Some humans are even sometimes as powerful as apes when they work on there strength....

Need I remind u of evolution's most fundamental THESIS(I don't know if it has changed)::;;;::-: Natural selection proceeds in small steps, each of which must confer on its bearer a minimal, but nonetheless measurable,.....

How do u reconcile that definition made by evolutionist themselves with man evolving from there ancestors(apes)??

Let's here from influential evolutionists what they have to say about evolution ..........


Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact? Richard Lewontin, an influential evolutionist, candidly wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut.”
If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time.

Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on facts or on myths?


Really, belief in evolution is an act of “faith.”


Back to d posters question.....

Did any one ever or has any ever witnessed d big slam??

plaetton: Christianity, right from the 1st century has always been about politics, and then later combined with economics. The reference and pretence to spiritual salvation has always been for the lay mugus. It has always been about control,domination and exploitation. It has always been so and remains so till this day.
Paganism is a much purer form of religion than christianity, simply because peganism makes no pretences about what it stands for: namely the reverence and worship of the Earth, the Moon and the Sun, which, if god exists, would be god's most visible proxies on this plane of existence.

Please just mention d politics the apostles and 1st century christians engaged in??

Please just give me 1 example.....

Were they ever part of d ruling class??

U guys just like maligning good works of d early christians....these were men who did nothing else bt preach d goodnews....

Where ona see them do politics??

truthislight: YES.
It is assume to be scientific cus those postulating it are in the field of science, though not all of them.

The real science, u and i can see its demonstration all around us, but this(evolution) is not.

What a Science?
that can not be demonstrated, rather, it begs for faith, very large faith at that.
I kind da like u guys, u do have capacity u know?
Ur faith is admirable.
Some of us lost such faith long long time ago.
Hmmm!

Oboy no be small faith wey atheist and evolutionist them get o....

Infact they have so great a faith that can move all d mountains in d world....

Where is d evidence for macro evolution??no evidence!!!!!!!!!

Who was there to witness d big bang/slam theory??nobody...

But by faith they so believe it happend.....

buzugee: LOL Bruh it wasnt even nothing to do with that. the guy said some underhanded stuff to me yesterday. thats all this was. i was recompensing. scripture do say it is a righteous thing to recompense to those that trouble you 2 thessalonians 1 vs 6

Lol..

No mind 2good....

He wants to recruit more atheists.....

Logicbwoy: Why are you so damn proud of ignorance? Basic biology will tell you that humans are from the same hominid family with apes!

Why would you accept laptops, germ theory and medicine from scientists but reject evolution? When did the bible become a biology book? The same bible that has a cure for leprosy involving incantations and the blood of a bird [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2014:33-57&version=KJV]Leveticus 14;33-57[/url]






Please watch this video and see the kind of people you are agreeing with;


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

And u want me to follow evolutionists who are dumb....

Till this moment u haven't answered d posters question..

U have just been circumventing telling me from ur peurile brain why evolution is infallible...

Something u never witnessed..

Abeg go rest.....

All this is to avoid d fact that there is a creator,a starter of d universe and all in it...

MacDaddy01: So, the majority of scientists are mumus? Go back to your biology class...human are from the same family as apes.



Seriously, do you go to a doctor or pastor to treat your disease?

Hw many bananas have u eaten lately...

Idiot!!!

Oyibo people tell u,ur from apes and as d slave u are to them u gulp down the foolish theory...

I'll tell u today that all those scientists are fools,mumus...

They are dust...mere dust..

Monkey like u and ur gods(sÇientists) u follow...

U have become so sensless and cheap so as to agree that humans and apes are from d same descent..

I no just know wetin to call u...

You are a monkey...
Go scratch ur butt

MacDaddy01: The catholic church nko? They accept evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Support_for_evolution_by_religious_bodies

Na them sabi....!!!!

Anybody who believes our ancestors are apes must be an ape as well...mumu theory!!!!!!.....

Niflheim: RUBBISH!!!.......wasn't it not pastor benny hinn who endorsed the big bang theory in the presence of paul crouch and his wife(mrs purple hair)?why don't you ask them to give you details about 'the big bang'?

Please who is benny hinn??

Is he not that adulterer??

Is he d bible??

Abeg carry that man commot for my front....

Big slam my foot...

Benny hinn must have been smoking some weed lately..

MacDaddy01: I knew it! Guy, you need to travel. You can never learn sophisticated culture in the jungle.

How would u know if I haven't traveled outside 9ja??

All I'm saying d western world isn't a yard stick for measuring standards...ok??

Yahweh has given us standards that brings about sanity....

@ ur work place,that's if u work,imagine if everybody is an oga...
how would that kind of system look like??

U respect headship and authority even @ ur work place for sanity to reign....

That's what happens @ our homes and even in heaven......

Why can't u just understand this lil truth....

Instead ur asking me if I'v traveled or not....

Is the country u live in a paradise or what!!!!!!

MacDaddy01: Have you ever travelled outside Nigeria to a developed or advanced country? Because, I doubt that you havent seen how sexist you are

Lol....

Oboy u just can't understand scriptures....

I aint a sexist...

And I dnt need to travel...

Pauls words does nt belittle women.....
Neither does it mean women are to be dominated...its just for peace and orderliness....

Soon u might start arguing why children are to be obedient to there parents......

Kids are to be under d authority of there parents.......for orderliness sake.......

Don't u get it??

D reason why Yahweh and his son Jesus are in agreement is because Jesus respects headship.....I quoted 1 corinthians 11:3 earlier....

Oboy try to understand d bible....don't be stubborn.....

Ur own don too much...

buzugee: no be person ooooo.

Ña spirit person oooo......

:-)

MacDaddy01: What was Paul's teaching about women? Wasnt Paul an early christian?


That women should be silent in church and be in submission? Does that sound like a christian or a wife-beating muslim?




What about the issue of slavery in the Roman empire n the 1st century? Did the christians ever say anything about it? No. Did Jesus talk about slavery? no

We had deliberated on this women submissiveness some time ago....

Paul didn't mean women should padlock there mouths...

Logic boy u just dnt understand scriptures and u never wanna understand it because ur mind is made up not to.....

I told u there are principles of headship...

If I culd remember I even gave u d example of Jesus and his father(Yahweh).....

1 corinthians 11:3.....

Women don't take d lead where men are or exercise authority over men in d congregation....

All that is done so that things can take place decently and by arrangement...

Women engaged in d evangelizing work,but in a congregated setting women respect d authority of men......

That is Gods command......

That is why even in times past u culd never had seen a woman serve as a priest or a high priest.......

MacDaddy01: But I did not mention slavery.

Sorry

I meant racism.........

People who claim to be christians who engaged in wars and blood shed aren't followers of christ....

This is why I always take u back to d 1st century christians who were like d blue print for christianity......

Anybody who practices christianity outside d way d apostles did it are not christians....

Those faithful 1st century christians never for once took part in wars.....they were never nationalistic to start with.......

For those who profess to be christians but instigated and supported d crusade are not christians....

Logic boy.....

I agree with numbers 1 and 2....


But number 3 get small k-leg...

And u knw u and I have always battled about d slavery issue......

buzugee: lol so you think an immortal spiritual being has a name ? carry go

Lol...

Na person na....

Person no suppose get name??..
Lol....

But my bro try look the thing well....

I don't have a problem with how people pronounce or spell that name...

YAHAWAH,YAHWEH,JEHOVAH.....all are extracted from the tetragrammaton....

Cheers01: "Pagan" was also reserved for the polytheists. Guess what the Jewish called the early christians who believed in the trinity which was polytheist in nature. Pagans!

The 1st century christians were not trinitarians....

Ptolemeus just gave us d fact when trinitarians were established....

Constantine did it all bro....

Buzugee....u mean God is nameless??

I think jenwitemi is right on this issue....

I AM is not a name....

Yahawah is a name of a person ,and that person is God........

U can't tell me that when ever d expression "" I AM"" is used then it must refer to Yahawah.....

It doesn't sound well......

Moses demanded a name from God to tell d isrealites and a name he was given....Yahawah.Yahweh.Jehovah....all correct....

@ 1st the LORD wuldnt divulge his name,but later he did...

And it is that name,which is the tetragrammaton that appears over 7000 times in d hebrew scriptures.......

buzugee: when i say the trinity doctrine is biblical i dont mean christ and the lord are the same people . all i am saying is it takes 3 for the communication between earth and heaven to be accomplished
1-the father
2-the blood of the son
3-the holy spirit in man.

so the father is not the son. thats just crazy talk. they are 2 different seperate entities.

Ur welcome.....

I like ur thought on this issue,,,

Oya this is d last time I'll give u my email for us to chat....d next time I remind u I'll send bokoharam along with it...lol

Email me now on::
wagskehinde@yahoo.com

I'm waiting bro...

buzugee: Nope this is what i mean. Yahawah was not pierced indirectly. he is pierced directly anytime any of his children reject his word. then Christ was pierced directly for the word ( physically ). SO THE POINT HERE IS THEY WERE BOTH PIERCED. one was pierced by you rejecting his word, the other was physically pierced. so what that verse is attempting to tell you is the lord telling you they will look upon him whom they have pierced by looking at his son whom they physically pierced. because the physical manifestation of the son in the last days will be proof that God exists. so by seeing the son, you are looking at the son whom you pierced physically and the father whom you pierced spiritually by rejecting his word.

I understand u completely......

Father was pierced in a spiritual sense...

While Yehshua d son was pierced physically....

The truth is many have falsely explained this verse to mean Yahawah was d one who was physically pierced and killed ,all to prove d trinity doctrine that Jesus is d almighty God......

Then I ask can the almighty die??

beylinko: John 19-37 is simply d fulfilment of d prophesy in zech. if u read d vs 9 of dat ZECH u wil discover dat it ws talkn abt wats gonna hapn in d future.
Readin vs 10 of Zech again" And i wil pour upon d house of David..." did it occur 2 u dat d house of david ws specificaly mentiond n not d house of levi or odas.
It wil also interest u 2 know Dat Jesus christ came tru dis lineage(mat 1 vs 1-17). Also,wat do u cal d soldiers nt breakin Jesus bone n breakin dat of d oda 2.it's not a coincident neither is it out of sheer williness but dat d scripture be fulfild. Wat interest me most is y cant dat soldier jst let him be afta refusin 2 break his bones,must he pierce him? LET LEAVE D ANSW 4 ANODA DAY

Lol...

U can put up a different post for that so we can deliberate on it.....

Thanks for ur exegesis.......

buzugee: ahhhhh i see were you are coming from. in the zechariah verse, they ( israelites ) pierced the lord by rejecting his word while they literally pierced his son for the word. get it ? if you disobey your father then you have pierced his heart and if in the process of disobeying your father you stab your brother who brought you your fathers instruction to go and wash the car, then you pierced your brother too. double punch. spiritual and physical piercing. double combo punch both to father and son.

So u mean that Yehshua been pierced indirectly means Yahawah was pierced too since Yehshua was his representative??

Is that what u mean??

Or d same analogy could be applied when those who touch Gods people,indirectly touch d eye ball of God.....

Buzugee o.....

What's d difference between Yahawah,Yahweh and Jehovah??

buzugee: exegete ? big big grammar.

Lol..

No mind d grammar joor......
U guys are the ones I'm learning this big big grammar from....:-)

buzugee: the new testament is written from the old testament. if you have read both testaments extensively, you will notice that the old testament is always referenced in the new testament with these words SCRIPTURE SAYS . here is an example of such reference. malachi 1 vs 3 being referenced from romans 9 vs 13. and deuteronomy 32 vs 21 being referenced from romans 10 vs 19. SO BASICALLY THE NEW TESTAMENT IS A REGURGITATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT with the addition of pauls letters.

so back to your question. they both refer to Christ whom the world calls Jesus.

I knw that they both refer to d messiah...

But d lil problem is zechariah in some translations make it sound like it was Yahweh who was pierced......

Just take a look @ zechariah 12:10 I quoted up there...:-)

Zechariah 12:10;;::

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
And I will pour upon the house of David, and
upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit
of grace and of supplications: and they shall
look upon ME whom they have pierced, and they
shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only
son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one
that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

John 19:37

New Living Translation (©2007)
and "They will look on the one they pierced."
English Standard Version (©2001)
And again another Scripture says, “They will
look on him whom they have pierced.”
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
And again another Scripture says, "THEY
SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY
PIERCED."
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And again another scripture saith, They shall
look on him whom they pierced.

Who was pierced at zechariah 12:10 and who was pierced @ john 19:37??

The KJV and some other translations read zechariah 12:10 as if Yahweh was pierced and killed,but John who was quoting from zechariah @ john 19:37 says otherwise(that Yehshua was the one pierced)....

Is there some mistranslation , some grammatical errors in trying to exegete zechariah 12:10 or really Yahweh did die??


I want nairalanders to come do justice to this 2 verses....

Delafruita: ofcourse they engaged in politics.you should try to find out why peter was called peter the zealot

Lol.....

SMH!!!!!!!!!!!

Peter was called a zealot??

All d apostles did was preach,preach and preach till they died....

I dnt knw where u got this ur gibberish from........

Oya open bible show me na where after Jesus death peter was called a zealot......

The apostles and all 1st century christians never engaged in politics......

None of them were members of the sanhindrin or were members of the pharisees or saducees..........

They were all neutral to wars and politics.....

MacDaddy01: Keep lying to yourself Their engagement in politics is why we have christianity today.

Oboy 1st century Çhristians never engÀged in politic§ like there master Jesus.....

Do u just like arguing or d hatred for christianity has overwhelmed u........

The apostles and 1st century christians never engaged in d worlds politics.....

U knw how professed christians engaging in wars and politics today had there start....

U were a catholic for 22 yrs u shuld knw better.....

Delafruita: does that include paul?was he sent out of the church?as i remember it,he was summoned by james,the brother of jesus and peter to jerusalem apparently because his doctrine totally differed from what jesus preached

I want u to really go back and read from ACTS to see why paul was summoned.....

If u want us to go into that then I'm all ready....

Pauls teachings does nt differ with Jesus's teachings..

Infact paul was dispatched by d apostles to d nations to preach and teach...

Bottom line::::

The 1st century christians were nothin related to constantines professed christianity.....

1st century christians didn't engage in xmas celebrations...

1st century christians never engaged in d politics of this world...

1st century christians were never nationalistic,therefore won't engage in wars...they were neutral....

1st century christians never had a clergy-laity class distiction.....

1st century christians never worshipped or use d cross.......

Etc.

I culd go on and on....

MacDaddy01: Are you that ignorant? Christians were called pagans because they were not the major religion at the time. Christianity was seen as a cult of Jewish man worshippers in the first century.

Slavery was rife in the Roman empires that those christians lived in.

Christianity was oÑly seen as false by d pharisees and saducess who were stiff necked and clinging to d mosiac law after christ death.....
...

The jews persecuted early christians because they were ignorant of the fact that Gods son who they had long known wuld come to d earth,came and they took no note of his presence....