₦airaland Forum

philme87:
Preacher alleges that popular clothing materials, jeans, is a product meant to promote the agenda of the ‘kingdom of the darkness,’ the anti-Christ.

According to the female preacher who claimed to have been on the executive team of the devil before giving her life to Christ, jeans was created to encourage evil.

Adding to her point, the preacher stated that the full meaning of the word jeans is ‘Global uniform of anti-Christ.’

She, however, warns the general public of the need to be wary of the clothing material.

Watch the video below


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJmeBCJL974

Instead of these former witches and wizards to sit down, study the Word of God and grow up, they will be busy parading the rubbish they know from the kingdom of darkness as Truth. How can light come from the kingdom of darkness? Have they not heard that devil is the father of lies? Do they think that devil tells them the truth? All these talk about being satan's ceo, you think he was telling you the truth ni? Wake up, read Bible, thank God for your life, and preach the gospel, not all these embarrassing fables not found anywhere in the Bible.

OLAADEGBU:
Back from the dead to haunt the living day out of you.

Welcome back bro, God bless you.

LordReed:
I am talking of 2000years ago when the event purportedly took place.

It did not come from AD and BC. Did you not see: The term "Common Era" is traced back in English to its appearance as "Vulgar Era" to distinguish dates on the Ecclesiastic calendar in popular use from dates of the regnal year, the year of the reign of a sovereign, typically used in national law. (The word 'vulgar' originally meant 'of the ordinary people', with no derogatory associations.)
It is very clear there is no reference to Christ in it's origins.

There is clearly a reference to it as an ALTERNATIVE, a very late comer alternative BTW. They are used by others who wish to be sensitive to non-Christians by not explicitly referring to Jesus as "Christ" nor as Dominus ("Lord" ) through use of the other abbreviations.

LordReed:
Therefore there's absolutely no way some people would blow themselves up unless they are absolutely convinced that they are getting a reward in heaven for it, oes that make their belief a fact? The apostles' conviction to point of death was is not evidence. People are tenacious for all sorts of things both true and false. If tenaciousness to the point of death was a criteria for truth, you'd have been a Muslim.

Two very different things. The disciples were not brainwashed, neither did they have to "believe" that Jesus died and rose again. They were not following fables, they touched, saw and handled what they were saying. The RADICAL change is the point here. The days ago shaky leaves cuddling in upper rooms were bolding declaring the resurrection in the open and in the temple. This was not directly a case of belief or hope.
So, you should ask people who witnessed the resurrection, not people who did not. How many writings do you have access to from 2000years ago, how many of them are written by christians?

Amujale:
It doesn’t make any sense to pray in Jesus name to Amen.

https://www.nairaland.com/5869399/cannot-pray-jesus-name-amen

You aren’t making any sense, people pray to African Gods all the time, including someone such as you. It’s expanded upon in the thread, link posted above.

My thing is that you’re better of praying in the name of our parents/guardians, heroes and Gods rather than praying to fictitious characters.

Stop deceiving yourself.

wirinet:
God lied to Adam or should I say God did not explain what kind of death he meant by "You will surely die", because Adam and Eve went on to live over 900 years after eating the fruit.

The person that actually told the truth was the devil or serpent. He told Eve that they would not die, but would acquire knowable should they eat the fruit. And knowledge they acquired after eating the fruit and not death.

If you don't want your kids to die by drinking poison, you don't put poisoned orange drunk in the middle of their room and instruct them not to drink it no matter how enticing it looks, in order to test their obedience to you. If we all try it, most of us will not have any kids left.

You talk with much ignorance based on a comic assumption that Adam and Eve were walking babies learning ABC and nursery rhymes. You think they knew nothing like your Stone Age parents who used their fingers as cutlass. The Adam mentioned in the Bible was a Son of God, not just a man. He was a direct created personality by God just like the angels. This was someone with singular capacity to maintain an Edenic Eden and command every living thing. It is not Moses job to write his biography or resume for you, use your God given brain bra.
Adam knew exactly what God meant by him dying and was never deceived by the serpent. He made his decision and even tried to blame God and his wife for it. As a son of God, he knew what real life was and knew what the tree of life was. He knew very well that God is a Spirit and that he was created to be spiritual. He was no kid but the most complete, "perfect" man that ever lived.

LordReed:
Excellent! So how would people 2000 years ago have verified that someone rose from the dead?

By asking people who claimed so.There is absolutely no way a bunch of scared fishermen would have maintained(TO THE POINT OF PRISON AND DEATH) that Jesus Christ resurrected if they didn't see Him.

LordReed:
Bishop Oyedepo was not there when Jesus resurrected so I dunno why you are mentioning him?

Being an alternative doesn’t mean it was a reference to Christ. You can point where in the article it says that it was founded based on a reference to Christ.

He fits your definition of independent people outside the bible na. No be people wey Jesus appear to go talk say dem see am?

It became alternative for religious neutrality. From the link as requested, CE and BCE are popular in academic and scientific publications as religiously neutral terms.[7][8] They are used by others who wish to be sensitive to non-Christians by not explicitly referring to Jesus as "Christ" nor as Dominus ("Lord" through use of the other abbreviations.

In other words, it came from AD and BC.

LordReed:
So does it mean I can claim that Dangote is my grandfather?

A video of the events would have been helpful. LoL

You live in 2021, there are some more things you can do than 2000years ago. If you claim that you were such person in Israel 2000years ago, they'd trace your genealogy, asides witnesses.

LordReed:
Who are the people outside the bible who claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected?

Are you not the otondo. You gave a link to CE that you didn't even read. If you had read it you'd have seen the difference between BCE, CE and BC, AD.

Your pastor Oyedepo for instance, but you don't believe of course so i should not bore you further.
i know the difference of course, what you seem not to notice is that BCE and CE are alternatives to the Dionysian BC and AD notations, respectively. In other words, their foundation or reference point is Jesus Christ but they are used to avoid religious preferences, as thought out by a popular Christian just a few hundred years ago.

LordReed:
It does. I did not give birth to my child myself, there were a handful of people involved and as a testament to the birth of my child I was given a certificate. So it does have a lot to do with our collective ability. We require things to be verified so that claims can be established to be true or false. If I want to claim any benefit for my child I will be required to produce that birth certificate nobody will take my word for it to collect that benefit.

Not having a birth certificate doesn't change the FACT that your grandparents existed, they probably didn't have one. Are you indeed hoping for a YouTube video of the resurrection?

wirinet:
Please name just one person outside the Bible that claimed to have seen Jesus.

Oh there you are, i was also thinking to respond to one of your posts. You don't know many of them or can't meet them. i will mention one that you know though, Oyedepo.

LordReed:
Nope but it does rely on our collective ability to objectively verify its existence.

Nope. The fact that your child is yours and existing has nothing to do with collective abilities. My objectivity and subjectivity does not change the fact of the existence.

LordReed:
No they are not. You can't use the bible to prove the bible. There needs to be independent attestation.

LoL CE is not a reference to christ. CE is Common Era.

Independent attestation that Jesus resurrected? What is the definition of independent? All the people who are outside the Bible who claim to have seen Jesus are not independent? BTW, Are you denying your previous studies that found out that Jesus existed or you are particular on the resurrection?

It's funny that you talk like otondo about CE. You ought to have known better than listening wholeheartedly to these teenagers on YouTube talking about religion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

LordReed:
Verified by the people of those times. Example: the census of Quinrinius, a census of Judea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in 6 CE.

Act 1:3 KJV To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
1 Corinthians 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

These are people of those times or are they not human enough? Why should a census mention the event of Resurrection? Is there any correlation? Were there Christians/disciples at the time or not? Does the date/year C.E not stare you in the face that it is referenced to Christ?

hopefulLandlord:
it makes no difference to me if various historical/legendary figures existed or not. Most certainly ancient history is not accurately recorded. It's hard enough to sort out truth from exaggeration in events in our own time that we have access to more information let alone events that (supposedly) happened millennia ago BUT I'm not going to have an existential crisis if it turns out that Julius Caesar/Confucius/Alexander/Aristotle/Socrates never existed. I'd just shrug and go on about my day. But if there were proof that Jesus never existed you'd freak completely out .

Certainly, it's like giving you proof that you don't exist, you should freak out. It shows how important and significant the person of Jesus is. You should not trifle with Him or take Him as a joke or fiction. You are very correct in this.

LordReed:
The kind of evidence that would indicate that 500 verified people experienced a verified event. But that kind of evidence cannot be gotten since neither the people nor the event were verified.

Verified by whom? You? Give an example of something that happened 2021 years ago that has this verification you refer to.

LordReed:
Ok so what you wrote is not a fact simply your belief since we cannot establish the truth of the matter.

Fact is something that has actual existence or is true. It has nothing to do with Reed's ability to prove or establish it.

LordReed:
No evidence of that either.

What kind of evidence do you need for something that happened 2021 years ago?

LordReed:
No evidence of that.

He saved me, it's enough evidence for me.
For your understanding though, there were witnesses over 500 who affirmed that He rose again.

Betscoreodds:
I think he thinks he is the only one doing God work the way he abused other men of God he did not ask himself if it was God who punished him for abusing Gods children.

LordReed:
It is like how legends build up around people who were real but due to the influence on their community take on a larger than life persona. Jesus was one of a number of apocalyptic preachers of his day, he was not unique as an itinerant preacher. What may have set him apart was his teachings which was focused on a proclamation of the unseen kingdom of Yahweh unlike the others who were proclaiming that god would literally come and uproot the Romans. That could have been what triggered his differentiation and eventual legendary status.

Jesus Christ died and rose again, that's the simple difference. Not all these grammar.

LordReed:
How can we establish it as a fact that your god is omnipresent? Can he tell you the number of items on my table right now? Or how can we show that there is indeed an omnipresent god?

It will be established on judgment day na, you like that? God doesn't need to prove anything to you, open your eyes and see. Psalms 19 says.

A001:
I would focus on the two popular Abrahamic religions here, Christianity and Muslim, because these are the ones I mainly have issues with.

The foundation of these two religions was built on lies, distorted historical and scientific facts, pure superstition, existence of paradise and hell, and aversion toward research and skepticism.

For instance, Christianity requires adherents to believe in Jesus Christ, which hasn't been proven to exist, as their saviour.

It's irrational for any sane person to believe in something without solid evidence. But then, Christians must believe in and have (blind) faith in Jesus and are not allowed to question this creed.

If someone introduces something to you, discourages you not to scrutinize it, and threatens you that if you question it, a misfortune will befall to you, then it's obvious that person is hiding some key information about that thing from you.

This is the modus operandi of Christian theologians, right from their early days to modern times.

When atheists on and off Nairaland criticize Jesus for being a fictitious character (which is what he's in reality), their criticism is directed toward the very foundation of Christianity itself.

As a Christian or a Muslim, you can't freely question all aspects of either religion.

It's a very bad idea to prohibit people from questioning some things in a religion which they'd spend a substantial part of their lifetime practicing.

This idea (prohibition to ask some questions) lies at the core of Christianity and Islam.

Another core idea that's bad in both religions is the problem of destiny and the existence of hell.

If God creates all things, knows all things, can do all things, and has destined some people for hell-fire even before they were born, why then does he punish disbelievers for acting based on his instructions, which are coded in their DNA as decreed by God (using the logic of Christians and Muslims).

All these ideas are not just bad but look childishly ridiculous and highly unreasonable.

There are many other examples, especially in Islam (the five pillars of Islam and the six cardinals of faith). But let me stop here for now.

When you're against these key ideas, you're against that religion.

You can't say you're not against Christianity as a religion and still criticize core beliefs in the religion.

Without these core beliefs, there'd be nothing called Christianity. The same thing applies to Islam as well.

A lot of folly in here. i guess you have proven that Aristotle and Socrates existed too, i guessed wrong, you can't.
It is a bare faced lie to claim that you don't ask questions in Christianity. i have asked all sorts of questions as a Christian and i am still a child of God. This is of course different from asking foolish and silly questions, which is not permitted in any serious setting whether secular or otherwise.

LordReed:
Trying to kill over the internet? LMFAO! Of course I would make jokes, what you wrote was funny.

Trying to What i wrote was factual, God is omnipresent.

LordReed:
Imagine thinking you are so special to a god and the only way he can get your attention is to cripple you and your associates. There's a failure of reasoning somewhere.

He's an embarrassment to true Christianity, leave him alone.

LordReed:
You should have simply said you omitted a word, nobody will kill you if you acknowledge your mistakes.

You're trying to kill na, you should have understood it clearly but you preferred to tell jokes.

LordReed:
Won't that be contradicted by the fact that I don't believe in those miracles?

Exactly why you can't process it.

LordReed:
You gave a definition and I am asking based on that. What do I need to understand in the miracle?

To understand that a miracle can actually happen, which like i already said you do not.

LordReed:
You wrote not "in front of your nose".

You should have known if you were familiar with the idiom. The point though should be taken by you instead of this cultural dance. Psalms 19v1 to 3.

LordReed:
Never heard such an idiom before. Why do you need idioms anyway? LoLz

Thought it was common to say something is right in front of your nose.

LordReed:
I need to grasp the meaning of the miracle?

The miracle itself. i already answered for you, why the worry?