₦airaland Forum

See this aje butter dey yarn about struggle. No be your SL55 u drive go studio?

Nice song though  . soulful track.  Just dey make me dey think of all my problems. If hungry man hear am na to commit suicide remain o. 


I get one track on this kind vibe wey i dey work on before. I only recorded like 8 bars tho. But I wans't sure about it so I just stopped workin on it. Make i find am I go upload in a minute. Abeg soffly soffly wit the yabs o. I don shayo well well and my speech just dey blurred anyhow. I no even fit comot the words from my mouth.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=442151.msg6010087#msg6010087 date=1273156800]See that? He's an 'apostle' elsewhere, a Pharisee in Rome. Busy telling lies and sowing discord.[/quote]How does being a Pharisee stop one from being an apostle?

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=442151.msg6010087#msg6010087 date=1273156800]And that's not even the beginning. As for his 'conversion' story, it keeps changing depending on who's listening. And he names no witnesses ever. Christ says by the word of two or three witnesses is a thing established. The 'Lord' is always appearing to him when none of the real apostles are there or when he's alone. Christ showed himself to his apostles when He rose, and promised them the Holy Spirit and power. They had these, and waited for His return. There is no evidence that they ever saw Him again. Oh but Paul sees 'The Lord' regularly. A light is either falling from heaven or He is appearing only to him when no one else is there.He is the FALSE APOSTLE, the wolf Christ warned his true apostles about. Modern Jews know he's a fake and laugh Christians to scorn.[/quote]I don't get it. Paul is a liar because he had no witnesses?


@ MadMax. . . If u do not mind me asking. .  How do u know Christ saved you? What are your sources and why/how are they more credible than Paul?

JeSoul:
Krayo, wassup?  

I like Karo's comments and I have a few pithy ones to add.

I fail to see how Paul's little to no commentary on the life and times of Jesus is problematic - well at least to the christian. I would imagine that the details of Jesus life (seeing how He was such a popular figure) was plastered all over the front pages of the 'Jerusalem Times' and popular fodder for the masses, and therefore was familiar to Paul's audience. But even if that weren't the case, I don't think Paul was overly interested in giving a history lesson on the person of Christ, but rather
1. expounding on & shedding theological and practical light on the gospel that He preached, and the reason for His death and resurrection
2. expressing and establishing godly guidelines and principles by which the church should operate

 Cheers.

Hello my sista. 

Paul's silence on the life of Jesus is not necessarily problematic, it's just kinda odd IMO.  I agree his focus was on the risen Christ though, so maybe he didn't need to discuss his life.

noetic17:
There were no written messages of Jesus at that time. its like asking why was Paul not quoting the scriptures in his letters? Actaually Paul's letters are 50% contents of the old testament.

Pretty much every time people talk about Jesus, they mention his teachings, his birth, and his death and resurrection. Paul writes about Jesus for decades and mentions nothing of his teachings and birth. NOTHING, except mentioning the last supper.   Again, I agree that isn't enough to completely discredit him cause there are some somewhat plausible explanations, like the ones u guys have put forward, but there are also good counter arguments like the ones others have put forward.

But, I hope u admit it is reason to be skeptical. . . people that doubt Paul's message have, IMO, good reason to do so.

Whoa!! This thread has turned to a war-zone.

@ everone that has contributed. Thanks for all the responses. I need to go and read big book before i can even start to respond because some of the stuff wey i read dey heavy well well. I wasn't expecting u guys to get all dug in like this. Nice.


@ MadMax. . . If u do not mind me asking. . How do u know Christ saved you. What are your sources and why/how are they more credible than Paul?

haha  Chiogo don vex o. Dat finger no get part 2  . . . Dey call it Purple Haze. .  It'll fkuc u up, well!!   

U berra be currful gurl cuz u know down in brooklyn dem nuccas dont haf no time for sme sme. . . u kno waram sayin? ok homie. . . shout me a holla.

Piss out!! 

Bastage:
The human being is an object. Whatever came before or came after are concepts.

I think "wild guesses" is more appropriate. I gbadun your post tho.

Deep Sight:
Do candles light themselves?

That's what i was waiting for. the " there most be a cause. . . an uncaused cause". i was trying to avoid that so we don't have the same debate for the 9900th time I have never observed a candle start burning by itself before. Fires can be started independent of human activity though.

Deep Sight:
You have not read my earlier posts, have you?

You talk about societies. When we are all gone, the equation still results in zero.

Which is why I have asked you twice now why that makes you uncomfortable. Why does nothingness make u uncomfortable. What is it about that possibility that scares the hell outta u.

Deep Sight:
Do candles light themselves?

I swear I just responded to this

Deep Sight:
That we are an expression of something does not mean that that thing needs us. Your art may be an expression of you. This does not mean that you need it. Rather it finds its purpose in that which you have done it for.

An expression of what exactly are we, and how does this whole expression thing work?

Deep Sight:
You know very well that this is circular reasoning.

really? Can man survive by himself? how? Man needs mankind like we need air, food and water. We need man more than we need God. AT least IMO.

Deep Sight:
WHO NEEDS IT TO DO THAT?

The candle lighting up darkness. Nobody has to need the light for the candle to live it's life. The example made no mention of anybody. You are projecting someone into the mix. . .the same way religions project God into the mix.

Deep Sight:
From nothingness to nothingness presupposes a purposes of nothingness and that is mathematical - to wit - the result (=) Nothing.

We are social beings, so that one person dies off does not necessarily mean his life was meaningless. His/her impact on the lives of others can be a form of purpose or meaning or whatever. Remove man from the society and what u have is not man anymore IMO. Too much focus on the individual distorts reality. Man is nothing alone. From the moment u are conceived/born your survival depends on others. Why can't the purpose or meaning of your life be a function of your relationship with society. Why conjure up souls, and spirits, Gods and realms. Death scares the hell out of y'all and u guys need all these magical stuff to help u get thru. Kinda funny.

Deep Sight:
If you will answer the WHO question above, then you will see that it summarily proves that there is always an external purpose so long as we remain finite.

There was no who in the original example, if there was, my response would have been different.  

Deep Sight:
The candle is not its own purpose. A man needs it to see in the darkness.

And your point is? That God NEEDS us for sumn? the omnipotent one?

Deep Sight:
WHO OR WHAT NEEDS MANKIND?

Man needs mankind.

The candle's purpose is to light up the room while it is lit. When it's lifespan is over it dies off.

If anything that example makes Mazaje's point. What happens after death is irrelevant as fas as having a purposeful life goes. Did the candle not light up the room while it was lit?

^^  If Jesus' life is not important, then what are we to do with his miracles, teachings and Parables?  I see Christians all the time quoting "words of Jesus" as authoritative, and do the same with Paul's and pretty much most people depicted in the Bible as having some kind of authority.  Who has the final word. Jesus or Paul?

Another point I was going to bring up in another thread is the Bible's portrayal of John the Baptist as subordinate to Jesus, while an examination of all the sources we have seem to suggest otherwise. JTB was the big-shot, and Jeses did not become one until after his own death. That Jesus was viewed, during his life, as subordinate to JTB, or the reason why JTB came, or whatever, is not supported by anything outside of the gospels. If it is I am unaware of it.

I don't understand why believing life ends in nothingness is something to be ashamed or embarrassed of. The way oga deepsight dey make him statements u go think say na crime.

@ deepsight. i asked u if the possibility of life ending in nothingness makes u uncomfortable, and why, but u no answer me. Wetin i do u nah?

colomb:
@Krayola Do u fu#ks wit cam based on your profile pics or u jst diggin d graphic? Can't wait 4 BOAB 2.5. Vado is d poo right now.

haha. I just liked the pic o. . .  Camron is aight. Not a huge fan but he's good. Used to bump him a while ago. I listen to mostly Naija music now tbh. I'm bored of yankee rap for the most part; Listened to too much of that stuff in my lifetime, I can almost always predict what the next line is gonna be  . I just work on my own stuff now.

[quote author=tosinaded@ link=topic=441132.msg6002584#msg6002584 date=1273058193]@Krayola
u dey mind the house girl wey dey se ori 4 white men 4 abroad ni? esu fe ba ti iya e je ni. . .[/quote]hehe. Confusion dey catch am. She dey vex say person dey form, come dey yarn ebonics on top Naija forum.

Hey, duke, u betta watch your mouf cuz if u com 2 ma hood u gon get popped like a pimpuls. I finna give u a dirty igbati.

Oponu oshi.

Deep Sight:
St. Paul. . . incredible fanatic. . .

Aren't we all

MyJoe:

First off, this is my first Krayola thread! Will read and comment.  

haha. looking forward to reading ur views.

@ Mazaje. U do have a point. Paul was not the founder of Christianity, but his version was adopted by the Roman empire. So Pauline Christianity is what most refer to as "Christianity".

I don't think it matters if Paul used the word "christian' we know that to mean people who believe Jesus to be the Messiah.

@ mazaje . . If u compare those passages u may notice that there are some similarities between Paul's teachings and those attributed to Jesus.  On divorce, "compensation", and to some extent the Last Supper. I'm not sure if any of those passages are controversial and I don't have access to any commentaries I can check right now. . .

on divorce

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 (New International Version) - Paul
10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife

Jesus in Synoptics Mt 5:31-32, Lk 16:18; Mk 10:11-12 & Mt 19:3-12
31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[a] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery

18"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery


On compensation

Paul -  14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.


Jesus (Matthew and Luke)
10 Don’t carry a traveler’s bag with a change of clothes and sandals or even a walking stick. Don’t hesitate to accept hospitality, because those who work deserve to be fed.

7 Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.


On last supper.

Paul  1 Cor 11:23-24 and 1 Cor 11:25

Jesus  Mt 26:26;Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19. Mt 26:27; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20

There are some similarities, so I think your claim that Paul was totally oblivious to the life and teachings may be misguided.

I haven't had time to go thru all of them but I'm trying to. I'll try and post all the related verses later.

I'm just trying to see if we can find out what nuggets of Tradition Paul had access to, and where he had to be creative and improvise. I'm not one of those that are extremely suspicious of Paul. I think he may have improvised too much and been a lil too creative, but I think he had good intentions and was sincere in his beliefs. These things that give u concern happened over the course of centuries. . . when Paul was doing his thing there was lil to no benefits/prestige in being an apostle. In short, I think u are overly cynical when dealing with anything Christian. I think we can be skeptical without accusing every single person of one form of malice or another. Sue me 

karo93:
paul's messages were more about salvation,faith and belief than about jesus so we don't learn about jesus from the books of paul which were mostly instructions and encouragement letters to the churches.

If the life of Jesus was not important, why would his death be? Why should anyone just believe that belief and faith in some crucified individual would save them, if there was no info about his life. How would that be different from all the other myths of gods/goddesses that were floating around?

So, I was nerding up some info on Paul this morning and came across a worksheet for some college class on Paul that i thought would be a good exercise for Christians or anyone interested ( I wonder where Abuzola is  ). I'll post a link to it at the end. . . I want small attention first. 

I think most will agree that Paul was the founder of Christianity, at least, as far as the "Gentile' world goes. The New Testament contains several letters either written by Paul, or claiming to have been written by Paul. We know more about Paul that we know about even Jesus, since we have more direct information about him that we can sort through. But Paul's message was about Jesus, and there is reason to believe he knew very little about this Jesus's life.

As we all know Paul's letters are the earliest sources we have. They predate even the earliest of the gospels by, maybe, decades, and careful examination of his letters can give us glimpses into what was happening early in the development of Christianity. I will list a few interesting things that maybe we can discuss. Hopefully some have some light they can shed on this.

If Paul was our only source for info on Jesus. .

1) We would not have the identity of Jesus's mother
2) We would not be aware that Jesus was from Galilee
3) We would not know that Jesus was baptized
4) We would not know that Jesus taught in Parables
5) We would not know that Jesus performed miracles
6) We would not know that Jesus ate with sinners
7) We would not know that Jesus confronted some Pharisees
8 ) We would not know that Jesus entered Jerusalem and overturned tables in the temple (This is a big deal, as it was, allegedly, during passover and would have been all over the "News"  . Paul's silence on this is kinda odd, IMHO)

^^ All the above, and their implications, are debatable. That is the point of this exercise.

Questions to ponder:

- How much did Paul know about the historical Jesus?
- Where did he learn it?
- Were the readers of Paul's letters already familiar with Jesus' teachings, leaving Paul with little reason to include them?
- Why does Paul not buttress his arguments with appeals to Jesus' teachings.
- Was Paul too focused on the cross and resurrection?

The link below is to a pdf file that contains all the info I just typed out, and also a table that lists passages that contain parallels and differences between Paul and the synoptics on different issues (If u have trouble opening it please let me know, and I'll try to copy the info and post it here). Basically there are some similarities and some glaring contradictions, and maybe we can sort through them and see what they can teach us. I can't really take part cause I'm workin 24/7 pretty much but I just think it may be fun. 

http://www.westmont.edu/~fisk/Articles/RS10Worksheet52006.pdf

Noetic17, Davidylan, Mazaje, Deep Sight, Pastor AIO, Jeseoul, MyJoe, Toba, Oladegbu, Toneyb, Tpiah, etc etc. efribody o. Oya . . .let's go there, please 

Thank u

haha. . . E be like say this b-qbabe no know say na nairaland she dey. This one wey she warna garna finna slap  person. .  I no know who she expect to dey follow am yarn dat one.  U're tryin too hard, my dear. Coming to spit Ebonics on Nairaland  . . . . who is your target audience?  U are very confused. U think say we nefa go brooklyn b4?  Bush pig. Dem suppose go lock u inside cage, make gateman dey feed u thru one small hole. Eran oko oshi. 

Haha. This debate is very sweet. Abeg make I ask quick kweshun . . .

@ deepsight. Does the possibility that "life is nothingness" make u uncomfortable? If so, why?

@ deepsight. From what I know space and time are physical phenomena, ideas are generated by physical entities, and what u call a mind needs a brain or some kinda data apprehension and processing system.

I think those things u listed may be intangible, I.e not percievable by the senses, but IMO we have no good reason to believe they exist outside our universe.

Would love to explain what I mean a bit more but typin on my phone is just drama. I hope u understand what I mean tho.

@ deepsight. Can u please give me examples of these non physical things that u mean? And please if u are asking me questions, try not to answer them too, on my behalf, and then draw conclusions based on answers that did not come from me. Thanks

Never mind

The universe, IMO, may be all we know for sure that exists. Let's start from what we know for sure, and take careful steps toward what we don't know. Instead of just mAking all sorts of leaps and making statements that we can't back up.

We shouldn't keep pretending we have The answers, especially when we know the "answers" fall apart when critiqued. Abi?

noetic17:
As far as mazaje is concerned, all religious peeps are deluded. 

hey. . I kinda agree with him.  but people do have a right to be deluded in peace 

Ok, But a similar argument works for religion. Yeah, some religious people are messed up, and some do crazy stuff for religion, but most religious people are not crazy, and will tell u they benefit a lot from their faith. Can't u just take their word for it?

@ noetic. Why the king James version?

@ mazaje. U know there is a strong case that science is doin more damage than religion.

Pollution eg that oil spill gush that is dumping 200000 barrels of crude a day into natural habitats.
Nukes and weapons of mass destruction. From guns to missiles
Mass media dictating how people think (public opinion can be programmed to a significant extent)
etc

There is a real possibility that we can wipe ourselves off the face of the earth. Thanks to science.

Since the industrial revolution we have done so much damage to the earth,  and live with the threat of some nuke Fallin into wrong hands. In hundreds of thousands of years, not a quarter of that kinda damage had been done to the ecosystem, and no such immediate threat to humanity existed as nukes floating around.

How sustainable is the "progress" science has brought? If it isn't sustainable, is it really progress?

Well, all that bread and wine is still a good enough incentive. Chop up, shack up. Don't forget all that stuff your wealthy "Christian" neighburs are supposed to share with you out of all the love that flows unconditionally out of them. Alleluia.

@ deepsight. I cant answer in detailed point form cause I'm very busy and only "sneakin" in to make short posts. But i don't think existence could have been brought into being by anything, whether an idea, principle, or whatever. Whatever it is would have had to "exist" in some form or some realm or whatever. So, IMO, existence is a given. Stuff exists, we know that, and where existence comes from isn't something I think we can think our way to.

I think what we should just say is that our universe exists and has a creator. If that is the starting point, and we agree to accept those premises as true, just for the sake of debate, then we can see what we can infer, from the universe, about the creator.  the whole ALL of existence thing won't work cause we'll keep going back to the question of what created God, and how could non existence bring about existence.

I can accept, just for the sake of debate, that the Universe was brought into being by a very powerful and intelligent something. Whether it is all powerful and omnieverything, me i no know o. But from what I see it was powerful enough to create, but not to sustain in a way that I think makes it worthy of total, absolute adoration or respect. . . but that is just from my own vantage point which I agree may be limited.

What is, IMO, inconceivable is for a nonexistent entity to do anything. If nothing exists, neither can God. I think that is pretty simple.

Does God exist? If so, he did not bring ALL into existence. That is what i'm saying.

Also, being aware of all that exists, does not equate to being in control of all that exists.

Are u saying that God created ALL existence, therefore he can do, and knows, absolutely everything?


- If nothing exists, neither can God. What state of being is this "God" in if he does not exist. A non existent entity is just that. (He is necessary is not a valid argument IMO)

- God may have brought ALL into existence by accident. . . A mistake, a fluke. and have no idea what to do with, or about it.

- I don't think it follows follow that if God created ALL that exists (including himself   out of nothing, not even thin air ), he is all knowing and all powerful.

I think the whole Omni thing is just to make "God" out to be "supremely supreme".  I wouldn't put too much on those.  "God" may be very powerful, but not all powerful, very knowledgeable, but not all knowing.  God could be great enough to create and sustain the Universe and have us totally in awe of him/her, but still not powerful enough to do absolutely everything. . .

I think there are too many possibilities when trying to define something that probably doesn't even exist. If u can imagine it, it could be valid.