₦airaland Forum

SIRTee15:
The authorship of Daniel wasnt challenged until 19th century by scholars.
Book of Daniel wasnt regarded as part of the inter testament books by the Jews or any scholars until the 19th century.

That may be but the crux of the matter is the canons are all curated by men using criteria that fit their biases. The canon does not indicate any kind of infallibility.

SIRTee15:
Back on Daniel.
When was the book of Daniel tagged pseudepigrapha. What century did scholars started saying it wasn't written by Daniel.
Who was the authorship of book of Daniel attributed to during the early church fathers period?

I don't know what century it was tagged pseudepigrapha or when scholars started saying it wasn't written by Daniel. I would suppose that the early church fathers attributed it to Daniel.

SIRTee15:
What's circumstantial evidence.
If I find your finger print in a murder scene. What kind of evidence is that? Is it admissible in court as evidence.

Continue hiding behind one finger.

Still on this matter, let me ask you another question.

What language did Jesus use when communicating to the Roman centurion he healed his servant.

1. The Bible doesn't state that it was a ROMAN centurion, we can infer that but it doesn't state it categorically.

2. The passage in Luke states that Jesus didn't speak with the centurion directly but through "elders of the Jews", who we will presume spoke Aramaic, the language of the region.

SIRTee15:
My opinion or the bible? U see why I dont want to continue this conversation with u.

When did the bible becomes my opinion.

35 The Jews said to one another, “Where does this man intend to go that we cannot find him? Will he go where our people live scattered among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks? 36 What did he mean when he said, ‘You will look for me, but you will not find me,’ and ‘Where I am, you cannot come’?”

Dude it is YOUR OPINION that this passage means that he knew how to speak and write Greek. That passage doesn't unequivocally say that he knew how to speak Greek.

SIRTee15:
Guy I showed u the bible. That u an atheist is not an excuse not to recognise the bible.

The Jews were thinking Jesus would leave them and go to Hellenised region to preach to the Greeks.
In what language will he preach to the Greeks?

Your opinion is invalid, show the evidence that Jesus spoke Greek.

BadNews:
See Photos And Reactions As Obtained By Below:

The universe doesn't care if you think you are untouchable, we shall all die some day. Valar Morghulis. RIP.

Maynman:
The 'evidence' you brought talk about TA LOGIA(Oracles) that was written in Hebrew that's ARAMAIC, not your Canonical GOSPEL that was written in GREEK.
And not to forget that papais was only stating the "Tradition" he heard from people.

Cc lordreed.

I just dey laugh. Whether he thinks we can't read or something.

FRANCISTOWN:
He really wanted to come early but he ran out of Tfare. These pastor guys have used all the tithes and offerings for their own benefits; buying bullet proof cars, flying privates and building mansions. Nothing dey the treasuries of heaven.

FRANCISTOWN:
🤣🤣🤣🤣. I wonder why none of these pastors are willing to send their private jets over

Bwahahahahaha!

SIRTee15:
Even if we agree book of daniel is pseudepigrapha, when was it believed by scholars to be pseudepigrapha. What century?
Pls provide evidence, I'm not interested in your opinion.

Sirach's compilation of the Tanakh did not include it and that was compiled 200 to 175 BCE.

SIRTee15:
Now when I say I want evidence what I sent u is how I want it.
Real solid evidence, not your opinion.
If u claim a source bring it here, do the work and bring the link here.
Otherwise I will simply ignore it.

So Jesus will travel to Greece and start speaking Aramaic to Greeks !!!!
So Jesus will travel to other Roman province and teach in Aramaic !!!!

Pls allow me to borrow your bwaaaaahhh, me too I want to laff.

Oga when you asked me to state which work of Papias I was quoting I didn't waffle. I want you to state which work the quotes are taken from, not interested in screenshots.

Did Jesus travel to Greece or any other Roman province? Evidence please.

SIRTee15:
whats triggering the Lagta

Anyway u ask for evidence....

From Iranaeus

Which work of Iranaeus is this?

And how does the bible passage indicate it was Greek that was being spoken and not Aramaic the common tongue of that area at the time?

SIRTee15:
Were the two books compiled by same people.
Was the tanakh compiled by the church fathers.
U see why I said we going in circle or u just want to argue.

Again, who cares who compiled the Tanakh, Christians included it in their canon. The question is why include one and exclude the other since they are both pseudepigraphal.

You are the one who cannot produce a concrete answer, so the question stands. When you are able to sufficiently answer the question then we can move on.

Fr33born:
I am also asking.

Well then I don't see what is wrong with it. If it's in good condition then people should have no problem with it unless they are just being snotty.

SIRTee15:
because it was written in the 2nd century.

Good. So the book of Daniel wasn't written by Daniel and is in the Christian canon. Tell me the difference.

SIRTee15:
I want evidence the apostles can't speak or read Greek
Thank u.
I will ignore the rest. It's just a case of merry go round now- waffling and recycling stale points.
U ve made your point, i dont really see much sense in it.
And nobody force the bible or Christianity on u, I think u mistaking it for another religion.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

You are the waffler here. I produced the evidence for my claims and now you want to run away. You mentioned church fathers but refused to quote any of their works meanwhile I quoted a church father and gave you the book and chapter so yeah buddy you are waffling big time.

You are the one making the claim that the Apostles and Jesus knew Greek so give us the evidence.

Did I say it was being forced on me? LoLz. You just say things I never said and attribute it to me.

After all your puffed up boasting look at you waffling harder than a waffle iron. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Fr33born:
If you’re above 30 living in nigeria and you’re still wearing jeans and sneakers to church on Sunday, then something is wrong with you and they need to call family meeting on your head.. - Fashion Designer - JUDE Skones


Nlanders, is there anything wrong with a man of 30+ wearing jeans and sneakers to church? 🤷🏾‍♂️

What is wrong with it?

Maynman:
Ignorant Yahweh worshipper, can't you see that everything about your god is base in the middle east?

Is every book in the Septuagint in your Old testament now?
Or don't you know you are using the masoteric text for your different bible VERSIONS.
Cc, lordreed.

Dude thinks these things are hidden from non-Christians as if most Christians even know or care.

HugeElephant:
What the contemporary lay man considers as time in the shift between night and day right. Now think about it, wall clock or timers are just designed to monitor periods and infact not actually time itself

Understanding that time is an illusion will help in solving the movement from one period to another. Time may actually not be what the contemporary world thinks it is

Whatever it is, as far as we know, you cannot use your mind to affect it. So instead of making up some fantastical tale, use time as it is.

SIRTee15:
Dont u get it, Peter had nothing to do with the gospel of Peter.
He never knew such gospel existed.

How do you know?

SIRTee15:
Ok I will take time to respond to your claims- that's what they are because u provided zero evidence for any of your submissions.

It's obvious u running your own script here and not engaging but since it's the first time we debating I'll oblige u.

1. For the upteenth time, the old testament is not binding on Christians because its doctrines are no longer relevent. The old testament is the history of the Jews which is weaved around their religious practice and beliefs.
Christians are not accountable to defend the history in the book, that's for the Jews- it's their history.
Instead, we read the history with theological interpretation because therein lies the principles God wants mankind to follow.
It's not about the Jews, it's about God. So u telling me to defend Jewish history is ridiculous.

And for the umpteenth time it's you Christians business since you guys included it in your canon. If you are including books which you cannot defend their providence then that's on you not the person pointing out your inconsistency.

Israelites were not the only ones who worshipped Yahweh. But they were the only ones who finally got it right after many years of turbulence and rebellion.
So it's only pragmatic we learn about God's principles and ordinances from them.

Who were the others who worshipped Yahweh and how can we know that it was the Israelites who got it right?

Regarding your so called Jewish myths/legends, it boils down to how do we handle the history? Swallow it hook, line and sinker or reject it outright?
All works of ancient history are neither entirely factual nor entirely made up.
By looking at details in history book and comparing with independent sources, as we do for the Jewish history, we do have a good chance of figuring out what is historically correct.

Good so I have no reason to believe any of the miraculous or fantabolous aspects of the stories since they have no collaboration from any other source especially the ones that would have left copious amounts of evidence but we can find none.

That's why I said David was considered a myth until the inscription city of David was discovered in 1993.

Learn the difference between myth and legend. David is considered legendary not mythical, same way King Arthur is considered legendary, there may have been a much beloved figure around who fantastic stories coalesced. Discovering a record of there being a house of David does not confer automatic credence to all the stories about David.

2. What old testament scripture did the Christians decide to exclude? I'm interested in these scriptures.

Comparing the book of Daniel to gospel of Peter makes no sense. Asking why the book of daniel was included in OT but the gospel of Peter was rejected in NT shows u not here to engage but argue for the sake of it.

Because the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE but purports to cover events of the 6th century BCE. It wasn't listed in the prophetic section of Tanakh and some versions of it don't have it at all! So based on what criteria was Daniel added to the Christian Bible?

3. Your different criteria noise will only make sense if u can point out any Jewish prophet acknowledged by Israelites as a man of God but his work rejected by the tanakh compilers.
The Jews compiled the works of their recognised prophets sent by God throughout their history spanning thousands of years and made a book out of it.
Now u questioning why the Christians didn't use same criteria to compile the new testament. Does that make sense to u?
As I said, u don't understand the historical context of the old testament. That's the problem.

LoLz. See the point above.

4. Let me ask u a question, was there a Babylonian king who had mental health problem?
David was considered imaginary until 1993 then he became a real person. That's how ridiculous your historical evidence claim can be.

Was there? What was his name and which historical evidence confirms it.

See my previous response about pavid.

5. Your question on whether the church fathers confirmed the authorship of the gospel is outright ridiculous and shows you ve never done any serious research on the gospel works itself.
By the late 1st century, the the church and apostolic fathers knew the writers of the 4 gospels.
There's both internal and external evidence confirming authorship of the books.
Papias, Justyn matyr, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria all confirmed the 4 gospel writers.
Marcion the first Christian to codify a Christian cannon in early 2nd century used the gospel of Luke.

Of the people you mentioned only Polycarp, Papias and Marcion where born in the first century. Marcion was denounced by Irenaeus and Tertullian. Irenaeus even says that Polycarp called Marcion the first born of Satan. This is the kind of situation you want to use to defend how these books were canonised? LoLz.

The Muratorian cannon is the earliest new testament cannon dated to 170 AD. It confirms the traditional authorship of the 4 gospels

Another anonymous work. LoLz.

In fact, out of the 1st & 2nd century church fathers writings, none of them named the gospel authors as anonymous or attribute them to anyone else.
There was never a time in early church history that there was a misnomer of the 4 gospels authorship.

Name the works where these people confirmed the authorship of these books.

Even Celsus a Greek philosopher and Christian critic in the 2nd century affirm apostolic authorship.
Do u get it now!!!

LoLz. We know about Celsus through Origen a Christian criticising Celsus so how do we know he didn't manipulate Celsus' words to make them says what he wants them to say?

6. Once again your description of gospel writers as fisherman and couldn't have learn greek is ignorance in display
Greek was the lingua Franca in ancient eastern Roman empire. It was the language of commerce and communication amongst different ethnic group. It's far more widespread then u think.
Jesus spoke Greek, Andrew and Philip were Greek names and there's evidence they spoke Greek.

Regarding the gospel writers: Matthew was an accountant, Luke was a medical doctor. John Mark was a gentile who followed Paul to preach in foreign cities, which language will they speak? Paul told mark to bring his scrolls when coming to visit him, how will he know the ones to bring if he can't read.

Abeg this one no be talk.

You brought up Papias. The one thing Papias said bout Matthew was that it was written in HEBREW so where did you get that the Apostles, apart from Paul who was learned, wrote and spoke Greek?

6. Atheist are funny human beings. When it comes to ancient biblical evidence they start shouting anonymous up and down.
Tell me, how many of the historical records of ancient civilisations do we know the authors.
Most of what we know about Egyptian civilization today is from the royal annals and Egyptian book of the dead. Do u know the authors of these works or were they anonymous? Do u trust them?
Who wrote the Cyrus cylinder that tells us a lot about the Achaemenid empire? Do u trust it even though it's anonymous.
If above is yes then what's the problem with Didache, a book used by Jewish Christians in 70AD.
Mr Man stop the double standard, look for the book and read it.

It doesn't matter who those authors are because nobody is trying to convince the world that these are works decribing supernatural events that we must believe for our salvation. That is a massive difference in how you'd want me to approach them. If you didn't care if I believed the Bible then we would have very little to disagree on but because you want me to hinge my life on these books you bet that the scrutiny will be much different.

7. I want u to provide evidence for that Papias quote u brought here. Let me see his works u lifted it from.

It is taken from The Church History of Eusebius. Eccl. 3.39

So because something is recited orally mean it shouldn't be misinterpreted? Is that what u saying?
Now that we have written form, don't we have misinterpretation?

I am saying that all of it is suspect because they injected too many fantabolous things to be real. Just look at what was attributed to Papias on Judas Iscariot:
Judas did not die by hanging[55] but lived on, having been cut down before he choked to death. Indeed, the Acts of the Apostles makes this clear: "Falling headlong he burst open in the middle and his intestines spilled out."[56] Papias, the disciple of John, recounts this more clearly in the fourth book of the Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord, as follows: "Judas was a terrible, walking example of ungodliness in this world, his flesh so bloated that he was not able to pass through a place where a wagon passes easily, not even his bloated head by itself. For his eyelids, they say, were so swollen that he could not see the light at all, and his eyes could not be seen, even by a doctor using an optical instrument, so far had they sunk below the outer surface. His genitals appeared more loathsome and larger than anyone else's, and when he relieved himself there passed through it pus and worms from every part of his body, much to his shame. After much agony and punishment, they say, he finally died in his own place, and because of the stench the area is deserted and uninhabitable even now; in fact, to this day one cannot pass that place without holding one's nose, so great was the discharge from his body, and so far did it spread over the ground."

How can anybody read this given what we know of human anatomy and believe it?

8. Finally I dont understand what u on about gospel of Peter. I already told u it was written in the 2nd century. How can a book written decades after the death of Peter be authored by him?

See my response about the book of Daniel. What is the difference between that book and the Gospel of Peter?

Going forward, I will only response to your statements borne out of facts and evidence. Any other thing else will be ignored.
Your opinion doesn't count.

Then neither does your opinion count nor have you provided ANY evidence while I have tried to back up what I am saying with quotes from the very things you claim support you. Any claim that I have made that you think I have not supported with evidence, list it and I will provide the evidence.

Maynman:
Lot, the attribution is just what the "tradition" says.

Right.

SIRTee15:
Gospel letters are attributed to the primary source. If it says gospel of Peter's, it's assumed Peter contributed one way or another.

Attribution is not authorship.

sonmvayina:
Yes they do...


And the remaining folks just get excited about it...

LoLz.

FRANCISTOWN:
Even if he was riding on tortoise shell. He should be by now

LMFAO! Maybe he's riding a heavenly snail. Bwahahahahaha!

Maynman:
It's a story.

Exactly.

Maynman:
Christians don't know what "Christ" means, during the time of Jesus it meant "king of the Jews", that's why the Magis came.

Did the Magi's really come though?

Btruth:
Jesus is coming back again!

Fri, 27 Oct 2023

‘Come, Lord Jesus!’ Revelation 22:20

The last promise and prayer in the Bible is, ‘He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming quickly." Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!’ (Rev 22:20 NKJV)

How is 2000 years a definition of quickly?

Maynman:
He was never their "Christ"?

Jews as a whole? No. For those Jews who were Christians? Yes.

naptu2:
https://www.tmz.com/2023/10/28/friends-star-matthew-perry-dead-dies-drowning/

So sad. Valar Morghulis. Rest in peace.

kayodekb:
Qosim Bn Hussain
1 March ·
If you remember a film
called transporter, this
man was that popular
driver in that film, but
here he was not acting but took Kalimatu
shahada to be a muslim, westerners are fighting
hardly to tarnish the image of Islam but reversed
is the case,
because Islam is growing
bigger.

Funny how no reputable news outlet is carrying this news.

I didn't even see that this ewas from 2016. Fake news.

SIRTee15:
The bible records moabites obtaining independence over Israel. So what are u bleating about?
There's nothing on the moabite stone not recorded in 2 kings 3.
As per LordReed, the mesha stone dated 870BC is another historical evidence of the old testament...what u call myths and legends. Prior to its discovery king omri was a myth.
U may also want to study Tel Dal Steele, another ancient inscription from the Canaanites.

Oga where did you and I discuss Mesha stone?

SIRTee15:
Do u own home work. Some of us have real lives we attend to

LoLz. So you know and yet you are having your knickers in a twist because I didn't respond yet.