₦airaland Forum

tctrills:
Now you have won
We are now discussing something else. Very brilliant move.

Dude will you just stop.

tctrills:
Let me give you an example from the bible, Moses was given power to speak to the rock for water to flow out instead, he hit the rock and still water came out.
The Lord works come forth despite the imperfections of men.
We also have the Samson example. His imperfections are so clear yet the Lord used him to defeat the enemies of Israel.

The Lord accomplishes his wonders using imperfect men. He did not need to eliminate the mistakes of men to produce the most published book and to tell the story of Jesus Christ to the entire world.

LoLz. Dude these are stories every bit as fantastical as any other mythological story. There is nothing in thiee stories that make them stand out nor can any of them be evidenced as real.

Ultimately the point is there is no way to distinguish between your Bible authors who you described as inspired and any of the other popular ancient writings. A number of which were at some point part of the Biblical canon which some of you reject.

tctrills:
Your persistence and insistence to debate the most irrelevant things makes it super clear that you only want to make noise and distract.

The only one being persistent right now is you. I dunno why it's still bugging you after I have dropped the matter. I said I would respond latter, end of matter.

FreeIgboho:
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??

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.

tctrills:
You are still determined to switch topics. Remember, each time you make a rebuttal and I respond is time spent so please let's not waste time. That is the least we can do.

Your reluctance makes me a little more certain it was AI. Not sure why you are reluctant but ok. I will respond later.

I have someone looking to purchase a Lexus RX 350 L 2019. Kindly respond here if you have one for sale.

tctrills:
Lol.
You seem to have lost focus. Now you want to change the topic and discuss the source of my info.

Oga, we expect better from you. Please go back and address the points I made and stop looking for a way out.

I am not trying to change the subject, it just reads like an AI output so I want to confirm. Your response won't change my rebuttal.

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.

Wait, did you get this from AI?

tctrills:
The answer is yes. Even if God inspires, he could still allow your imperfections.

LoLz. So how is that different from not being inspired by the god?

Kobojunkie:
This, I concur with; I have always been of the notion that most who refer to themselves as atheists are merely religious individuals at the end of the religious spectrum, where they claim subscription to no deity.

This is like saying the TV being off is also a cable channel.

DeepSight:
A cardinal, I believe.
Albeit along with his father the Pope a most corrupt one.

Oh right,he became a cardinal too.

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.

Yet you people say it was inspired by the god. You mean the god couldn't inspire them to write non contradictory accounts?

DeepSight:
That compilation is a waste of time, it's only as good as the many false quotes credited to Mugabe.

Seriously. They swallow rubbish so readily it is disgusting.

FreeIgboho:
He did not explicitly renounce his faith but is considered an atheist because he renounced his religious calling and because of his subsequent actions

LMAO! Are you joking? So because he left the church for a military career it means he was an atheist? Why are you like this? Na wa o.

FreeIgboho:
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

https://youtube.com/shorts/SIiJ6yy0Er8?si=ajtYdiXVHYMubEKH

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?

FreeIgboho:
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

https://youtube.com/shorts/SIiJ6yy0Er8?si=ajtYdiXVHYMubEKH

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.

tctrills:
Oya, highlight your facts

1. It was written between 75 to 100CE. Matthew is said to have died in 68CE. If the timelines are correct then there's no way he wrote it.
2. It incorporates material from Mark, Luke and a possible source Q. Which means this person was a either quite learned or a scribe. None of the disciples were said to scribes or learned.
3. Another issue with the scribal nature of this book is it was written in Greek. The common people at that had no formal education in reading or writing. So how did a first century Jew who was not a scribe write a book in Greek?
4. It no where in the book mentions the name of the author ie it nowhere says this book was written by Matthew.

tctrills:
According to LordReed.

Nope, according to the facts on ground.

tctrills:
The creator of this video began with a lie. I guess he forgot the Gospels of Matthew and John

They were not written by Matthew or John.

Everyday247:
That means that you have a very strong mind.

Sudden changes like that would shock most

I think I was prepared for whatever came out of it. Plus I was determined to follow through with the outcome, it just so happened that the outcome was atheism. I think in practice believers and atheists are not much different is just that believers can be persuaded into really terrible ideas more easily than atheists can.

DeepSight:
Something must have happened that day.

Xxxxxxxxx

Actually it was a good day. I wasn't in trouble or something, I just wanted to not be doubting so frequently.

Everyday247:
Wow 😲
That sounds traumatic.


Congratulations boss 🎉

Not at all. It was liberating and refreshing like swimming after a good workout.

DeepSight:
So what tarnspired that day to "convert" you.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I had doubts that I want to deal with decisively. I wasn't expecting to end up an atheist to be honest. I was expecting truth to win out but I didn't know truth had a different colour from what I was used to.

Everyday247:
You are saying that everything happened in just one day?

Yup. It was intense and I wanted to get the question resolved.

DeepSight:
But wait. It is rare that one remembers the specific date of his "conversion" to atheism. It tends to be a gradual thing. So what specifically happened that made you remember July 4th as critical in this regard.

Oh it's cos it's already a memorable day, if not I won't have remembered the exact day.

DeepSight:
What? You mean you be small pikin like this? Only seven years old as an atheist? Wonders shall never cease. I could have sworn you must have been at least two decades in this grisly business.

LoLz. Yeah small boy, big no-god. Bwahahahahahahaha!

½ - 1 - ½

Keeping my weight steady.

DeepSight:
Well it is still the nature of the universe. But as regards that question I am sure you know it is the sort of thing I would have studied over ages.

Generally they will tell you that it's not expanding into anything which is nonsensical. They will tell you to think of the universe as a balloon and that space is only created inside the balloon as it is blown up. This is absurd because that balloon would never get bigger in size if there wasn't space outside the balloon to accommodate it.

Dude don't be so pedantic. It is only one aspect of the nature of the universe so I wasn't asking you go look up the whole thing.

Publish a paper telling us what it is expanding into so I can see my guy the Nobel prize winner. LoLz.

As the United States celebrates their Independence Day, I join them to celebrate my independence from religion which occurred on this day seven years ago. Looking forward to the next seven.

Happy Independence to me!

DeepSight:
Alright. Well I imagine if I ask you to look something up, it's a specific thing. Asking me to look up the broad subject of the nature of the universe is quite different as it touches on various things including quantum physics.

I didn't ask you to look up the nature of the universe as a whole. We are talking of what the universe is expanding into so I say look it up and you think I was asking you to look up the nature of the universe? C'mon man.

eherbal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB7LNkGiA1s?si=YNmqSNFGq8rnMjz4



https://pmexpressng.com/lagos-police-recovers-over-100-assorted-exotic-vehicles-worth-over-n2b-during-sting-operation/

Toyota Camry na exotic vehicle?! All these writers sef, too much click bait.

Meanwhile, kudos to the Police for a good job.