₦airaland Forum

MrPresident1:
The mistake should not be made that only Jews make up Nigeria. Nigeria is a congregation, a church, made up of lineage Jews and converts.

But there are some among the heathen that have refused the message of salvation, they are known by their words, like these ones you just uttered

He will arise as king over Nigeria

We've heard the same lame ass anecdote severally. 🥱

He's a failed jewish apocalyptic prophet crucified as a common criminal for being a rabble rouser no more. Made a prophecy about coming back but that failed too, so his fanatics had to get creative with reinterpreting the failure. Short story, he's a dead dude with fantastical followers and stories.

Easyluv2live:
I'm neither of them...

Don't care.

Easyluv2live:
Just imagine this people of this religion...why are they bent on helping their god instead of the other way round

Pot meet kettle, or more like diarrhea meet constipation. As if it's not the same for your god Yhwh.

Long long read but brilliant.👌🏽 Loved the textual critical takes.

LordIsaac:
Someone just wasted sperm, attention, resources....God forbid!

True, couldn't be more apt. You just described yourself perfectly.

Yhwh the "all knowing" and "all loving" god that's somehow limited by human context, it's laughable. Tbf when you look at its origins historically - ignoring it's confused followers giving it attributes it fails to adhere to - its a typical ANE storm/warrior god.

It's main job is war and blood shed, so much so it appropriated attributes of fellow storm god Baal. There's a reason you need grade one mental gymastics that still ends up failing to reconcile its l8r added & conjured up attributes.

Also all those so called victories, the size of their kingdom, all cap😄

Only slow people would be captivated by the vague nonsense he said. Where were all these prophecies during Covid.

boxypane:
I understand your position, but I encourage you to keep an open mind. Science has explained many things about our universe, yet there are still questions about existence, the origin of the universe, and consciousness that remain unanswered. Not everything that is real can necessarily be fully explained by science.

The Bible says in Romans 1:20 that God's invisible qualities, eternal power, and divine nature can be understood through what He has created.

I am not trying to force my beliefs on you; I simply want you to consider the possibility that there is a Creator behind the creation. Sometimes, the journey to knowing God begins with an open heart and a willingness to seek the truth. My prayer is that you will come to know Him personally, not through argument, but through understanding and faith.

There's a bit of irony in a person with a close mind telling someone with an open mind they should keep an open mind. If I wasn't open minded I'd still be a christain like you, I was a xtain for more than 90% of my life. The only reason you're xtain is because you were either born and indoctrinated into it or because colonization made it ine of the dominant religions where you were born. The mistake people like you make is thinking science explains everything and religion can explain anything.


All the explanations your xtainity has given us about reality almost all of em have being found to be false. Your god only exists in gaps of our knowledge and as we gain knowledge the gaps keep shrinking. Throughout history, all the things about reality that were mysteries - bordered on our ignorance - and were attributed to gods and the supernatural, not one turned out to be anything supernatural or god after we understood it with evidence. The supernatural has a 100% failure rate and it wouldn't change.

There's a reason the more we gain knowledge and get more means of gathering evidence, the supernatural and god keep receding and hiding. There's absolutely nothing to show your god exists nor that it's the real one out of the numerous other gods in existence nor that he's the one that created the universe nor that the universe was even created.

Like the other mythological gods Yhwh is nothing more man made. Man made gods in their own image. I pray you escape the illusion as well but indoctrination is a hell of a drug.

boxypane:
I will keep you in my prayers. I believe you're not lost, You will not miss it in Jesus Name.

I have a question for you though, what's your facts about your stance...

Na by force, I want to miss it, I already told you where to direct your prayers to deliver you from the cage you put urself.

Fact about what? The only fact about objective reality are what science has been able to demonstrate, the rest is empty noise and baseless opinions.

UrVillageChief:
I’m not even religious but why is it your own headache that someone said his God spared his life? Did the Abrahamic God promise anyone that once you pray to Him, you will live forever? Let religious people live their lives, they never claimed that praying promises immortality!

It says a lot the way you're all getting triggered and foaming rabidly in my mentions. 😄

andivirus:
When next you are in a life and dead situation, call lucifer your master, let's see how it will end.

You mean like how the numerous christains in northern Nigeria cry and call on their master Yhwh yet still end up getting slaughtered like beef in an abattoir. Ha! Guess he's as effective and non - exitent as his pal lucifer. Also it's "life and death", but no space for your neurons to fire correctly cause of indoctrination.

boxypane:
Who I'm I to condemn you when I'm not God, we've all had our down moments and came out succeeding, my prayer for you is for His Light to lead you to the truth.
Ask your soul this, you sure believe in Satan that's why your moniker stares that precisely, then how come you don't know his story as a fallen? Except you're just leaving in denial due to what you've been through...

I'd kindly suggest instead of "praying" for me, pray to Yhwh the - iron chariot fearing - deity to cure you of your stark ignorance and add to you a few brain cells. But we know prayer is as effective as doing nothing, ergo why you're like this. My sympathy, and btw it's living not leaving. I'll educate you even if Yhwh doesn't. I'm sure you believe in boxes that's why your moniker "stares" that precisely - see reasoning.

ibtommy:
Oh son of luci! What do you take credit for? For having people kpaid or what? Na una type dey burn for hell while alive and then begin dey realise how foolish you've been thinking God doesn't exist. Your eyes go soon clear.

Which of the numerous hells? 😄 Pentecostal, Catholic, Islamic Jewish or Zoroastrain hells. It's like telling a grown man he'll be punished by the Grinch if he doesn't do what Santa Claus says then expectibg him to panic cause of a childish threat. It's so laughable. I'll pass on the concentrated ignorance, thank you very much. 🤡

TenQ:
If
Jesus died on the Cross
Peter was Crucified upside down
Paul was Beheaded
Countless others were Burned in Fire
Many Fed to Wild Animals



And you think the purpose of being thankful or being a Christian is because EVERYTHING works out beautifully for us: you must be kidding ws tou don't know the purpose of Christ in a Person!

Yeah you're right, I don't understand inner workings of blood magic cults lol.

Steep:
First you said the gospels weren't written in the 1st century after you were debunked you ran to another questions.

You have to first acknowledge that you were wrong and ignorant else I won't answer anymore further question from you.

It says a lot that you just described yourself perfectly. It's the cognitive dissonance that happens when you've been demonstrated to not know what you're talking about, even after tangenting away from points after being shown up.

So much so that you have to resort to outright lying. I seriously don't understand the need - pls put down the mirror. First, it was that my post was “riddled with contradictions.” Okay, mention one — Silence, then tangent away.

Now you've made up a new one to placate yourself. For the final demonstration - this one to show you lie for Jesus, please quote me word for word here, where exactly I made the claim in the bolded.

Should be easy to point out - No tangents, just quote it.

Edit - And the deafening silence says it all. 🤧

This is daft. Like how does this make any sense

MaxInDHouse:
Funny atheist!😁

Ok! Like I said when you're done demonstrating your Iq on my mentions you would leave the same way you came.

Steep:
the majority of NT scholars date the gospels sometime between these ranges below:Early manuscript evidence
NT scholars almost without exception agree that the synoptic Gospels (e.g. Matthew, Mark, and Luke) predate the gospel of John. Even though John claims to be an eyewitness (Jn. 19:35), it wasn’t uncommon for earlier generations of critics to date John as late as AD 150. They claimed that “John” was actually written by his disciples—called the “Johannine School” in Alexandria, Egypt. Indeed, critic F. C. Baur dated Acts and Mark to roughly AD 150, and he dated John to AD 160-170.

No one dates John this late anymore. One reason for rejecting such a critical view is that we actually possess a fragment of John that dates to ~AD 125! The John Rylands Fragment (P52) is quite small—only 2.5 by 3.5 inches—and it contains John 18:31-33, 37-38.

In addition, we have several manuscripts that date Matthew and Luke quite early. Since most scholars believe that Matthew and Luke wrote after Mark, then means that Mark would need to be dated even earlier.

Virtually everyone agrees that Mark wrote first, Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark, and last of all, John wrote his gospel. So, if we can determine a fixed date John, this means that the synoptic Gospels must’ve been written even earlier. Since we have an existing manuscript of John that dates to ~AD 125, this must mean that John wrote his gospel in the first century AD. These additional manuscripts of Matthew and Luke only add to the case that the gospels date to the first century AD.

Early citations from the Church Fathers
Historians refer to the early Christian leaders, thinkers, and writers as the Church Fathers. Their writings only confirm what we have already seen: The gospels already existed by the end of the first century AD, and indeed, the Church Fathers were already citing their biographies of Jesus’ life. Consider several examples:

The Didache (AD 95) is most likely the earliest extra-biblical manuscript. In 8.2, the Didache quotes from Matthew’s version of the Lord’s Prayer (Mt. 6:5, 9-13).

Clement of Rome (AD 95) dates very early as well, because he mentions the Temple still standing (ch.41). And Clement cites Matthew (1 Clement 13.2) and the other Synoptic Gospels (1 Clement 24.5; 46.8 ).

The Epistle of Barnabas (AD 100) cites Matthew 22:14 (4.14). Indeed the language is “nearly identical Greek.”

Ignatius (AD 100) cites the gospel of Matthew several times in his letters (Ephesians, 14.2; Smyrnaeans 6.1; Polycarp 2.2), as well as John 3:8 (Philadelphia 7:1).

Polycarp (~AD 120-135) cites Matthew (2.3; 7.2; 12.3), Mark (5.2), and Luke (2.3).

Tatian (Assyria, AD 173) created his Diatessaron that harmonized the four gospels (dia means “through” and tessaron means “four”). Again, this shows that the Gospels were known and in use to the point that Syriac Christians were writing harmonies of them.

Again, this would place the Gospels at least within the first century AD. None of this is controversial at this point. Indeed Bart Ehrman states that “most scholars” agree on a first century dating of the four gospels.

But can we date the Gospels even earlier?

Early dating for the Book of Acts
Whoever wrote Luke also wrote Acts. In fact, virtually no one “would dispute this basic observation.” Just look at the introduction of each book, and notice the similarities between the two.

Comparison of Luke-Acts

Luke
Acts
1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

1 The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. 3 To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God

We would date Matthew to the 60s AD. Irenaeus (AD 180) stated that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome” (Against Heresies 3.1.1; cf. Church History 5.8.2). This would place the writing of his gospel around the mid-sixties AD (AD 61-68?).

Date of Mark
Due to the evidence listed above for the date of Acts (~AD 62) and Markan Priority, we would date Mark in the late 40s or early 50s AD. In addition to that evidence, Papias (AD 130) states that “Mark became Peter’s interpreter, [and] he wrote down accurately, although not in order, all that he remembered of what was said or done by the Lord” (Church History 3.39.15). If Nero executed Peter in AD 67, then Mark’s gospel would pre-date this time. While Irenaeus (AD 180) states that Mark “handed down” his gospel after the martyrdom of Peter (Against Heresies, 3.1.2; cf. Church History 5.8.3), this could simply mean that Mark widely disseminated his gospel after their deaths.

Date of Luke
Again, based on the evidence listed above for the date of Acts (~AD 62), we would date Luke in the mid to late 50s AD. In addition, several sources state that Luke wrote under Paul’s supervision (Muratorian Fragment, Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1; Origen Church History 6.25.4). Since Paul died under Nero in AD 67, this would place the writing of Luke before this time.

Date of John
This leaves us with John. This gospel is quite difficult to date. D.A. Carson holds to a tentative date of AD 80 to 85—though he states that any date from AD 55 to 95 is possible. Likewise, J. Ramsey Michaels dates the gospel to the second half of the first century (AD 50-100), though he leans toward a date after AD 70. Following the work of J.A.T. Robinson, Leon Morris dates the gospel of John before AD 70—perhaps as early as the AD 50’s or 60’s. We aren’t exactly sure when to date John, but as you can see, we are in good company!

Further Reading
John Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke (InterVarsity Press, 1992).

Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Publishing Co., 1987), pp.545-547.

^
Donald Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), p.119.

^
P.H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), p.366.

^
See the Muratorian Fragment (AD 170); Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1; Origen, Church History 6.25.4.

^
Robinson also argues that this is stock language for a parable—not a strict prediction at all. John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), pp.20-21.

^
D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991), p.82, 85.

^
J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), p.38.

^
Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), pp.29-30.Setting of Hellenistic History (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001).

John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976).

References


Source; https://evidenceunseen.com/theology/scripture/historicity-of-the-new-testament/evidence-for-an-early-dating-of-the-four-gospels

😄 I told you, I knew you'd mess up. So it's demonstrated and confirmed you're talking nonsense. I purposefully said this:

“Again, show us where in the texts the authors identify themselves that made you know who they were, and also show us where they claim to be eyewitnesses to the events. Inability to do the above or attempts to tangent away would just easily demonstrate you are talking nonsense.”

None of the above was even answered. Instead, you tangented to dates, manuscripts, church tradition, etc., because you just had to copy-paste from an apologetics site. I clearly said scholarly sources, and I never asked you for dating in the first place. And none of the sources you gave me even establish what I asked you to establish.

But the funny part is that even your own copy-pasted apologetic source has messed you up.

«“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you...”»

Your own source, which I didn't cite — you did — is basically saying exactly what I told you. Luke first of all absolutely does not identify himself, and does not present himself as an eyewitness. He says these things “were handed down to them by people who were eyewitnesses,” and that he himself investigated the accounts to write them down.

So an anonymous author's statement that traditions came from eyewitnesses does not become evidence that you know the author personally interacted with those eyewitnesses. Circular reasoning at it's finest. Btw you sure you know the difference btw a claim and evidence? You still have to establish who the author was and what evidence connects that person to those eyewitnesses. Citing a claim as evidence for said claim is what someone who claims to "know" scholarship does when they don' have a clue.

Like, did you even read the thing before posting? Obviously not, you just copy pasted 😂.

They're "eyewitnesses" and spoke to "eyewitnesses", but Matthew and Luke had to rip off "word for word" from Mark for events they supposedly experienced and witnessed themselves — your own evidence highlighted this not me.

Even Bart Ehrman, whom your source quoted for the dates — which I didn't ask about — points out explicitly that the Gospels are anonymous and none of the authors identify themselves by name. Even Luke's identification was about a century after it was written, appearing in Irenaeus.

Which was what I asked you about, but you had to tangent to dates and church history. As if later church fathers attributing names to the texts doesn't demonstrate that those people actually wrote them. Identify in rhe texts - No. You're pointing me to church fathers.

You basically failed, like I said you would, to demonstrate where Matthew, Mark, Luke or John identify themselves in the texts like I asked, nor where they claimed to be eyewitnesses. Instead, you cited where it was the opposite, and this is after copying and pasting an apologetics website talking about dating, when I clearly asked for a reputable scholarly source — even though the website cited abt 2 or so scholars who ended up contradicting you.

Lastly, you failed to point out any of the so-called numerous contradictions my previous post was riddled with. Not one, I wonder why lol.

At this point, it's quite clearly demonstrated you're talking nonsense and haven't got a clue about the scholarship.

MaxInDHouse:
Wetin you fit do pass blind arguments?😁

Oh you're still crying on my mentions. Keep at it then, maybe it would turn your empty claims to facts.

MaxInDHouse:
People wrote what they saw and heard you say they're not to be taken as eyewitnesses but when your parents tells you what Awolowo, Ojukwu did you will swallow it without asking them if they are 👀 Witnesses!😁
Funny atheist!😁

Are you done?

Steep:
what kind of evidence are you seeking for? The four books of the gospel are themselves historical records and many historians and scholars have certified it to be so. Paul was a very learned man, Luke was a doctor, there were people withing the Christian community who could read and write, according to church tradition John mark wrote for Peter.

koin greek was the official language at that time. Most of it was written in third person, Do you know about reported speech?

you don't know basic stuff in scholarship.

four decades is well withing the lifetime of the Apostles. The gospels are not anonymous, the gospels have always being known to be an account by the designated church leaders by the church.



you make zero sense, you submission is riddled with contradiction while demanding for evidence you don't know about.

When you asked for evidence did I ask you what type of evidence? Nope! Cause the evidence is there and I simply presented the facts. For you to ask "what kind of evidence" shows how empty your claims are, cause there's obviously no evidence to support it save for bare assertions, else u'd have simply shown it. You can assert as much as you want, wouldn't make it factual.

I also find it ironic you mention scholarship when you've not even been able to cite simple evidence from scholarship to support any single thing u've stated, cause obviously you don't know what you're talking about and I would demonstrate that quite easily. So yeah go ahead, cite for us any peer reviewed peice of scholarship from a reputable scholar from any of the top institutions that claim as a matter of fact, the gospels are eye witness testimonies and were written by the authors they were attributed to and that the accounts of the gospels are historically factual.

I'll wait, just one, link me to the paper and educate ignorant me on this "Basic Scholarship", should be easy right lol. Again show us where in the texts the authors identify themselves that made you know who they were and also show us where they claim to be eyewitnesses to the events. Inability to do the above or attempts to tangent away would just easily demonstrate you are talking nonsense.

"you make zero sense, you submission is riddled with contradiction while demanding for evidence you don't know about."

So it shouldn't be difficult for you to show us just one of the contradictions and demonstrate it is indeed a contradiction seeing as it is riddled with it. No?! This is what happens when the brain only knows dogma, facts begin to scare and confuse it, so it would have been surprising if it made any sense to you at all. Tick tock, I await my education on basic scholarship, I love learning and exposing confident ignorance.

MaxInDHouse:
You rejected the eyewitnesses but you believe stories they tell you about your own ancestors whom you never knew nor anyone who was an eyewitness of how your ancestors lived their lives.
Are you not just joking?🥱

Still yapping cause obviously there's none. When you're done yawning and yapping, you would exit the same way you entered my mentions.

jaephoenix:
I am a physician of 20 years experience. I have watched christian surgeons pray before ops and still lose patients. I have also watched them pray and have a successful op. I myself I dont pray cos I'm an atheist. So how exactly can you explain that,Mr Smart Christian

Only the hits are counted, the misses are ignored. If this young child died like countless others have done even after prayers, this story won't make it here. Confirmation bias at it's finest.

MaxInDHouse:
You're simply joking!🥱

Said it. 😄 Mention the so called witnesses nau. Story.

All his other xtain colleagues that prayed to ur god and died you didn't write epistles about them, the outlier is the one he must take credit for. Ironic thing is if this guy had died like many other christain colleagues before him, we won't hear any of it. Christains are being chopped down like meat in the north while calling on same god, no peep. The odd one survives, all glory to god. It's laughable.

MaxInDHouse:
There has never ever been any eyewitness accounts where two or three people say exactly the same thing.
Their stories may end in the same way but narratives will differ!

When you're done makjng your strawman you'd list the eyewitnesses for us.😄

Steep:
ywhat evidence do you have to say that absolutely none of the gospels are eye witness testimony?

The fact that you have no evidence that any of the claimants wrote it for one. The fact that none of the writers identify themselves in the texts. The fact that the supposed writers were illiterate peasants in a time period when the literacy rate was less than 1%.

The fact the supposed writers spoke Aramaic and not sophisticated Koine greek which the texts were written in. The fact that none of the earliest manuscripts of the texts have any named authors on them. The fact none of the texts were written in 1st person and all in 3rd person. The fact the texts themselves don't even claim to be eye witness testimony.

The fact the texts were written at least 4 decades after the supposed event and get basic facts about the time period wrong and this hasn't even scratched the surface. Virtually all study bibles even admit it that they're anonymous as seen in the SS taken from the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible. This is basic stuff in scholarship.

Steep:
The writings of the four books of the gospel gives evidence that it was written by people who were eye witnesses themselves or who at least knew and interacted with the eye witness.

Eye witness testimony is one of the highest evidence accepted by the court.

So it wouldn't be difficult for you to show us said evidence. It wouldn't be difficult for you to show us how illiterate peasants somehow wrote texts decades after the fact, not in their own language but in a sophisticated form of a different language. Obviously not. You can as well show us evidence of a court of law convicting on eye witness testimony alone.