₦airaland Forum

gohf:
real psychosis is thinking you can be wicked threat people badly and get away with it

Nah! Real pshycosis is taking subjective, undemonstrable and contradictory myth and fiction and treating it as objective reality. That's real psychosis right there and it's quite sad.

Truthseeker10:
Can you also demonstrate the particular iteration of beliefs in good and bad exists and the particular texts which you base this belief on are factual?

It's amusing how bad you are at defending your imaginary god, Michael. This is a new year, a new account, and yet the same old stale persistent questions and m.o persists. Nevertheless, I'll indulge you to demonstrate the shallowness of your thought process and educate you.

Firstly, faith & belief is what delusional people rely on. It's the least form of acceptance applicable to the least common denominator of people. For us, we focus on facts, facts which are observable, demonstrable, and replicable. Facts dont care of you believe ot not. Take note.

Moving on, you've admitted that morality is indeed subjective and contextual, as evident in the actions of Yhwh, the genocidal, infantile, sexual assulting and confused manaic. There are several studies that support this conclusion from observing humans and even animals to show its instinctual and contextual:

A. Nietzsche's Moral Relativism ("Beyond Good and Evil," 1886)
B. Existentialist Morality (Sartre, 1943)
C. Social Contract Theory (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, 17th-18th Century)

These theories, along with several other works and journals online, outline the details. However, I'm aware that delusional individuals rarely engage in reading.

Some of the demonstrations carried out to make these observations and test the analysis include:

1. The Norm Formation Experiment (Muzafer Sherif, 1935)
2. The Capuchin Monkey Fairness Experiment (Fragaszy & Visalberghi, 1996)
3. The Trolley Problem (Foot, 1967; Greene, 2001)
4. The Infant Morality Experiment (Hamlin et al.)

All of these experiments are replicable and demonstrable, having undergone rigorous observation, analysis, and peer review. See how complex the verification process is?! And its this complex process that has established them as factual, rather than mere beliefs or "Trust me bro". 😁

So I ask again:, can you demonstrate the existence of your particular god and satan, out of the thousands of gods and their adversaries (over 18,000)? Can you prove that your particular iteration, interpretation and translation of the texts given to you by your colonial masters, which you base your undemonstrable beliefs on, are factual and serve as the basis for this so called objective morality or frame work of good and bad😏?

Or are you only capable of repeatedly asking questions like a simpleton.

gohf:
Like I wrote If you kill people children, God will kill your children one by one, he may even keep you alive and watch your grandchildren die one by one. It's will be so painful because you won't realize and will forget He is the one who gave life. You don't own life, not even your own.

If you think God is evil because He judges your wickedness and punishes you for it. Yes He give evil to the evil. He has no mercy or goodness towards them. You refuse to repent or change, you will suffer for the evil you enjoy.

When i say these christards are schizophrenic it sounds like a joke. Is this not full blown psychosis on display.😅

Truthseeker10:
So tell us how to prove that there is good and bad.


But don't you also think that the idea of good and bad is also superstitious? Don't you think it is just an idea created by humans to regulate other humans just like the God and satan superstitious concepts? If good and bad exists, then what are they?

For the second part common sense would have told you, you cannot disprove what hasn't even been proven to exist in the first place ergo my outlandish analogy to show you how dumb that is. You do not shift the burden of proof for outlandish claims without first demonstrating em. Common sense 101. Also pls outline where i said there is no good and bad?! So can you demonstrate your particular iteration of belief in god and satan exists and the particular texts which you base this belief on are factual??

Truthseeker10:
following your logic, I can say it is morally right. Since animals can kill themselves for food, and we have the same instinct as them, it can be morally right. Are you insinuating that it is morally wrong to kill because yhwh contradicts himself according to you?


If you cannot prove that there is no good and bad, neither can I disprove the ones that you've listed above since they are also result of instinct. I am simply following your logic. Do you agree?

Lol! Good. So morality is indeed subjective?! Thank you very much.

For the second part common sense would have told you, you cannot disprove what hasn't even been proven to exist in the first place ergo my outlandish analogy to show you how dumb that is. You do not shift the burden of proof for outlandish claims without first demonstrating em. Common sense 101. Also pls outline where i said there is no good and bad?! So can you demonstrate your particular iteration of belief in god and satan exists and the particular texts which you base this belief on are factual??

"Do you agree that God and satan are also results of instinct including the 25 headed snake of a lion that flies faster than a peregrine falcon? "
It seems you dont read or simply don't understand what you read anyways let me copy paste again.

"Yes the the ideas of god and satan are still based on same instinct. The instinct of knowledge, to understand and make meaning of the world around us. We tried to explain the world and how it works ergo initially came up with these concepts alongside other superstitions which could not even be demonstrated and you had to take it on "trust me bro".

Truthseeker10:
Oga you are funny oo....I simply asked you where good and bad came from and you gave me an answer. I asked a question that would make you confirm your answer. So why are you running away from your answer now?

Are you saying that good and bad does not exist? Is there a scientific way to prove that good and bad exist? If good and bad are products of instinct as you claimed, why Is God and satan and your 25 head snake not also a products of instinct that should not be laughable?

Lol! Ok! So let's turn your question back to you since you stand on the fact morality's objective. Is it morally right for humans to murder and slaughter scores of men, women, children and babies in the name of Yhwh like animals even when Yhwh commands not to kill thereby contradicting himself several times.

Can you prove that there's no 25 headed snake with the head of a lion that flies faster than a peregrine falcon?? 😁

Truthseeker10:
Lol....I gave you your cake back. You claimed animals and humans are alike in instinct. I asked you if it was 'good' for humans to murder other humans just like the animals. You dodged the question and expected me to answer yours?

You claim there are new ways of explaining things. So why have these new ways not explained what is actually bad and what is good? Why have these new ways not provided evidence to show that there is no God or Satan?

Lol! Ok! So let's turn your question back to you since you stand on the fact morality's objective. Is it morally right for humans to murder and slaughter scores of men, women, children and babies in the name of Yhwh like animals even when Yhwh commands not to kill thereby contradicting himself several times.

Can you prove that there's no 25 headed snake with the head of a lion that flies faster than a peregrine falcon?? 😁

Truthseeker10:
What do you think? Do you think it is also morally right for countries to fight wars and murder other humans?


So have these these new ways of explaining things helped us to agree on what is good and bad? Have these new ways of explaining things also proved that there is no God or Satan?

I like how you side stepped the question cause it virtually check mate's you. Anyways can you prove that there's no 25 headed snake with the head of a lion that flies faster than a peregrine falcon?? 😏

Truthseeker10:
So what you are telling me is that it can also be 'good' for humans to murder other humans just like animals right?

Why do you think that the idea of a God or Satan is laughable when the basic idea of good and bad is based on instinct according to your explanation? Don't you also think that the idea of a God or Satan is still based on the same instinct that creates the idea of good and bad?

Ok! So let's turn your question back to you since you stand on the fact morality's objective. Is it morally right for humans to murder and slaughter scores of men, women, children and babies in the name of Yhwh like animals even when Yhwh commands not to kill thereby contradicting himself several times.

Yes the the ideas of god and satan are still based on same instinct. The instinct of knowledge, to understand and make meaning of the world around us. We tried to explain the world and how it works ergo initially came up with these concepts alongside other superstitions which could not even be demonstrated and you had to take it on "trust me bro". Fortunately we found better ways to explain stuff by observing, analyzing and demonstrating what has been observed. And this new method basically shatters the old one at virtually every turn. So yes.

Truthseeker10:
Where does good and evil come from?

Good and evil are simply subjective conceptual frameworks shaped by our basic instinctual responses to the environment and influenced by social and cultural norms. The basic human instincts for survival, reproduction, self preservation, social connection, territoriality etc basically drives us to act the way we do and is context dependent which is why morality is subjective. You see the same thing in animals. Its not from some lord Yhwh battling some lord Satan, that's laughable and undemonstrable.

johnydon22:
In the Bible, you could find instances of Yahweh being many things, often times contradictory. In one instance, he would be a vengeful, jealous, anger-prone, and downright vindictive deity yet on the very next book, he'd be described as merciful without bounds.

In another, he would be hateful to those who don't worship him, recommend death for heresy and apostasy and command genocide for nations that worship other Gods yet on the very next book, he would be described as loving without conditions.

These features may be confusing as they in fact contradict each other, but it begins to make more sense when you understand the evolution of Yahweh as a character. The Yahweh of Peganic Yahwehism is different from that of Apocalyptic Yahwehism and that is also different from that of Talmudic Judaism and eventually different from Christian Yahweh.

The reason why Yahweh possess so many contradicting traits in the old testament is because they were describing completely different Gods.
Yahweh was a storm and war God initially, not unlike the god Ba'al - they were youthful deities. No other God had as much influence in the Yahwehic cult through antiquity like Ba'al - Yahweh ultimately assimilated feats of Ba'al like in Psalm 29 which is originally an old Canaanite poem for Ba'al that the Hebrews repurposed for Yahweh.

When Yahweh is described as this compassionate fatherly figure in the old testament, such a person is likely describing a later conception of Yahweh that had incorporated the characteristics of El the chief God of the Canaanite pantheon.

Yahweh the strong wrathful storm God is an older idea to Yahweh the fatherly compassionate wise God.

So, most often when these features contradict, the writer of these respective parts were imagining a Yahweh that was different from the other. The hot-headed storm deity that theologically competed with Ba'al or the fatherly compassionate El elevated to the Chief amongst every other God.

In this very evolution of the Jewish religion from Pegan Yahwehism to Aocalyptic Yahwehsim to Talmudic Judaism, you could see how the bible went from admitting the existence of other Gods, to admitting that Yahweh would defeat and judge them to ultimately denying their existence entirely.

Yahweh as a deity has gone through tremendous evolution and as a matter of fact is still evolving

Damn! That's one apt, factual and well researched comment that stands up to scholarly scrutiny. Rare around here. Just to add a tidbit of info that i found recently that you didn't mention, the name and characteristics of the Shadday gods which were also conflated with Yhwh and El whence comes El shaddai. Found it reading an excerpt of Mark Smith's Early History Of God & History of Biblical Monotheism. The material on the Shadday gods is pretty small though. Anyways to buttress your point, there is no god of the bible, different depictions for different audiences at different time periods, especially as you said affected by the evolution or as some say revolution from polytheism to henotheism/monolatry to monotheism.

Christards and their funny obsession with sex and what people do with their genitals, not even children are spared. Almost like a mental disorder. For a people who proudly claim to be exclusive products of concentrated incest, its no surprise there's an obsession there.

LoneSoldier:
I don't seem to understand how people get to worship and revere a God that doesn't love his creation, you serve and pay allegiance to a wicked God who you ignorantly think is loving...?

How do you leave with this kind of pretence, it's an irony to be sincere, let's take this country called Nigeria as an example, The most religious in the world and also the most poor and most corrupted country in the world with failed economy and bad leaders but the God you ignorantly pray to everyday is busy watching how men and women in the country die of starvation and poverty even you so called christians die in persistent sicknesses but you tame it as "He has gone to be with the lord in his heavenly bossom" and "He has made heaven finally" like what da hell, Your God that doesn't care one bit about your fûcking existence, is the same person you are glorifying for leaving you to die tragedily, is really a shame that your God is just a joke....!


The other less religious countries in the world are all developed, less crimes and corruption and good leaders, these countries knows that God is a big joke.... They know that he can't help them, so they work on themselves to ease a little bit of the suffering your so called loving God has placed on them, imagine a God that started a punishment on innocent humans, as if that is not enough also created hell for innocent humans to burn and rot in there for eternity....

A loving God indeed


Today is Sunday, everybody is in church praising and worshipping a murderer all in the name of serving God, and will also be given shit as a message of how God is good and that mentality goes into there brain day in, day out.... Preached by business men and women in the name of (prophet, prophetess, pastor, bishop, apostle) of God..... Is really a pity that so many people fall for this asshole called a God and his miscreants....!

All I'd just tell you to do is read and study the bible and context of it for yourself. Then you'd know not to conflate reality with outright fiction. It's all just fictional mythological stories about one tribal storm god deity. Somehow most people conflated this mythological fiction with reality. With some even indoctrinated by their slave masters which is pretty ironic. An omniscient being that has regrets and makes mistakes and contradicts itself, very funny. Yhwh is one of the most confused deities in mythology, maniacal, genocidal and throws tantrums on a whim. My fav story depicting his confused nature is that of Balaam. You can't come from a pov of reality to delve into fiction and expect it to make sense. Even those who've adopted this fiction as their reality can't come to a conclusion on what their objective relity entails.

englishmart:
HOW DO WE EXPLAIN THIS?
Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the prophets, he shall be called a nazarene.

There are 17 books of the prophets in the Bible:

ISAIAH, JEREMIAH, LAMENTATIONS, EZEKIEL, DANIEL, HOSEA, JOEL, AMOS, BOOK OF OBADIAH, JONAH, MICAH, NAHUM, HABAKKUK, JEPHANIAH, HAGGAI, ZECHARIAH, MALACHI.

that prophecy that Matthew 2:23 talks about doesn't seem to exist in any of the above listed books, nor anywhere in the old testament. Where did Matthew come about that prophecy?

It's either the writer of Matthew, manufactured that verse, or the reference in the books of prophets was expunged.

Matthew is the most imaginative gospel. It had a set narrative it wanted and went around bending and fitting things into that narrative not minding the sources context or just straight up maufactured em. linguistically its the mist poorly written as well.

Dtruthspeaker:
Now you have shifted post to making accusations.

And the gymnastics is as a result of your own making in your deny the obvious evidence and Truth which you ended up admitted and confessing that it is indeed True.

So, as I said before you do not have any reasonable counter to give.

Still nothing 🥱

Dtruthspeaker:
You are pretending you do not understand what has been prove because now you see you do not have any reasonable counter to this Truth which even you have impliedly admitted and confessed to

The evidence of God of the Bible is already standing and proven exactly as the evidence that proves Mr Toyoda is the god of the Toyota. It's as simple as that

Simple question you're talking plenty. Since the particular god you're talking about is the genocidal, tantrum throwing Yhwh. Where's the evidence?! The bible, a book riddled with inaccuracies and contradictions is the claim not the evidence, besides which particular biblle. i say again where's the evidence Yhwh exists?! Non ergo mental gymnastics.

Dtruthspeaker:
Look at your words. You yourself have given evidence admiting that most creations have only ONE creator and quite an exceptional few have 2.

No where do you show creations having even 5 creations not to talk of 10 or 100 or thousands.

And then you forget like your alignment shows creations and their creators are generally attached and named.

And no where do you see 2 God's laying claim and ownership over us as you yourself confirm by your statement "Not like any of the other gods can be demonstrated either." But only ONE GOD has been identified.

So you prove my case.

Man i can't even make head or tails of this your thesis😅.
Anyways like i said earlier where is the evidence for this your particular god and that this particular one created everything. Its very simple.

Dtruthspeaker:
Since you agree then you can see that, it is only one creator each creation has.

So no one is looking for 1000 gods but only ONE GOD!

Its obvious the sacarsm went right over your head as usual, in your flawed analogy you highlighted the manufacturer of a particular car of which i showed you manufacturers of various cars, some even two manufacturers. I took you ur analogy further to highlight how flawed it is and painted the actual reality. So obvioulsy u have no evidence for this your particular god ergo go around in circles. Not like any of the other gods can be demonstrated either. End of story.

Dtruthspeaker:
As there is only one Toyoda who created the Toyota and only one landlord created a house, so also is there only one God Whom everyone is talking about!

Yes yes, i agree Toyoda to Toyota, Benz & Daimer to Benz, Porshe to Porsche, Horche to Audi, so which of em, there have been 10,000+ gods identified through anthropology, which of em and how do you demonstrate that particular one😌

Dtruthspeaker:
You lie here for he shifted post to ask this invalid question because God is already proven to exist.

which god has been proven to exist and where is this proof of the existence of the particular god you talk about?

Dtruthspeaker:
The question is already wrong, invalid and fallacious.

I agree cause it's not even been demonstrated a god exists.

Man made god(s) in his image, likeness and thoughts ergo you have god(s) having anthropomorphic features. There's no way for those who claim an opposite stance to hold that stance without resorting to the overly flogged special pleading & infinite regress conundrums.

SIRTee15:
I have to say about the gospel?

I'm not interested in your beer parlour gist.

SEE AS YOUR DEAR BIBLE SCHOLARS THOROUGHLY EMBARRASSED U.

🤣🤣🤣 Now your very own AI has shown you've been citing nonsense and you obviously haven't got a clue as the myopic retard you are, to the extent you started psychologically projecting your hidden habits on me, what made your mind go there if not experience lol! Funny thing is if we were both to reveal our looks, judging by attractiveness the projection would be all the more obvious.

Moving on, now we've demonstrated you're an illiterate, let me now demonstrate why calling you a fool would be a compliment. Right from my first comment with claims, I've cited sources showing the very thing you asked which you always conveniently didn't see, ignored, talk less of addressing em, some were even from scholars you cited which is hilarious. Some were books which contained this info but that was too much for an illiterate, you needed AI regurgitation. No matter, let me once again come down to your myopic, toddler, inanimate object, AI slobbing level & style. Same Ai you so love that demonsrated you a core illiterate.

* Bart D. Ehrman

In Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them), Ehrman critiques the historical reliability of the Gospels:

“The Gospel writers were not trying to write objective, dispassionate history. They were trying to convince their readers of the truth of their interpretations of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. As a result, they sometimes changed historical data to make them fit their theological agendas.”

In Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Ehrman highlights discrepancies:

“There are numerous places where the accounts of the Gospels differ significantly from one another in ways that cannot be reconciled historically or theologically. This undermines the idea that they are objective reports of events.” 😁

* John Dominic Crossan

In The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant:

“The Gospel writers were less concerned with documenting historical facts and more focused on creating a narrative that fit their theological agendas. As such, the Gospels cannot be read as straightforward history.”

“The historical Jesus is buried beneath layers of mythmaking and theological interpretation, which makes the Gospels unreliable as historical documents in many respects.”

In The Birth of Christianity:

“The Gospel stories are not direct transcripts of historical events. They are theological proclamations written decades later, blending historical memory with imaginative storytelling. Some of the most iconic elements of the Gospels, such as the nativity stories, are best understood as theological constructs rather than literal history.”😁

* Maurice Casey

In Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching:

“The Gospels were written decades after the events they describe, by authors who were neither eyewitnesses nor capable of preserving accurate traditions without modification. They reflect the theological biases of early Christian communities rather than reliable historical records.” 😁

* Gerd Lüdemann

In The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry:

“The resurrection narratives in the Gospels are not historical accounts but theological reflections. They were shaped by the needs of the early Christian communities and cannot be considered accurate representations of what actually occurred.”

“The discrepancies and contradictions within the Gospel accounts reveal their nature as products of imaginative oral tradition and theological adaptation, rather than factual historical reporting.”

* E.P. Sanders

In The Historical Figure of Jesus:

“The Gospels disagree on numerous points, large and small, and it is often difficult to determine what actually happened.”

“The Gospels were written to present a theological narrative, not to provide an objective history. This theological focus often results in embellishments and inconsistencies.” 😁

* Dale C. Allison Jr.

In The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus:

“The Gospels are more interested in theology than in history. They are proclamations of faith, written to convert or edify, not dispassionate chronicles of events.”

“The evangelists shaped the tradition they inherited to fit their theological agendas and the needs of their communities. This shaping sometimes involved embellishing or altering historical facts.” 😁

Now for the last but not the least confirming your stupidity, even inside bibles, you have confirmation of these basic facts in scholarship as can be seen in the images from the intros in the New Oxford Annotated Bible
and the Oxford Bible Commentary. See yourself, calling you a fool would indeed be a compliment. Now go sit in a corner and educate urseld before coming online to spout dross confidently. Olodo! 🤣

SIRTee15:
I have to say about the gospel?

I'm not interested in your beer parlour gist.

SEE AS YOUR DEAR BIBLE SCHOLARS THOROUGHLY EMBARRASSED U.

🤣🤣🤣 Now your very own AI has shown you've been citing nonsense and you obviously haven't got a clue as the myopic retard you are, to the extent you started psychologically projecting your hidden habits on me, what made your mind go there if not experience lol! Funny thing is if we were both to reveal our looks, judging by attractiveness the projection would be all the more obvious.

Moving on, now we've demonstrated you're an illiterate, let me now demonstrate why calling you a fool would be a compliment. Right from my first comment with claims, I've cited sources showing the very thing you asked which you always conveniently didn't see, ignored, talk less of addressing em, some were even from scholars you cited which is hilarious. Some were books which contained this info but that was too much for an illiterate, you needed AI regurgitation. No matter, let me once again come down to your myopic, toddler, inanimate object, AI slobbing level & style. Same Ai you so love that demonsrated you a core illiterate.

* Bart D. Ehrman

In Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them), Ehrman critiques the historical reliability of the Gospels:

“The Gospel writers were not trying to write objective, dispassionate history. They were trying to convince their readers of the truth of their interpretations of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. As a result, they sometimes changed historical data to make them fit their theological agendas.”

In Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Ehrman highlights discrepancies:

“There are numerous places where the accounts of the Gospels differ significantly from one another in ways that cannot be reconciled historically or theologically. This undermines the idea that they are objective reports of events.” 😁

* John Dominic Crossan

In The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant:

“The Gospel writers were less concerned with documenting historical facts and more focused on creating a narrative that fit their theological agendas. As such, the Gospels cannot be read as straightforward history.”

“The historical Jesus is buried beneath layers of mythmaking and theological interpretation, which makes the Gospels unreliable as historical documents in many respects.”

In The Birth of Christianity:

“The Gospel stories are not direct transcripts of historical events. They are theological proclamations written decades later, blending historical memory with imaginative storytelling. Some of the most iconic elements of the Gospels, such as the nativity stories, are best understood as theological constructs rather than literal history.”😁

* Maurice Casey

In Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching:

“The Gospels were written decades after the events they describe, by authors who were neither eyewitnesses nor capable of preserving accurate traditions without modification. They reflect the theological biases of early Christian communities rather than reliable historical records.” 😁

* Gerd Lüdemann

In The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry:

“The resurrection narratives in the Gospels are not historical accounts but theological reflections. They were shaped by the needs of the early Christian communities and cannot be considered accurate representations of what actually occurred.”

“The discrepancies and contradictions within the Gospel accounts reveal their nature as products of imaginative oral tradition and theological adaptation, rather than factual historical reporting.”

* E.P. Sanders

In The Historical Figure of Jesus:

“The Gospels disagree on numerous points, large and small, and it is often difficult to determine what actually happened.”

“The Gospels were written to present a theological narrative, not to provide an objective history. This theological focus often results in embellishments and inconsistencies.” 😁

* Dale C. Allison Jr.

In The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus:

“The Gospels are more interested in theology than in history. They are proclamations of faith, written to convert or edify, not dispassionate chronicles of events.”

“The evangelists shaped the tradition they inherited to fit their theological agendas and the needs of their communities. This shaping sometimes involved embellishing or altering historical facts.” 😁

Now for the last but not the least confirming your stupidity, even inside bibles, you have confirmation of these basic facts in scholarship as can be seen in the images from the intros in the New Oxford Annotated Bible
and the Oxford Bible Commentary. See yourself, calling you a fool would indeed be a compliment. Now go sit in a corner and educate urseld before coming online to spout dross confidently. Olodo! 🤣🤣🤣

SIRTee15:
Now we will debate your 4 claims one after the other. I do hope you have sufficient knowledge.

Dating of the gospel
Authorship of the gospel
Inerrancy of the gospel
And finally contradiction in the gospel.

Remove AI's dick from your mouth a little bros, so you could breathe a bit, damn! even your partner would not deepthroath me the way u fellate AI rigorously to the point of abuse. It's pathetic, once again still unable to critique or form a counter from your smoothbrain cells, it's understandable cause maybe if you use your last 2 braincells fighting for 3rd place to form an argument to defend ur point, ud combust😂.

To then have the effrontery to call this crap a debate. Anyways its my fault, my friggining naivety, i should have known asap i was talking to a mute ignorant dunce. So if this was actually a live debate, could you imagine how it'd look. When i make an argument and you want to respond, you'd call the moderator pls bring my phone, then type in a prompt and then start showing to the audience, see what this one said...😄 omg you're daft.

This is one of the dumbest convos ever, like flat earth shit. Basic beginner academic stuff, that's what your block head can't get. Anyways like i said i was naive, i should have fully  come down to your level of a mute copy pasting inanimate AI dick guzzler. In order to do just that as can be seen from the screenshots😁, i copied your comment verbatim and pasted it directly into the AI you so much fellate and it responded aptly. Read it, let it educate you and show you ur iq's barely in double digits, maybe your head would miraculously assimilate. Let it screw the nuance(do you know what nuance even means, AI c0cksucker 😁) and context into your skull. The fact you take a regurgitated quote out of context and then highlight sentences you think means what it doesnt in the actual context without even having read zilch, doesn't change its original meaning, so learn.

Scholarship has a framework and is not your bible study where 2 or 3 similar illiterates are gathered and Yhwh the narcissist is in their midst. It's why no 2 xtains can agree on the interpretation of the bible cause you guys don't read and the little you read, you turn upside down. Lastly so you stop embarrassing yourself, only an illiterate uses AI to quote sources especially knowing its flawed, malleable, unconfrontational on certain issues and has been known to make up non existent shit. It's a tool, not the tool.

Don't know why you theists take it as the all, and end up showing yourself fools, your fellow theist i already mentioned did exactly that and looked just as smart as you do now. To cite sources properly see the link below, in my convo with a theist here on the existence of the historical Jesus. https://www.nairaland.com/8237532/too-many-problems-belief-jesuss/2#132613348 E even try pass you, probably has one more braincells than you, at least he argued his points by himselfmute citing sources to buttress(albeit incorrectly😄). Try dey read abeg, how did you say it again "academicAI won't safe you, its denied you". Confident Ignoramus, when you see my username next time you would think 2ce.

SIRTee15:
I'm saying this because my previous experience with atheists is that once their argument crumbles and they become stuck, they run away and abandon the debate.

No offense but you're truly beyond dumb.🤣 I literally said on historical accuracy not once not even twice, the m0ron still being purposefully obtuse brings quotes on textual intergrity and attestation of manuscripts again, like how dense can you be, after i already spelled it out for your smooth brain 2ce. It's no surprise time after time again, you only use your own words when trying to dodge and side step claims, and instead keep on regurgitating AI generated prompts without even an idea of what you quoted, leading to you making a fool of urself. To be fair with your downside up vocab(pun intended), iq and grammar its understandable why you avoid arguing your points in your own words and rely on copy paste of what you haven't even read. (60k still up for grabs, he'd ignore this)

The images attached for the 3rd time which you've constantly chosen to ignore and side step like my other points shows what the scholars your AI quoted, had to say about the historical accuracy of your book of contradictions. And i also like how you ignored the request for Authorship, Inerrancy, Contradictions and Dating of the texts which I've raised from my very first comment. You haven't even cleared or addressed even just one of my claims instead ended up contradicting urself and you want to go "one on one" on claims. U sure these ur smooth brain cells working properly bro?!😁

Besides how is this a debate? Since when does a debate resort to not arguing your points or countering and instead saying see what this said, see what that said all the while copy pasting AI prompts, worse still out of context barely understanding the terms. Is that what they call a debate in your theist school of m0rons. It would even be better talking to the Ai directly cause you're just there like an inanimate object to copy paste. How did he say it again "Let us ask the scholars for their conclusion.." Da fak.! You can't even use simple vocab or form a simple argument or quote in context even with AI, yet you want to chew and spit, chew and spit what?! Your smooth brain?! Or are you one of the zombies from the gospel of matthew?! No surprise the so called athiests ironically took the advice of 2 Timothy 2:23.😄 Besides im not even an atheist.

I doubt there's a theist on this platform that comes within 20 iq points of average, yall's iq are rubbing the sand on ground level. That's the same way your fellow bro in delusion(fxmasterz) claimed to have debated and defeated AI, then went ahead to copy same AI and then pass of its arguments as his. At least he was even better as he at least copied and prompted detailed arguments instead of "see what this one said", "see what that one said", "let us ask this" like a toddler only capable of few words. Are u a toddler?! Cause once again i wonder how you manage in your career cause this is pathetic. So address/debunk the historical accuracy as stated by the scholars you cited as in the attached images, not like a toddler as you've been doing but an adult or side step and make a fool of yourself again and stfu. Tick Tock smooth brained chewer and spitter😏

SIRTee15:
If U are relying on academic to safe U from the eternal damnation awaiting U, they will deny U.
because they boldly told U that the conclusion of their works is that the new testament is reliable.

Defcon 1 ☢️

Faack me! 'rely on academic to safe me' Nah! I'm good 🤣Dude with every new regurgitated ai copy paste, you just show how much more of a frigging genius you are to those who read this. This is interesting. So let's recap, first i school you on your ignorant claim, then unable to articulate a single thought process of your own to counter anything i said, even just one, you ask ai to do the thinking for you and help you cite scholars to support your claim.

Unfortunately for you, cause you've never even read a word of scholarship to save ur life(60k still up for grabs😁) you ignorantly conflated the terms and cited em out of context like your bible. When i then schooled your ignorant ass a second time and educated you on the nuanced terms and the full context of the citations, showing they contradict your position(embarrassing btw), you then leave the reputable scholars to cite hacks, especially William Craig and Gary Habermas.😄

Wait! Theres more. You then ironically project your loud ignorance on me by claiming i need a lesson in "textual attestation" when 5mins ago, you didn't even understand what it was and conflated it with fact and accuracy of the content until i schooled and educated your genius self. That's not even the best part, you then show how intelligent you really are by conflating it again immediately after, and then cite quotes of Bart and Bruce again validating my point thinking it contradicts it. Still too much of a genius to realise the nuance and difference.

This is what happens when you rely on ai to do your thinking for you, you end up making a fool of urself and threatening people with a hell that only exists in your deluded mind. Did you even at least read any of the quotes after you copied and pasted verbatim cause if you read it you wouldn't have made a fool of urself. Instead you prefer to ask ai, then tack on one or 2 sentences, making the same mistake again "let us ask the scholars their conclusion in the integrity" Like the heck is that😄... You should have just done the normal apologetic defense and left scholarship you ain't got a clue about.

Why didn't you cite the scholars you cited at first?! Ai - copy - paste. Anyways since that's your m.o i want you to make a fool of urself even more, i already showed the same scholars you cited talking about the historical accuracy in my prev comment(they showed its obviously not historically accurate), not textual integrity/attestation which simply has to do with the meta level of the docs( quantity, quality, preservation). Hope u get it this time, olodo😁

Now additionally, quote those same 5 scholars cause since we both agree they're reliable, talking about the inerrancy, authorship and dating. Cause you obviously can't form a thought process of your own to save your life. I await details, see my sneek pic 😊.

P.S - It seems there's not a single theist on here with even avg IQ, cause this is the second time this exact play book has occured.

Righthussle:
If Africans who practice the culture and traditions of their land are "pagans" to you

I now love the fact that Muslims call fools like you "infidels".


Well, I don't blame you. You are just an irredeemably colonised African fo.ol who have been programmed to prefer the things of his slave masters more than the things of his fathers. And it pains me that you will pass your foolishness to your children.

Any time i see his posts all i can think about is how fvcked his kids are to have him as a dad. Like I can't imagine their mental health situation. If child protective services worked in Nigeria, i'd have already called them to pick the kids before he damages them any further. How grown man go just settle say na grade A m0ron e wan be. Quite sad.

Righthussle:
If Africans who practice the culture and traditions of their land are "pagans" to you

I now love the fact that Muslims call fools like you "infidels".


Well, I don't blame you. You are just an irredeemably colonised African fo.ol who have been programmed to prefer the things of his slave masters more than the things of his fathers. And it pains me that you will pass your foolishness to your children.

Any time i see his posts all i can think about is how fvcked his kids are to have him as a dad through no fault of their own. Like I can't imagine their mental health situation. If child protective services worked in Nigeria, i'd have already called them to pick the kids before he damages them any further. How grown man go just settle say na grade A slowpoke e wan be. Quite sad.

SIRTee15:
I The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.[/b][/i]

🤣 My gosh! Your comments literally made me lol! When i said confident and ignorant it sounded demeaning but just look. Seriously how do you guys do it, how can you be so confident yapping about something u've obviously got no clue about, its fascinating. I could bet #50k u've never read any of the sources you cited and an additional #10k u've literally never read any peice of scholarship if not you wouldn't commit this kind of embarrassing blunder. At least i cited what ive read and put the thought process in my words.

So this doesn't fully turn to just ad hominems let me school/educate you. To begin, don't you see you couldn't literally refute a single thing i said, which are all basically facts in scholarship, not one. Not with words and thought processes of your own, not even with the chat gpt you resorted to, to find your sources and buttress your point, that you hadn't even read and ended up quoting out of context as you do your bible. You just had to ignorantly conflate textual integrity with historical validity and inerrancy.

If you had managed to read even just the context of your sources you would have seen that virtually all of em were taking about textual attestation, integrity and preservation in relation to the the original manuscripts not historical accuracy or inerrancy or original authorship. In other words as a document if its been faithfully copied and transmitted, that what we have are close to the original manuscripts overall meta(quantity & quality) even though no 2 manuscripts are same.

They're simply saying its a well preserved textual artifact like the Iliad, not that its contents are historical or true. Just the title of some of the books from the scholars your quotes are from should have clued you in but nope, chat gpt, indoctrination and close mindedness nor let you see road. 🤣 Titles like Bruce's "New Testament : Its transmission, corruption and restoration" or Daniel Wallace's "Revisisting the corruption of the new testament" or Bart's "Misquoting Jesus: The story behind who changed the bible and why", should have clued you in.

Now for the nail in the coffin of the ignorant😁, at least you were the one that cited them and yes they are reliable scholars. Let me show i too can use a gpt, luckily im not ignorant to coflate textual integrity with historical accuracy and inerrancy. Here's what the same scholars have to say about the latter from the same books( see attached image).

P.S Is this the daze you want to daze me😄. Instead of dazing me educate urself abeg. Scholarship is not your bible study group where you do mental gymnastics to bend the data to fit a dogma, its always data over dogma.

...The earliest books we have are the letters of Paul, with 1 Thessalonians being the first, written 20 years after the fact. So, no surprise that it contradicts itself and is littered with inaccuracies. The actual authors are basically unknown, and most of the books are forgeries, but, as Dr. Bart Ehrman would say, that's a morally loaded term, so it's called pseudepigraphy in scholarship. Out of the 13 letters claimed to be written by Paul, only seven were actually written by him. The only other book we are sure was written by who claimed to have written it is Revelation, written by a John, not necessarily John son of Zebedee. So, only eight out of 27 books are not forgeries.

Even the writers make it known in the Bible that people should be aware of forgeries, because they knew what was going on, with lots of forgery and counter-forgery going on, alongside people claiming to be who they're not.

Lastly, the original manuscripts are lost, and what we have are basically copies of copies of copies, where no two manuscripts are exactly alike. These copies have been edited, re-edited, redacted, and retconned over time, changing the narrative as it goes, like how we got to find out the original ending of Mark before more was added to retcon the narrative as the fictional story was adjusted over time.

This is what you call non-fiction, non-fabricated, or historically accurate. I can only laugh!

Virtually all scholars agree on the above as a consensus in academic scholarship, even those with Christian backgrounds. Bart Ehrman's books, such as "Introduction to the New Testament," "Forgeries and Counter Forgeries," or "Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know About Them)," are perfect sources. Reputable scholars like E.P. Sanders, Dale Martin from Yale, and even religious scholars like Dan McClellan, Paula Fredriksen, and Dale Allison have discussed this extensively in their works. Virtually any reputable scholars work would cite this as its bible context 101. Chop evidence😁

SIRTee15:
Bring evidence to the contrary.
Evidence that says our gospel is a fabrication.

Pls I want evidence from academic reputable bible scholars not some beer parlour gist.

The amount of confidently ignorant people on this platform is too damn high😅. Like the frigging irony of saying you want evidence from scholarship when anyone with the daintiest clue about the stance of basic academic scholarship wouldn't make the outstandingly ignorant statement you did is beyond laughable. Then again its the typical apologist way of making assertions before even understanding the context of said assertions cause they think it supports their conclusion, so not suprised there.

Anyway, first off, which is basic knowledge and a fact and consensus among the academic community, is that there is no single "Bible." There are multiple Bibles, and they say different things depending on the adopted canon, translation method, and source manuscripts. They range from 24 to as many as 82 books, depending on the sect, from the Codex Sinaiticus to the Tanakh to the Targum, to the Septuagint, to NA28, etc. This is just to paint a backdrop of the confusing mess of zero objectivity.

Now, whatever Bible you use or choose, one thing is certain, and that is the fact that it is not univocal. Different authors say different things with different agendas, directed at different audiences, which is why there are so many contradictions. The Gospels contradict themselves at virtually every turn, from the birth narrative to the death narrative, with no harmony and no objectivity. This is despite the fact that the authors basically copied each other but tweaked the story to appeal to their particular audience, as there were numerous Gospels in circulation, all wanting to drive their narrative. Many of these Gospels and their narratives didn't make it into the canon, as they brought about even more contradictions.

The Gospels and other books are historically inaccurate. Various accounts depicted in them, when verified with external sources, are found wanting, pointing to creative liberty. For example, the census in Luke, which was conducted at Jesus' birth, was used to fix location contradictions from the other Gospels. However, the census, as claimed by the Gospels, took place during the reign of Herod the Great (who wanted to kill Jesus, by the way), which we know is flat-out wrong. According to other sources, the census took place during the reign of Quirinius, 10 years after Herod's death.

These contradictions and historical inaccuracies are not surprising, considering that the earliest Gospel (Mark) was written at least four decades after the said event and wasn't even written by eyewitnesses. Most of it was made up after the fact, sometimes drawing motifs from other older myths (similar to most of the Bible), like the virgin birth of Dionysus and his turning water into wine...