₦airaland Forum

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...

Zooposki:
Since you already came to your conclusion that parthenogenesis is hogwash, and on top of that conclusion insultive, there is no further need to reply and educate you further. Those that want to find out the truth will do their research. I already planted the seed. They should water that knowledge.

Nature and Evolution also says the only non essential chromosome in the body is the Y(Male) chromosome, which has also being proven scientifically. Should I still fight and insult the same Nature?

Unfortunately facts don't care about feelings. Its why you had no rebuttal to the stated facts, tried to misinterpret it and had to go on a tangent. And sadly the only seeds planted are seeds showcasing you don't really know what you're saying, the second paragraph of my prev comment demonstrates exactly that. I'd suggest you forgo 'planting seeds' and driving agendas and instead educate urself better, u'd cut out the flawed thought processes that way. Come back to these your comments after that and even you would have a laugh. Enjoy your evening.

Zooposki:
At least we both agree a man can never create/birth a woman.

Parthenogenesis (/ˌpɑːrθɪnoʊˈdʒɛnɪsɪs, -θɪnə-/; from the Greek παρθένος, parthénos, 'virgin' + γένεσις, génesis, 'creation') is a natural form of asexual reproduction in which the embryo develops directly from an egg without the need for fertilization. In animals, parthenogenesis means development of an embryo from an unfertilized egg cell.

Like i said the Krueger effect comes to mind and you somehow doing some half baked googling to come up with Parthenogenesis to prove a virgin birth in a human is plausible is laughably ignorant cause parthogenesis is virtually impossible in mammals talk less humans due to certain genetic and biological complexities, like i said basically no clue. Its always ludicrous when people come to a conclusion then look for data to validate that conclusion instead of letting the data lead one to a conclusion.

A platypus has got a beak and webbed feet and lays eggs but is a mammal, humans are mammals and have feet ergo they can lay eggs thereby proving the greek myth of the Orphics plausible. See how clueless the thought process is?! A salamanda has shared genetic heritage and similar gene expression as humans, salamandas can regrow lost limbs ergo humans can as well thereby it validates the myth of Hydra. A similar funny thought process which makes absolutely no sense.

This is not even considering that the myth about the virgin birth of Jesus, like others in the bible adapted older existing myths like the virgin birth of Dyonisus. With the narratives written decades after by anonymous people who weren't even witnesses in the first place. So like i said no clue and you just went to further establish that. Same way a man can't birth a woman is the same way a virgin birth is impossible, nevertheless the less cause a myth said so.

SIRTee15:
Very good U did some research. Now U are transiting from just being a beer parlour atheist based on gossips and gists rather than real factual evidence.

Now James the brother of Jesus was killed by the Sanhedrin. The open minded Jews didn't like it and petitioned the Roman procurate to have those who killed him be punished.
This is because James was well loved by the people- jews or Christians, he often preach in the synagogue and temple.
James was killed around 62 AD, 30 yrs after lifetime of Jesus. Most Jews who loved James and whom he preached to were very much alive during Jesus ministry.

Now if the Jews knew Jesus as a common rabbi, Do U think they will tolerate people like James going about making legendary statements about him.
Won't they call him out for lying?
Would he have such significant following and command respect among the Jews if he's known for fabricating stories about a former rabbi?
Why would they fight their own Jewish leaders for killing James if he was known as a liar and gospel fabricator. I bet they would be glad the blasphemer had been dealt with.

Think my friend, think.

There's a reason no reputable bible scholar has come out to condemned the gospel as work of fiction.
Evidence we keep discovering goes against such narrative.

😅 Wait o! Is the bolded a joke or just typical brazen ignorance.

Zooposki:
Oya na, bring your own theory on how Adam produced Eve. I would have really gone into the scientific details, but don’t feel like.

Wow! It would be extremely dumb of me to prove what is obviously mythology with science, like how does that even make any sense in the first place. Not even an original myth, a polemic adapted from older myths thousands of years before it. If anything science contradicts virtually all of it, cause non of it happened, No Adam, No Eve. Its all faith based claims which can and never will be demonstrated. To then go into 'scientific details' to prove that, just shows you don't know what you or the science is saying.

imustsaymymindo:
I just pity people who had their childhood growing up in such a church. They have been nurtured in fear.

I rather be with one of those strange women than be with someone who has been nurtured in extreme fear.

Because someone who lived in such fear is as dangerous as the strange woman. One day, she would see you as the Devil maybe from one of the preachings of the G.O., and kill you by fire, first - spiritually/mentally, and eventually physically. I won't be surprised to find many of the violent women in Naija are products of this church.

Aptly put. That's the main weapon of these religions, Fear. It's a cycle of negative energy.

Zooposki:
lol. Are you referring to me or the other poster?

Sadly you, sorry. There's just so much wrong with your comment.

Zooposki:
How did the Virgin Mary reproduce Jesus? How does a man carry the baby? What do you get from your cells splitting? A female can reproduce via parthenogenesis. The sperm is in the bone marrow of a woman and other places.

Also the female is not weaker. She has a more superior immune system than her male counterpart because nature prioritizes her over the man.

😄 One of the beauties of the internet is seeing people who've got no clue what they talking about spout factoids confidently. Dunning Krueger effect comes to mind, case in point 😄👆🏽

johnstin:
You have said it all.
The marine agents are very happy we still have a lot of ignorant people on earth, so they always have victims.
The ones waxing confident now will become sober after the marine agents have dealt with them.

Schizophrenia has made this one delusional. How about aquatic and aeronautic agents, abi those ones dont exist in your myopic delusion 😄

daniwise:
Oh,your moniker says it all.

Yes i don't subscribe to unverifiable superstitious nonsense. Now take a hike same way you came.

THis myopic daft charlatan spewing unverifiable superstitious nonsense as usual. Reason why i say education doesn't mean you have sense, too many eduacted daft people everywhere like this retarded hypocritical charlartan.

JovialJune:
Smh, men are cheap, tasteless, and classless sha

With your father and husband leading the pack just ahead of your brother and son. Yes indeed.

Truvelisback:
His own is outrageous because he made it look he has a beef with them.

Understandable but that was the m.o of certain prophets through out the bible, even Jesus did some calling out as well. Justin Peters does it as well calling out the likes of Copeland, Dollar & Hinn. So there's always been a dissenting voice.

lol! As if the 'body of christ' has ever been united right from inception.

binary01:
lol i love watching different denominations of Christians beef themselves, its like a different form of racism and tribalism but way more stupid . at the end all these shiit is just man made ideas with no value other than the value the foolish people who practice it gives to it.

Way too stupid and they claim to be the one true way yet can't seem to come to conclusion of what this 'truth' is, like truth is suddenly subjective. Show me 2 Christians who wholistically agree on the interpretation of their so called truth - the bible - and you'd have shown me a miracle. Same acclaimed 'spirit of god' speaking to all of em who is not an author of confusion btw. Proper circus.

Both the Allah and Yhwh are seemingly confused entities who can't seem to know left from right but are somehow omniscient. Funny part is their deluded minions at each other's throat fighting for which delusion is less deluded.