₦airaland Forum

emmyskies: GOD bless you too brother. But truth is, this is the world we live in. The religion section already is like a christian section. Islamic section is a sub-section of religion section. Where wouldn't you find atheists? They are everywhere. They are among the reason why we're here, so they can change. Even the people you mentioned are all atheists. I don't know of Obinoscopy. But Seun and Mynd are atheist. So, what do you expect Nairaland is owned by an atheist, mods are atheist. Don't be perturbed brother, Christ has sent us as sheep among wolves. A christian section won't solve the problem. Rather, their likes will be quick to pollute the true gospel and teaching, turning the unstable and babes away from the true faith. This is the sole reason why Highyo have stopped posting here. Na them get nairaland, we're here to win them. Stand on the truth no matter how discouraging and stiff-necked this people are. GOD bless you

CNN•• An Indonesian girl has reunited with her family 10 years after being swept out to sea by a tsunami.
It’s been nearly 10 years since an earthquake triggered a massive tsunami in the Indian Ocean. The devastation was unprecedented–over 100,000 in Indonesia were left dead and more than 30,000 missing. Among the horror, was a family left grasping onto a plank of wood as the current pulled them out to sea.
According to DPA International, as the surge grew stronger, the mother and father watched in horror as their 7-year-old son, and 4- year-old daughter, Raudhatul, were swept away.
Now, 10 years later, the girl has been reunited with her parents.

Raudhatul Jannah was rescued and raised by a fisherman after being stranded on an island. It was not until June, when she was walking home in a village that her uncle spotted and recognized her. After asking a series of questions, her uncle realized the young girls identity.
On Wednesday, the now 14-year-old girl, was reunited with her family. “God has given us a miracle,” her mother told a local news station.
Jannah’s brother is still missing, but with the new wave of hope, her family believes he had as much of a chance as surviving as she did, since she said they both wound up standed on the Banyak Islands.
The family is now continuing their search for the young boy.

emmyskies

deb6: still 17

AlfaSeltzer: But Satanists are the smartest.

omonuan: You are just going in circles. You have provided no proof that Jesus was named Immanuel despite your futile attempts to argue that he was the messiah and thus Immanuel. You are using smoke and mirrors.

According to you, Mathew said:"Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel." However, this is not a proof that Jesus was named Immanuel. Moreover, you clearly mentioned that Mathew 1:22 said the son has to be named "Jesus" not Immanuel. You have continuously failed to show that Immanuel was ever the name given to Jesus.

What name was given to Christ at birth? Mathew contradicted himself just two verses later at 1:25 and said that Joseph gave the son the name "Jesus" thereby rendering you and Mathew's assertion that he was to be named Immanuel null and void:

" But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." Mathew 1:25

Wherefore,Jesus was not named Immanuel supporting my argument. I had never disputed that Mathew made such assertion that Messiah would be called Immanuel. What I have maintained is that Jesus was never called Immanuel in the Bible therefore his birth could not have fulfilled Isaiah 7:14.

Other than Matthew's overreach in trying to retrofit a prophesy, Jesus was never called Immanuel in the Bible. Take it or leave it!

Your bringing in other quotes from Isaiah 9:1 are just as futile because they provide no evidence that Jesus was ever called Immanuel. This is the main issue.

I am done with this argument. I leave you with the following as a lesson:

2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," Hopefully, you learned a few lessons here. Goodbye!

omonuan: I can't prove a negative is a general maxim. You are the one that made the assertion that Isaiah 7:14 is referring to Jesus as Immanuel. In my previous write-up, I showed why your interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 is incorrect. If you have a direct proof that Jesus was named Immanuel in the bible, provide it for all to see. You you been engaging in the shifting of burden of proof to me. This is called argument ad ignorantium. This is a well known fallacy!

The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. However, the burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition which is you in this instance.

If it makes you feel better to assume that Isaiah 7:14 is saying that Christ was named Immanuel, that is fine with me but it still does not mean it is true. Furthermore, your belief would not be biblical. It would simply be your own private interpretation.

The Bible says what it means and means what it says. It states that “scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35) and “Your [God’s] word is truth” (John 17:17). If we are to believe that the Bible is unbreakable truth, then we must believe that white means white and black means black! How sad that most do not understand these straightforward verses.

2 Peter 1:20-21:
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost." KJV

Revelation 22:16
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:" rest my case!

omonuan: I will respond first by quoting the following:

James 1:26, “If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.”

Luke 22:65, “And they threw all sorts of terrible insults at him.”

Mathew 7:1 Judge not, that you be not judged.

"A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control." (Proverbs 29:11, NIV)

I quoted the Bible directly and I don't know about your anti Christian sites. Do not shift the burden by obfuscating the facts. I am willing to learn because what I know is that I know nothing. Do not resort to anger and name calling. Remember extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. Here is the standard in the Bible. If you are a good Christian:

2 Timothy 2:14-15:"Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth."

Tell me where it was shown that Christ was named Immanuel in the Bible. Do not shift this back to me because you can't respond to a question by propounding another counter question.

As for Isaiah 7:14, The birth and naming of the child Immanuel was to be a sign for king Ahaz that God was with his people who were about to be invaded by two rival kingdoms. This is clear when Isa 7:14 is put back into the context which the author of Matthew lifted it out of.
Isa 7:10-16 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

This promise was kept by God as shown in 2 Kings 16:9. Assyria defeated the two rival kings and Ahaz and his people would be safe.
2 Kings 16:9 And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him: for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin.

The child was born, called by the name Immanuel by his mother and the Assyrians defeated the two kings who threatened Ahaz and his people. The prophecy was fulfilled long before the author of Matthew dishonestly claimed that Jesus fulfilled it. The author of Matthew ignored all this because he only wanted one verse from Isaiah and that was Isa 7:14 which he wanted to use to give credibility to his tale about a "virgin" birth.

"A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control." (Proverbs 29:11, NIV)

It is troubling to note that many Nigerian self acclaimed Christians are not really interested in the truth. You are more interested in regurgitated dogma and feel-good doctrines while ignoring or twisting the obvious. To many Nigerian Christians, if the Bible had said that Jonah swallowed the whale, they would have believed it.

What you need to do is to point to biblical verses that support your argument. If you can't do that, please hold your peace for it is better to remain silent and be deemed a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubts.

Finally, you have to learn to attack the message and not the messenger.Ephesians 4:29 "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen."

And you have the temerity to delete the quoted bible verses. You are bold!

omonuan: [s]Dude do not make this personal, please make your points without resorting to ad hominem attacks. Isaiah 7:14 was not during my time and I have never claimed to be a messiah. Nevertheless, it was not referring to Jesus either because like I previously indicated, Jesus was never given the name Immanuel neither was he ever called Immanuel.

You are trying to use the time tested fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Since you claimed that Isaiah 7:14 is a fulfillment of the prophesy of "Immanuel," you should prove it. It behooves you to do so. Do not ask me if the verse was referring to me or anyone else because I can't negate a negative.

Read your Bible and understand it. This could not have been a fulfillment of any prophesy because, it does not quite fit. Quoting Matthew 1:20-23 is a red herring because it doesn't solve or explain why Jesus was not called Immanuel.

I am sure you know that the author of Mathew was freelancing. He plagiarized 76 percent of Mark almost word for word. None of the authors of Mark, Luke, John or Mathew was an eye witness to these events. The earliest gospel was Mark which was written more than 70 years after the death of Christ. Mark did not say that Jesus was a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. In fact, only the Gospel of Mathew said so by implication.

Luke 1:30-31:
"And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS."

So was he Jesus or Immanuel? Or did God change his mind? This is the problem with many retrofitting going on in the Bible, it creates the impression of contradictions.[/s]

omonuan: Isaiah 53 is so vague and it is simply a stretch to say that Jesus Christ was a fulfillment of this "prophesy." Here is what Isaiah 53:10 says:
Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,


Jesus according to the bible did not have any off springs neither were his days prolonged. So this fails the entire reference to him here despite your creative imagination.

Isaiah 7:14New International Version (NIV):

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you[a] a sign: The virgin[b] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[c] will call him Immanuel.[d]"

Isaiah 7:14 also failed as a prophesy in a Reference to Jesus because at no time did the gospels show that he was given the name "Immanuel." They never called Jesus "Immanuel." The author of Matthew was really reaching when he created this “prophesy” from Isaiah 7:14.

The supposed prophesy, in Isaiah 7:14, was for its time, not for Jesus (about 700 years in the future).
Also, Isaiah 7:14 referred to a young woman ('almah'), not a virgin ('betulot').
2 Chronicles 28 shows that King Ahaz (who received the prophesy from Isaiah) was later defeated — negating Isaiah's prophesy.

Isaiah 9:1 is another figment of your imagination:
"Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the nations, by the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan—"

Jesus was not born in any of these towns. Luke has Jesus born in a stable, the traditional location. The family went to Jerusalem about eight days later, then returned to Nazareth.

As for the mention of Isaiah in Luke 4:

Isaiah was not talking about Jesus

2 Peter 1:20-21:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost. KJV
◄ Revelation 22:16 ►

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And to think that Paul said that "God is not the author of confusion"! (I Corinthians 14:33)

Deuteronomy 4:2
Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

Emmafrancis: our oil money dey hungry una to control. We ve be oppressed under nigeria, no way in hell are we goin to allow ourselves to be oppressed again in tHe name of biafra

Emmafrancis: our oil money dey hungry una to control. We ve be oppressed under nigeria, no way in hell are we goin to allow ourselves to be oppressed again in tHe name of biafra

lastpage: See Greedy Persin!

Who told you that Cross River people or even Akwa Ibom people want to live under the yoke of Igbo people in a so called USB?

okay, because they have Oil, they have now become your "brothers" but during the Civil war of 1967 when you did not know they have Oil, do you remember what you did to them and their families?

According to a few Calabar and Ibibio people l know, "You killed and enslaved them".

He said they are just "watching you and letting you think you are smart" with the way you are trying to patronize them.

Even a large portion of Delta state and Ebonyi state; plus the whole of Kogi state, Edo state (where there are Yoruba speakers!) and Bayelsa state are not Igbo or even feel Igbo at all, so why lump them into your "phantom USB project"!

Anyway, if secession is your "only solution", then secede and stop shouting it over the roof top .......for decades now.

Whether others will follow you or not, you will "realize" when the time comes but if you think you can threaten or force any other state/people into your USB project, ..... l just hope another 1967 is not staring you in the face.

Lastapge!

lastpage: See Greedy Persin!

Who told you that Cross River people or even Akwa Ibom people want to live under the yoke of Igbo people in a so called USB?

okay, because they have Oil, they have now become your "brothers" but during the Civil war of 1967 when you did not know they have Oil, do you remember what you did to them and their families?

According to a few Calabar and Ibibio people l know, "You killed and enslaved them".

He said they are just "watching you and letting you think you are smart" with the way you are trying to patronize them.

Even a large portion of Delta state and Ebonyi state; plus the whole of Kogi state, Edo state (where there are Yoruba speakers!) and Bayelsa state are not Igbo or even feel Igbo at all, so why lump them into your "phantom USB project"!

Anyway, if secession is your "only solution", then secede and stop shouting it over the roof top .......for decades now.

Whether others will follow you or not, you will "realize" when the time comes but if you think you can threaten or force any other state/people into your USB project, ..... l just hope another 1967 is not staring you in the face.

Lastapge!

bingbagbo: very funny...so God asked catholics to build statues of mary and bow before?? hmmmmmmmmmm

ephemm: Chai!!! Igbo don dey try to dey claim south-south becos of crude oyel (oil)
If Naija split Biafra go different from south-south o, nah geopolitical divide we go follow

Rilwayne001: NOTE: Dont Just Scan Through, Read Thoroughly. This thread is not created to bash anybody but to enlighten the reader.

DEDICATED TO: True2god, Truthman2012, malvisguy212, francistony, macelliot and all other NL members.

INTRODUCTION
It is not the peripatetic "ministry" of Jesus, with all its healings, wise teachings and astounding miracles that is the bedrock of the Christian religion. Rather, it is the extraordinary melodrama of his death and resurrection, sometimes expressed as the "promise of the cross" or in the pithy aphorism, "No Resurrection, No Christianity."
Sad to relate, but there are NO independent, corroborated, disinterested or contemporary accounts of the "resurrection" of Jesus Christ, although that claim is often made. The truth is that ALL that passes for testimony for the Risen Lord comes from the same storybook and a handful of unsubstantiated characters. Whilst it is almost certainly the case that in their original format the gospels circulated as distinct writings, they are in no sense independent testimonies. This is particularly the case with the passion and resurrection narratives, a motley collection of terse, hearsay reports derived from a common source and built into a common, confused and confusing, tradition.

The rational mind is aghast at the limitations, flaws and contradictions of the biblical sound-bites. Yet this is the bedrock of the Christian faith. For all the deficiency of the incredulous claims, those who want to believe will believe. It's called "faith."

MAIN TOPIC

Mark – a star witness?

"Faith rests on the historical testimony of those who saw and gave witness."

The post-mortem appearances to be found in Matthew, Luke and John, though each adding flourishes of their own, are all built on a core story accredited to a shadowy figure called "Mark".

Whoever "Mark " was, he was certainly no eye-witness to either the life or death of Jesus. Church tradition maintains that "Mark" – said to have been the erstwhile travelling companion of Paul – went to Rome and wrote down the testimony of Peter. But, on Mark's own evidence, Peter himself was NOT a witness to many of the events described in his own gospel, including the baptism of Jesus, the temptation of Jesus, the healing of the Phoenician woman's daughter, Jesus Christ's prayers in the garden of Gethsemane ( all possible witnesses were asleep!) and even the crucifixion itself:

" They all forsook him and fled. " – Mark 14:50.

Even supposing Peter was hanging around Golgotha, how could Peter know, for example, what the centurion said at the cross or Pilate's reaction to Joseph of Arimathea? We have to create multiple, unknown testimonies to keep Peter informed. As for the resurrection appearances, Peter could only rely on information from Mary Magdalen, or perhaps the other Mary or Salome. And yet the women themselves relied on the testimony of an angel – and said nothing!

Matthew, Luke and John copied from Mark, who heard from Peter, who heard from Mary , who heard from an angel .

How's THAT for "eye-witness" testimony?!

"Look – an empty tomb!"

"Every known Gospel of early times, alike in the great Church and in heretical circles, used St Mark as the leading authority for the history of the life of Jesus." – C. Turner, "The Gospel of Mark", A New Commentary on Holy Scripture, III. p46.

Mark's resurrection story begins with a rolled stone and an empty tomb (but even that idea wasn't original*). Early Christians were unhappy with the abrupt and enigmatic ending of Mark and set to work on improving the text.

" At least nine versions of the ending of Mark can be found among the 1,700 surviving ancient Greek manuscripts and early translations of the gospel." – Michael W. Holmes, Easter: Exploring the Resurrection of Jesus , (BAR, 2010)


WHY MOVE THE STONE AT ALL?
The "Rolled Stone" – a theatrical flourish

hensben: how eseoghene take resemble igbo? Lier, you think you are arguing with akid who don't know his origin, atibaka my foot,lol.
Incase you don't know,binis bear most same name with urhobo, isoko,e.g, ese means help/gift/favour, efe means wealth.

hensben: says who? Lol,so na una wey never rule since democracy na wan come get sense and bold to be with us.
Abi na una wey hausa n yoruba sideline since when ojukwu shit for church lol, guy I talk am before say u be clown.

hensben: cos of delta igbo in delta state abi or cos we are closer in terms of border line, na only u bring origin cos I don correct you then you come back to politics, you are confuse mehn!
But we niger delta want to have our own country na force, shior!!!

johnmartus: please if igbo peoples want to perish they should all perish alone why are you including other tribe to you sinking ship does detal speaking igbo rivers?

hensben: u nor well, u wan describe my tribe for me again, I am from delta/edo incase u don't know. Guy u know nothing, google histroy of edo n urhobo since u nor wan hear from me or ask that ur friend very well were urhobo originated from

busoye19: Get it straight to or head. This marriage is for better, for worse. You ain't going anywhere. Don't waste or time, let's face it together.

hensben: you see why i say u biafrans nor get sense, all of una dey behave like mr IBU, CLOWNS, go learn history.urhobo,isoko,ijaw,itsekiri are the majority in delta state and they originates from bini, same in bayelsa,et al they originates from yoruba, in other words, yoruba have more brothers in niger delta than igbos if you want to go by origin.why will I be pain?lol, cos I don't want u guys am pain or its u guys that is pain that's why u guys are quoting me to prove a point.

BlackHuman: Mtcheew!...no be only USB, na Flashdrive u go see...

hensben: if u want to use origin as to who to claim states in niger delta,then I can tell you that majority of niger delta tribe are related to yoruba, e.g delta state comprises of urhobo,isoko,ijaws,itsekiri and these tribes I mentioned were originated from edo n yoruba n they are the majority in delta state, so delta igbos can merge with you guys if they chose to, same in bayelsa, rivers state, cross river, et al.

Cubeet: Oil rich regions

Lakeshizu: how come u added the oil producing states?