₦airaland Forum

Emusan:
I ma se oooo
Very pathetic

Emusan:
See this one

So codex Vaticanus is a science book



You have your answer there



Look at your point above

Emusan:
Funny ia
Papyrus is the materialsused for the manuscripts just like our modern day paper.
oo

Emusan:
You said it yourself



Here you have it again.

Emusan:
It's evident you don't know what you're saying.

Emusan:
A codex is book put together and you read it that, manuscripts comprises a book put together.

Olodo oshi

Read and stop disgracing yourself.

Ndi papyrus is a manuscript and Umluat is not a dot

Too dull yet be forming all-knowing

Emusan:
Funny thing is how an illiterate person will be priding in his ignorance.



Codex Vaticanus is a manuscript, stop disgracing yourself on a public forum.

Papyrus is the materials used for the manuscripts just like our modern day paper.

Can you see your life outside?



And your point is?



When I said you should stop disgracing yourself on a public forum, I have my reason.

The same link you failed to read said the below screenshot.

You see the reason why you shouldn't be taken serious.

O ma se oooo

Courz:
Occult symbols as shown on Wikipedia.

As a Christian, The symbol, the Tetragrammaton, that you have been brainwashed to believe that it is the name of God by the Fake Jews is actually an Occultic symbol used in Judaism, Kodesh and Kabbala (Jewish Satanism). It is used to summon demons in Witchcraft. Jehovah which is derived from the Tetragrammaton is also used in Witchcraft and high degree Freemasons chant the name in their Rituals.

Make sure you don't perish due to lack of knowledge. If you still address God by that name even when Jesus never addressed him with this name, after knowing this info, that means you have chosen to address the real entity behind that name.

brighly:
If Jesus is not God why did God asked angels to worship Him? is e

Coming125:
No heaven without Jesus Christ. Repent today.

Emusan:
Do you even understand yourself here?



Says the person who says Codex Vaticanus isn't a manuscript



That's your cup of tea



Illiteracy is bad.

Emusan:
Then who says they are not the one?



You're too dull.



Your illiteracy sha...



Illiteracy is bad.

Emusan:
That is the argument of the modern translations that rejected 1 John 5:7

How is this hard to understand?



Can you imagine! So you don't know yet jump in to Strat saying rubbish.



And the Umluat is a DOT found in between 1 John 5:7-8 on the same Codex Vatican's.

Which that text must have been removed.

Oma se oooo

Emusan:
Read the link above to the end before you jump in.

Emusan:
Arguing Ke...

Emusan:
So you just read the first paragraph and rush to comment rubbish.

The link is there, go back and read from beginning to the end.



And the same modern translations without Johannien Comma are called version. Illiterate.



That was the point the writer is making. Olodo.

The manuscripts 1 John 5:7 was found we're considered LATE.

English is hard for you.



Do you understand the point the writer is making?



The is the reason you know, you're real olodo.

The Umluat said to occurred in one of the oldest Greek manuscripts called Codex Vaticanus.

And you are jumping on what you don't even understand.

Emusan:
It's not about number of sect.

My question was, is Trinity a talk among people before 325AD?



Lies!i

---

[

---

Even Priscillian of Avila80AD quoted 1 John 5:7 and still called a sect.
[hre
So stop saying rubbish

Emusan:
They agreed it was forged ! So that was the only thing you read from that long article?




Olodo....

That was what Modern translations consider for not ADDING IT TO THEIR TRANSLATION.

The writer is making a point from there.

Haba... English isn't difficult nah



KJV is just A TRANSLATION not another Bible written by another person (people).

Emusan:
But does that mean people don't teach about Trinity before 325AD?



The question is, was Trinity a talk among people before these happened?

MightySparrow:
When and how do we have Roman Catholic?

Emusan:
To God be the glory sir!

Actually, it was a well detailed article by KJV proponents which you can find HERE

MightySparrow:
What is the meaning of Catholic?

MightySparrow:
Athanasius, Origen and co. invited by Emperor Constantine had been discussing the idea of Trinity for years before 325 A.D. What were there references? The claim that IJohn 5:7; Matthew 24:19 were later added in 16th century. What then be promoted the idea?

If you want to discover a lie, don't use another lie as your tool. The funny thing is that the doctrine was a gradual development. It wasn't ratified as it is now in 325A.D.



The apostles themselves initially didn't even know what to teach. They had to convene a meeting where initially five things were agreed upon. It was Paul's revelations that opened up many
T

Aemmyjah:
Go and quote Wikipedia na
Where Wiki does not give you what you want
You find books and articles from critics with no authority

MightySparrow:
Good job brother. How come I am just seeing this thread now.

I have had arguments with this people severally. They become dishonest whenever they are busted.
I am awed by this research.


Thanks so much.

Aemmyjah:
In a similar vein, should i use the accusation of the Pharisees from the same book you described as a fabrication, to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was not the Christ?
Why are you referring to a character of the Bible?

Aemmyjah:
Cos an opposer in the Bible came out to oppose Paul adds to your argument. Do you now accept the Bible is true?

Well, why not use the Pharisees and Sadducees to support your argument that Jesus of Nazareth was not the Christ since they also opposed him... Abi, wiki no mention them?
You're just picky

Aemmyjah:
I'd like another famous conversation between you and SIRTee15

SIRTee15:
Go and read about the zealots. The movement didn't start in 66 AD.
They emerged from the 4th philosophy sect of 1st century judaism. The other 3 were Pharisee, Sadducees and Essenes.
This Judaism movement was started by Judas of Gamala and Zadok the Pharisee in 6 AD.
Philos was very much around at that time, did he write about the 4th philosophy
One of Jesus disciple was called Simon the zealot.

The idea that Philo doesn't write about political affairs isn't true. He wrote about Pontus Pilate as a Roman governor in Judea area describing him as harsh. Why didnt he write about the zealots.

So Philos wrote about a non Jew Messiah. But didnt write about the Jewish Messiahs.
Did he write about Jewish Messiah figures like Judas of Gamala, Theudas and Menahem.
Did he write about John the baptist, an influential member of the Essene sect who performed ritual baptism and awaited the Messiah figure.
Obviously, he felt their their Messiah was irrelevant to bother about but should have bothered about that of jesus. Why?

It was a pattern where this foreign born Jews elevate a non Jew as Messiah and completely ignore the home Jews.

Read below about Messiah figures in early first century and ask yourself why philo didn't write about them.