₦airaland Forum

zubeyr:
Islam is the true religion Islam is not named after a person as in case of Christianity Hinduism  Buddhism not named after tribe like Judaism
Islam is the true religion its name represents total submission to One God
Islam was the religion given to Adam and all the Prophets  of Allah "This Day I perfected your religion for you completed my Favour upon you and have chosen for you Islam as your Religion"Koran 5:3
Islam is the compilation of all previous Scriptures
Christians don't believe in the Prophecy of Mohamed (PUH) and Jews don't believe in Jesus but Muslims believe in Both Jesus and Moses( PU THEM )
Think about it

Nothing to think about, Islam is NOTHING but a man made religion(Allah is also a man made desert God) that was founded ONLY because the founders wanted to discredit the Jewish and Christian narratives, the mythical Adam has nothing to do with Islam, Mohamed and his cohort invented the LIE that is Islam. . . .Islam is nothing other than following an ancient Arabic tradition and culture that was predicated on discrediting other earlier cultures(Christianity and Judaism) by stealing and modifying their stories

There is NO true religion, NOTHING like that exist anywhere. . . .ALL religions are nothing but man made cultures created for various reasons. . . . .All the Gods of man made religions are man made. . . . . . .If there is a God out there that created the universe believe me NOBODY knows what it is, what it wants and how it operates. . .All man made religions and the Gods the religions created are pure sentimental bullshit as someone here stated. . . . .

^^^^

What is wrong with this slave of Allah?

Deep sight my man. . . . .

aletheia:
@Topic: The answer to your question is right there in Genesis 6.
The human DNA pool had become corrupted by fallen angels leading to abnormal offspring called---nephilim in the Hebrew; the flood wiped the slate clean.

No where in the bible does it state that the purpose of the flood was to cleanse the earth of nephilim if you know any part of the bible where such was written you can easily post it. . . . . . From the bible

Gen 6: 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

According to the bible MAN was continually sinning and God regretted ever creating man, NOT nephilim or what ever you are trying to have us believe. . . . . .He then promised to destroy everything including animals as well, were the animals also corrupted by the fallen angels too?. . . .I very much understand your excuse to create or make things up for a story that you fear does not add up when well scrutinized.

^^

As long as it is properly referenced, wikipedia is JUST fine. . . . . . .

Deep Sight:
^^^ That is very well known. Like I did say, we cannot know for sure if there was ever a global flood. What I did mention are mere posers and the possibility you mentioned, whilst legitimate does not operate to rule out other possibilities, or does it?

Do you know what a global flood means?. . . .There is no science that can explain a global flood of that magnitude, for example where did all the water come from and where did it all go to?. . . . .A flood that will cover the entire earth including all the mountain tops is impossible in reality unless in stories. . . . . .

Deep Sight:
I do not entirely discountenance the possibility of a global deluge. There are three reasons for this -

1. Sea shells have been found on mountain tops. It is not inconceivable that in an era gone by, the sea level was simply much higher than it is today.

I believe you need to study mountain formation, the mountain tops you see were once normal lands that were elevated, as the land rises due to plate tectonics they fossilized materials like sea shells and other stuff that were already fossilized remain within them . . . . .Here is a simple video that explains mountain formation. . . .

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngV66m00UvU?fs=1&hl=en_US"[/flash]

^^

You dey vex ohhh. . . .

^^

Mallam yane? ka share ni kuwana kin nan kuwa. . . . .Mai labari ne mazaaaaaaa?

According to the bible men were once so sinful and disobedient to God to the extent that God had to wipe them all off (except for Noah and his family) and started a fresh. . . .So what exactly did the Noah's flood achieve since men continued to sin and be disobedient to the same God very shortly after the flood, to the extent that God according to the bible some times comes down himself to fight and kill the disobedient and sinful men himself? What EXACTLY did the Noah's flood achieve? I am assuming here that the story was real and not fictional. . . . .

opabukun:
perfect gentleman he was!
In 1963, on his annual leave,he was spotted relaxing with his sons in his farm house near Bauchi.
such an humble man. RIP
I will post d pic later.
or check front page of BottomLINE Mag. Sept. - Oct., 2010 edition

Yeah, he was truly a very humble man according to those that knew him. . . . .The present crop of northern leaders are pathetic. . . .

^^

Very interesting piece you have up there. . . . . . .

Pastor AIO:
I think he means James meeting Jesus 4 times after his resurrection.

According to what some other person wrote, right?. . . . .No where did any James stated himself that he ever meet any Jesus in any part of the bible. . . . .

harakiri my man. . . . .

alexleo:
[b]davidylan is just telling you people the truth and nothing but the truth [/b]and because you atheists hate to hear the truth which was the chief reason you abadoned the way of God thats why you keep complaining, abusing and all sorts of trash we get from you people in the name of atheism.
May God save your soul.

Which "truth" has davidylan told any body here?. . . . .It seems you clearly do not know what the word truth means so stop misusing it. . . . .

davidylan:
Did you read 1 Cor 15? Same old problem . . . arguing from a position of unintelligent closed mindedness. you simply saw the quote from Jim Walker and somehow you believe its true. Well lets read the facts:

1. NONE of the new testament letters (yes there were all letters to a growing church which is why diaries, itineraries and folks they met are not included) . . . were meant to be regarded as a litany of activities by the authors. For instance. NOWHERE in his letters does Paul tell us anything about his father, mother, whether he had brothers or sisters (we read about his being celibate because he was making a point on marriage to the romans) or friends. Does this mean he never had any of the above?

I mean seriously are these guys that blind?

What is this man saying?. . . . .Learn to argue coherently. . . .I repeat there is NON of the writers of the new testament that has ever claimed to have seen or know Jesus beside the writer of second peter whom most scholars believe is a forgery. . . . .NON of the writers of the gospels has ever claimed to have meet Jesus, all you have are documents flowing around which were written by UNKNOWN men about some one called Jesus, documents which were made available and became popular to most people in the 2nd and 3rd century AD(100s of years after the death of the Jesus character they wrote about). . . . .

Gospel of Mark
The author of this book never identifies himself at all, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to the Church tradition, Mark was a secretary of Peter and he never met Jesus. This Gospel, like all of them, started out as an un-named book, no body till this day knows who wrote that gospel.

Gospel of Matthew
The author of this book never identifies himself also, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to the Church tradition it was written by an apostle but it never says so, and it mentions Matthew without the slightest hint that HE was writing it.

Gospel of Luke
The author of this book never identifies himself too, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to the Church tradition it was written by a follower of Paul.

Gospel of John
According to tradition this Gospel was written by the apostle John, and the last chapter says :
" This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true."
It is very clear from reading it that this is part of a chapter that was added to the Gospels, and it is clearly someone else making a claim for the book. It most certainly does not even come close to specific claim that anyone personally met Jesus.

All the stories we have in the bible are stories written very long after the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus by UNKNOWN people and were later ascribed to various names according to the Church tradition and NOT the authors themselves. . . . . .

James wrote only 5 chapters . . . on the basis of your argument we can conclude that he had no parents, no family, no house, he wasnt born anywhere (afterall we dont read him saying i was born in so and so) . . .

You were the one that said James said he meet Jesus while Jesus was alive and I asked you to show me where James wrote that he had ever meet any Jesus. . . . . .

2. 1 Cor 15:4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Paul references him meeting James at least 4 times!

Since when did James become Jesus?. . . . .

davidylan:
Dolemite and Mazaje would do well to read the works of Celsus . . . a greek philosopher who was seriously anti-christian (so the excuse that his works are an interpolation from modern day christians or he copied from christian sources doesnt arise here).

He makes records of Christ's birth, parents, journey, miracles and all.

See there really is no excuse at all save to those who choose not to see.

What is this?, Firstly the work of Celsus as we know them to be today were brought to us by Christian apologist, His original work has been lost. . . .From wikipedia. . . .

Celsus was the author of an anti-Christian work titled "The true discourse". The work is lost, but much of it is preserved word-for-word in the pages of a refutation by Origen.
Celsus and his work are unknown other than from the refutation of his work by Origen. Unfortunately Origen knew little about him. He knew that he "has already been dead for a long time"[1] and had heard that there were two philosophers of that name, both Epicureans, one living in the time of Nero, the other in Hadrian's time or later.[2] He treats Celsus as an Epicurean, therefore, although with some hesitation[3].
Eusebius of Caesarea also mentions the work in his Contra Hieroclem but it is unclear whether he ever saw it, or simply knew Origen's refutation

Secondly, Celsus wrote about Jesus about 200 years after the death of Jesus, Celsus did write as if he thought that Jesus was a real Palestinian who did things that were recorded in the gospels and was crucified under Pilate, and he referred to the miracles. But he seems to have just accepted the Christians account. He is not an independent witness to Jesus. There is not one single writing from or about Jesus during his supposed lifetime. Al he was trying to discredit were the popular Christian claims, he wrote about 200 years after the alleged death of Jesus, so how are his writings not based on hear say?. . . .All of the non-Christian references to Jesus can be shown to have either been introduced later by Christian scribes or were originally based on Christian claims. . ,  . .

Philo, a prolific Jewish writer who lived from 20 BCE to 50 CE, wrote extensively about the political and theological movements throughout the Mediterranean, and his views foreshadowed Christian theology, yet he never once wrote anything about Jesus. Not only this, but he actually wrote about political conflicts between the Jews and Pontius Pilate in Judea

alexleo:
@mazaje,
keep deceiving yourself even in the face of numerous facts that has been presented to you by various christians in this forum.

Pls stop misusing he word fact here, No body has ever presented any fact here with regards to the Christian faith, How does believe in ancients stories that has absolute NO basis in reality equate to fact?. . . . . .All you and others like you have put forth is your own personal beliefs with has nothing to do with reality by the way. . . . . .

apart from historical facts which you have always foolisly faulted (to your own peril though),

What are the historical facts, beside the lying gospels who's author remain unknown till this day and the lying writings of the early Church fathers who else talks about Jesus as it apears in the gospels?. . . . The gospels are NOT historical documents but religious document whose main purpose is to make people believe in what ever the writers wrote down. . . . .I repeat the gospels are NOT historical documents but religious documents. . ,

how about the present day evidence of one of your fellow atheist in this forum with the name banom? Didnt he give his testimony here of how he woke up and felt something strange and wonderful that made him know that there is God? After reading it what was your response? You people are just deceving yourselves, hiding away from the truth about God. You think we have anything to lose if you refuse to repent? We are just carrying out the responsibility given to us by Jesus and if you reject it you have yourself to blame at last. May God help you.

Ohh, so personal feelings mans there is God ,eh? Since when?. . .What about others that felt very strong feelings and it lead them to leave Christianity to Islam or other religions? Pls talk sensible and stop talking off point. . .The rest of your drivel is not worth responding to. ,

^^

VERY well said Purist. . . . .

Pastor AIO:
Didn't you hear that Mohammad flew from mecca to the temple in Jerusalem. What is wrong with you?

I heard that he also made a tree cry and divided the moon into two. . . . . .

davidylan:
considering that God can do ALL THINGS.

All this talk about God being able to do all things is really funny, one thing I know no God can do is heal amputees and restore their amputated limbs. No God can make any body fly from one point to another, so enough of God can do all things mantra. . . . .God can do all things in stories writte about God by men but not in reality. . . . .

alexleo:
@Dolemite,
you can see so far in this argument that you are the one misguided about God and not your mother. Atheists are always uncomfortable when they are confronted with the truth about Jesus.
You people claim that atheism has removed the fear of hell from you as if removing fear of hell from your heart makes hell none existent. If a car temperature is rising and you disconnect the guage from reading it does that mean that the engine has stopped over heating? When some of you atheists talk i see emptiness in your reasons.
Istill pray you go back to God and serve him in spirit and in truth  not according to your own selfish way. God will help you.

This one keeps making empty assertions, pls what are the "TRUTH" about Jesus that makes the atheist uncomfortable?Since when did stories that you have been indoctrinated to believe in through "faith" since childhood equate to truth or reality. . . . . .The way some of you guys go about confidently spewing rubbish is truly amazing. . . . .Fear of hell, eh, nice to know that your religion is predicated ONLY on fear. . . . .

davidylan:
Stup[i]i[/i]d. Its like saying there is more proof that pope John paul II existed than pope bartholomew . . . of course one existed at least 500 - 700 yrs after the other had died.

If there was a man behind the Jesus "myth" . . . tacitus clearly refers to him as the CHRIST.

Again we are back to the same issue - arguing from a position of blind dogma. As far as you are concerned, Christ didnt exist so you are trying to twist everything to fit that conclusion even when they dont.

Firstly, the name Christ simply means the anointed one and there were many Christ during the 1st century. Josephus wrote that emperor Vespasian was the Christ, so nothing new or unique there. . . .secondly, you seem to be making things up and running commentary on them, cos I never said that Jesus did not exist, I personally believe that there is a man behind the Jesus story just as there are men behind other religious legends. . . . .

See this argument really doesnt make sense to the rational mind . . . [b]one example - we talk about the hanging gardens of babylon . . . and we regard it RIGHTLY as being historically true [/b]even though evidence comes from writers who lived centuries AFTER the wall existed! Seriously? Hearsay is only a problem when it comes to that of Jesus?

Again you are just running commentary on your own. . . .I don't believe in any hanging gardens of babylon, I wont believe in it until I see sufficient evidence for it. . . .Here say is always a problem for all unsubstantiated clams not only that of Jesus. . . . .

davidylan:
Please read 1 Corinthians 15 and stop making an ignorant fool of urself.

Pls learn to read before hurrying up to expel nonsense. . . . My assertion still remains, NO writer of the bible has ever claimed to have meet Jesus in person when Jesus was alive, NOT even Paul, Paul always talked about having vision of Jesus and that's it. . . . .Paul claims 500 others had a vision of Christ. The Gospels do not mention that, no other writer mentions that, and we have no names or evidence for any of the 500. Even IF it happened  they had a VISION like Paul  nothing historical, but this is NOT the point, If a man named Jesus existed so what? A man named Mohammed existed too, the founders of other religions existed too, did a man name Jesus really die and resurrected on the 3rd day?. . . . .Did Mohammed really ascend to heaven on the back of a wing beast?. . . . .That's what I am more interested in not the existence of the people behind the myth. . . The existence of Jesus, Mohammed or the founder of any religion is not the point am really interested in. . . . .

davidylan:
This makes no sense . . . at all . . . for instance from tacitus - "Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the
reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea,
where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also."

Does that sound like someone who was merely "challenging a myth"? That was CLEARLY attributing that Christ did exist, He did have a following (christians), christianity originated from Judeah and it spread far and wide up into Rome.

Even Tacitus called the Jesus story a superstition, a superstition is not reality is it? Here it is again from the annals. . , 

"Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of,  Pontius Pilate, and the pernicious [or wicked] superstition [Christianity] was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital [Rome] itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue."

My arguments is NOT if Jesus existed or not, that is not my argument, as I said there is more evidence to show that prophet Mohammed existed than that of Jesus, his grave is still there in Saudi Arabia, what I am more interested in is the reality of the story, its very possible that there was a man behind the Jesus myth. just like the Mohammed myth and other mythical stories like that of Buddah etc

There are two things i would like to point out briefly:

1. You cant reserve certain arguments for the bible ALONE. To say that because the early historians were somehow not alive during the time of Christ invalidates their historical accounts is ludicrous. I notice this argument is only used when it comes to denouncing the bible . . . its funny however that VIRTUALLY 100% of the pagan claims that are also used by you and others to criticize the bible where also written by men who didnt exist until thousands of yrs after these mythical gods ever existed.

2. Rushing off to plagiarize internet arguments and co-opting it as urs is dishonest.

Some one talking about Obama in 100 or 200 years time after his death without ever seeing Obama is only relying on hear say assuming there are no videos and other electronic recordings of Obama. . . . . . .Tacitus and all were writing over 100 years after the death of Jesus, how is their written account of Jesus not hear say?

davidylan:
Paul did dude. Stop making nonsense up. James did as well.

I mean seriously, you just posted James Walker's first point! do you have an independent brain at all? Read through the paragraph that deals with that issue . . . he writes a long treatise but NOT ONCE does he cite any credible source. So on what basis are we to take his claims seriously? Because he says what you want to hear?

Where did Paul say that he ever meet Jesus when Jesus was alive?. . . . .Where did James ever say that he ever meet Jesus when Jesus was alive, WHERE?. . . . .

Paul
Paul never met a historical Jesus, and never claimed to.
He did claim to have had revelations "thru Christ" etc.
He did claim to have had a vision of Christ.
And others (Acts) claim Paul had a vision of Christ.

It is worth noting that Paul does not place Jesus in history :
* No places - Paul never mentions Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary, etc.
* No dates - Paul never places Jesus in time.
* No names - Paul never mentions Mary, Joseph, Pilate, Judas, Nicodemus, Lazarus etc.
* No miracles - Paul never mentions the miracles/healings of Jesus
* No trial/tomb - Paul never mentions the trial or the empty tomb etc.
Paul's Jesus is a heavenly being, not a historical person. . . . . . .



James

There is no claim to have met Jesus in this letter , supposedly from Jesus' BROTHER, Yet it contains NOTHING anywhere about a historical Jesus, even where we would expect it. It is clear this writer had never even HEARD of a historical Jesus. If you have any passage in James where the writer says he has ever meet Jesus pls show me. . . . .

davidylan:
and just in case you also doubt the veracity of Christ's very existence on earth . . . here is more for you WITH CREDIBLE SOURCES AND LINKS to historical accounts (stuff that doesnt exist for the pagan myths our atheist "scientists" seem to claim to be "facts" . . .

http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_historicity.html

These links are based purely on hear say, most of the people (the writers talked about) were NOT alive when Jesus was born or when he was said to be alive, most were just challenging the Christian claims later on some about a century or more after the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus, NO body, I repeat NO body even the writers of the bible beside the writer of second peter has ever claimed to have meet Jesus when he was alive. . . . .

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

davidylan:
what's illogical about it? I guess the opposing belief that you descended from monkeys is a much better alternative?

Where did she declare that she believes she descended from monkeys?

This is the go-to argument for those grasping at straws. there are historical documents supporting his birth and plenty of the claims in the bible . . . the problem is many of you are simply not interested in researching about what you were taught. You'd be surprised how much evidence exists that corroborates the bible even down to the names of the ancient towns.

Pls where are the historical evidence that support the birth of Jesus outside the bible?. . . .The bible is NOT a historical document but a religious document and we all know what a religious document is. . . .So because the bible has the name of real places means its stories are true, eh?. . . .If you read "Gone With the Wind" you will find accurate descriptions of Atlanta and the US Civil War, when you tell fictional stories which occur in real places, the places being real doesn't affect the fictionalization of the stories. Mohamed's grave is still there for all to visit in Saudi Arabia, the names of real places exist in the Koran and the haddith , so how does that validate the claim that Mohamed was visited by and angel and told to do most of what the things others wrote about him?. . . . .

that to me seals it. I was posting in the other thread how a lot of the time atheists DOUBT first then go around ferreting for excuses to justify their doubt. Most of the time there is no basis for the doubt save you simply want to throw the bible overboard.

The way you go about confidently spewing rubbish makes me laugh most of the time. . . . . .

davidylan:
very simple - Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

It doesnt matter if another sect decides to concoct their own spin. the manual has laid it clear to us.

Good, most sects I know COMPLETELY agree with the verse you have up there, so on what basis then do you go about declaring that others(Catholics for example) are not true Christians? I know a lot of Catholics for example that fully agree and profess this biblical passage you have up there, but to you and others like you, they are not true Christians, how then do you know that they are not true Christians when the bible has declared that they are Christians?. . . Catholics believe that they are the Children of God and have faith in Christ, a lot of them are also baptized into Christ, so on what basis then do you go around declaring that they and others are not truly Christians?

davidylan:
again with you folks it boils down to personal insults and no attempt to address pertinent issues. Pigs sure fly if one expects any atom of intelligence from your posts.

You should be the last person that should be complaining about insults, some one like you that is VERY well known for insulting others most of the time. . . .You fools used to be your favorite word, no?. . . . .

Having said that - i repeat quite clearly (it seems many NEVER read, they simply post), the bible and NOT ME is the standard for who a christian is. By the bible standards even i fall very short . . . all of us do, we simply rely on His grace for help.

I want to know what the biblical standard is since most Christians are yet to agree on what it really is. . . . .

When you buy an equipment and it behaves erratically, do you refuse to buy another equipment because you're not sure how others may behave? No you figure out how it shld normally work based on the manufacturer supplied manual.

In the case of the bible people are yet to understand what the manufactures manual truly is. . . . .

Extend the same to christianity and all problems are solved.

Now i do understand that a lot of opposition to christianity follows a fairly clear pattern:

1. Opposition comes first regardless of the validity of the arguments again

2. atheists then build a case against the bible on the basis of their initial baseless opposition. We used to call that wuruwuru to the answer in those days.

What exactly are the "valid arguments"?. . . . .The same can be said about your opposition to Islam, no. . . .I laugh in hebrew. . . . .