₦airaland Forum

Missy B:
Why don't you shut up and ignore this thread
if you have nufffin reasonable to type?
Must you spend every second of your life mocking??

Thank you Lord for today . . . . Grant me the spirit of tolerance please father.

Pepeye:
Proverbs 18-6-7

A FOOLS lips enters into contention.

And his mouth calls for blows

A fool’s mouth is his destruction


Psalm 14- 1

The FOOL has said in his heart; There is no God!

May kelly:
A fool has said in his heart "there is no God"

Ibime:
Hehehehe. . . . . what rubbish!. . . . how do you arrest 500 men with weapons so easily? . . . . . It took Indian Police 3 days to kill 10 men with weapons in Mumbai. . . . talkless of 500 men with weapons. . .

knotty:
even if a thousand die on Saturday
be sure, we will still sing songs of praise on Sunday

i would have been in Jos on Friday
in your wisdom, you postponed the journey

not till i learnt of the carnage
did i appreciate your highest wisdom

eshe, Baba

to those who lost loved one,
take heart.
may His peace, which passeth all understandng, come to you.

RedHotChic:
What is the age of reckoning in Islam?

Here on earth, there're only two types of living that makes up this earth,
those with spirit and those with the souls,
a spirit is the core of a human being, and this spirit has a gift incorporated in it, and it is known as the free will. That is the desire to make a choice. The free will can be liken to a converging lens, that collects the power of the sun rays and converge to point either for good purposes or otherwise.
A soul, is condition a spirit when it jhas put on another cloak on itself, but this cloak is not the physical human body. A soul can also be likened to the state in which when a human being shed off this physical earth body, but that state should not be compared to the spirit, the spirit is still inside of the soul, it is only when the soul makes its way back to paradise the spiritual home of the human spirit, that the spirit core remains, because along the way to paradise the spirit continues to shed off the cloaks of different gradations when journeying up.
Then where doest the soul of the animals come from?
The souls of the animals come from a point in creation which is known as the ANIMISTIC REALM. This soul of animal is different from the spirit of man, all because it has no free willof its own, and also it cannot attain self-consciousness. The animals swing in total harmony in the will of the creator, they never do otherwise, because they lack free will. No matter what an animal does, the creator don't see any wrong in it, so it is now left for we humans to be weary of them and also to strife and understand them (the animals) better.
When animals die, the soul go back to that realm of the Animistic Substantiality, because that is where they originate from.
The place where the spirit of mankind originates from is higher than that of the animals, that is why an animal can nevr become a human being and vice-versa.
But these animals stand higher in creation than mankind of today, because they fully obey the laws of the almighty.

OLAADEGBU:
You are certainly a troubled soul and you need help. The poster's question is loud and clear about what happens to children when they die, and here you are diverting the topic to address your concerns for the world, are you God? Deal with your own problem first before you think about what will happen to the world.

OLAADEGBU:
@mazaje,

Are you alright?

OLAADEGBU:
Hold on a minute, don't be too quick to jump to the conclusion that there is no hell, you might just get what you wished for. Hell is a reality. A research team in Siberia made a shocking discovery as they drilled deep down into the crust of the earth, they reached a large empty pocket and the temperature reached 2000 degrees fahrenheit when they heard the sounds coming from the earth's interior. They could hear thousands, perhaps millions, in the background, tormented screams. They recorded the sounds and sent the copy to a radio station. Listen to the actual sounds of souls tormented in hell in the videolink below.

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=505c33a5007bc38d456c

OLAADEGBU:
Watch this short videoclip and see how it is statistically improbable for the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years old, and see how Mathematics confirms the accuracy of the Bible's account.

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=065a1683c022d2077d34

Quote from: OLAADEGBU on October 25, 2008, 02:31 PM
Then we came to a place where there were millions and millions of children, of all ages. When they saw the Lord, all of them wanted to hug Him, to feel more of His love, because He was their passion. Jesus was the passion of each child there. We felt like crying after seeing how the Lord spoiled each one of these children, how He kissed them and held their hands.
We saw how angels got close to the Lord, bringing Him babies wrapped in linen. The Lord caressed, touched, and gave them a kiss on their foreheads and then the angels took them back with them. We asked the Lord why there were so many children there, were those children going to be sent to the Earth. The Lord sounded touched for a moment, and He said, "No, these children will not be sent to the Earth! These are the ones that were aborted on the Earth, whose parents don't want to have them. These are my children and I love them." I nodded my head, and even my voice trembled to ask the Lord such a question.
When I didn't know the Lord, the true Life that He is, I made mistakes and sinned like everybody else. Among those sins was an abortion I had. There was a moment where I had to be face to face with the Lord and ask Him, "Lord, is the baby I aborted, long ago, here?". The Lord answered, "Yes." I started walking to one of the sides and I saw a beautiful little boy. Close to his feet stood an angel. The angel was looking at the Lord, and the boy had his back facing us.
The Lord told me, "Look, there is your boy." I wanted to see him so I ran over to him, but the angel stopped me with his hand. He showed me that I had to listen to the boy first. I started to hear what the little boy was saying. He was talking and looking in the direction of the other children. He asked the angel, "Are my daddy and my mommy coming here soon?" The angel, looking at me, answered to him, "Yes, your daddy and your mommy are just about to come."
I do not know why I was given the privilege of hearing these words, but in my heart I knew that these words were the best gift that the Lord could give to me. This little one was not talking with anger, or pain, maybe knowing that we did not let him be born. He was simply waiting with the love that God had placed in his heart.

We continued walking, but I kept the image of that boy in my heart. I know that each day I have to make an effort to be able to be with him one day. I have one more reason to go there, because someone is waiting for me in the Kingdom of Heaven. The Word of God tells us in Isaiah 65:19, "I too will rejoice over Jerusalem and Will delight in My people. No more will there be heard in her the voice of weeping or the voice of crying."

RedHotChic:
Let me quote Oladeegbu for you:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-187562.0.html

You may also read in Romans 9:15; Exodus 33:19 and you will find out that God's sovereignty over His mercy is stated. God has made it clear that no act of grace or mercy is merited by man and that His own will was the basis of all His blessings. For this reason I believe that all children who die prematurely before they reach the age of accountability will make heaven because of what Jesus has done. Rom.5:12-21. And this has nothing to do with the false notion of infant baptism.

OLAADEGBU:
@mazaje,

Why don't you do the right thing if you so much believe in this islamic faith, prophet and All'ah, go to the Islamic forum and post the details of the testimony that you alone claimed to have seen, citing the weblink, tv station or other evidences to corroborate your story.

God has given you a free will to exercise as you like, the choice of life and death has been presented before you, your decision will determine where you will spend your eternity. Those who have chosen to go to hell have done so out of their own volition. Remember that hell is self perpetuating, God will not force those who cannot stand Him here on earth to live eternally with Him forever.

You are so funny, so bc it happened to your friend and @ RCCG which is probably your church, the miracle is genuine? Well you talk about 1 egg being replaced, i have seen a little boy who from birth had no balls (with doctors report to attest to the fact) having his 2 balls appear in between his legs during a CEC meeting.

DavidDylan:
where did it "clearly show" anything about authorship? 

arguing with you people is an exercise for the idiot . . . anyone hoping to have an serious[b] intellectual discourse [/b]with you is in for a shocker.

DavidDylan:
this is pretty daft. There are thousands of ancient documents where the authors don't specifically indicate themselves as the authors. Surprisingly no one questions authorship of the documents . . . except of course when it comes to the bible.
As usual you have gone to copy and paste long tomes you don't have any idea about. I can equally paste websites specifically providing strong evidence of the authors of the gospels especially the books of Mark, Matthew and Luke.

so the books just appeared like magic without authors?
you can "say" whatever you wish, you're flat out wrong.

The authors are "unknown" to you because as long as they are known it puts another dent in your frustrated attempts to delegitimise the bible.

DavidDylan:
The funny thing about mazaje's poor copy-paste job is how disconnected it is from his earlier argument.

the argument is on authorship of the gospels but his write up is on a totally different subject entirely! SOURCE!

The Canonical Gospels




Most likely for no other reason than to round out the beasts of the apocalypse, John was chosen to be one of the four Gospels. For the sake of cohesive inerrancy, it would have been more beneficial in its absence. Although the author doesn’t venture too far on a tangent from the life of Jesus depicted in the other canon Gospels, there are some distinguished omissions in this account. The most notable absences are the exorcism of devils, the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer, Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness, the transfiguration, the virgin birth from Mary, the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus’ proclamations of his return, and every last one of the parables. Scholars agree that the original Gospel of John started at 1:19 and ended at 20:31. Furthermore, they’ve determined that the remainder of the book seems heavily edited and reworked. For these reasons, John fails to be an unquestionably reliable and synoptic source of divine inspiration for the story of Jesus.

Scholars unanimously agree that Mark is the most primitive of the four canon Gospels. Its details are relatively less developed, consequently making this biography of Jesus very brief. Interestingly, Jesus’ primary biographer was obviously a distant Roman who never knew him. In fact, the original version of Mark doesn’t even contain Jesus’ appearance following his crucifixion (16:9-19)! This concession is made in the NIV but left out of the KJV. Even though the author was from Rome, he provided enough minor details to have a fair understanding of his subject. Why, then, would he leave out the indispensable element of the world’s most important story unless he lived during a period without a resurrection rumor?

Since about 80% of the verses in Mark appear verbatim in Matthew, we can seemingly tell that the author of Matthew used Mark as a template when writing his own account. However, he alters many of Mark’s details and adds several stories presumably unknown to its author. The Gospel of Matthew most certainly had a Jewish writer since he strives to correct many of the mistakes arising from Mark’s ignorance of local knowledge. Since we have no clear evidence that the author of Matthew was one of Jesus’ disciples, we can’t rule out the likely possibility of its author simply plagiarizing the Mark account in order to make it more acceptable to residents of the Middle East. It’s far too coincidental for the writings to match so well in some passages and contradict in others for there not to have been some minor transcribing taking place. Thus, we’ll analyze the contrasting details of the two accounts in order to exemplify the unreliability of the latest God-inspired product.

Mark (1:2) makes an incorrect reference to Hebrew scripture by quoting Malachi 3:1 as being the work of Isaiah. The KJV does not contain this error, although biblical translations concerned more with honesty and accuracy than advancing inerrancy leave the misattribution in the text. Needless to say, the more knowledgeable Matthew author doesn’t repeat Mark’s mistake. Mark also claims that only God can forgive the sin of another (2:7), but that’s a direct contrast to actual Jewish beliefs, which hold that other men can forgive sins as well. Again, Matthew drops this statement from the record (9:3). Mark mentions the region of Gadarenes being near a large body of water, but it’s about thirty miles from even a sizable lake (5:1). The Matthew author, realizing that Mark knows next to nothing about local geography, changes Gadarenes to Gergesenes, which is only a few miles from a lake (8:28).

Mark mentions multiple “rulers of the synagogue” even though almost all synagogues only had a single leader (5:22). The Matthew author corrected this phrase so that the reader could ambiguously interpret it as having only one ruler (9:18). Mark records Jesus ridiculing the ancient food laws set by God and Moses (7:18-19), but the author of Matthew, being a Jew, no doubt considered this to be sacrilegious and dropped the passage from his account (15:18-20). Mark also has Jesus misquoting one of the commandments as refraining from defrauding others (10:19). Meanwhile, Matthew strictly adheres to the exact commandments of Moses by omitting this curious deception rule but including the “love one another’’ summary commandment (19:18-19). The author of Mark strangely refers to David as “our father” (11:10). This is something no Jew would ever do because all Jews weren’t descendents of David. Seeing as how Abraham and Jacob would be the only individuals referred to in this manner, the desire for accuracy forces the Matthew author to correct another one of Mark’s blunders (21:9).

Mark also gets the traditional date for killing the Passover incorrect (14:12), but the Matthew author settles the mistake by omitting the phrase from his own work (26:17). The very next verse in Mark has Jesus ordering two of his disciples to locate a man bearing a pitcher of water (14:13). In Jewish culture, carrying pitchers of water was the work of a woman. Naturally, Matthew must drop this phrase as well (26:18). On the night of the crucifixion, Mark says that it’s the time before the Sabbath (15:42). Being a Roman, the author was obviously unaware that the Jewish day begins with the evening. Thus, the evening following the crucifixion wasn’t the night before the Sabbath; it was the start of it. Matthew must yet again omit one of Mark’s divinely inspired statements in the transcription (27:57). Unaware that the Sabbath had already arrived, Mark’s account has Joseph of Arimathaea buying linen to wrap around Jesus’ body (15:46). Because it was a sin to make purchases on the Sabbath, Matthew must consequentially drop that detail as well (27:59). Finally, Mark mentions “the fourth watch of the night” (6:48). The Jews actually divided the night into only three watches, while the Romans made the division into fourths.

The author of Matthew makes a few additional minor corrections from Mark’s account, but I trust that you get the point I’m attempting to convey. However uncomfortable it may feel, the divinely inspired author of the earliest Jesus biography, who seemingly invented details out of thin air, knew very little about what he was writing.

The Gospel of Luke begins with a surmised admission that the author didn’t personally experience any of the details contained within his account because he alleges the presence of eyewitnesses but fails to notify himself as one. Like Mark’s Gospel, Luke was probably narrated by an individual residing far from Jerusalem because he commits several translational errors when converting Old Testament Hebrew scripture into Greek. Additionally, in a manner similar to the way in which Mark was penned, Luke’s author goes into extensive detail on his explanations of local phenomena but not those pertaining to Rome. Following the lead of Matthew’s author, Luke’s consistent duplication of Mark’s verses seemingly indicates that he also relied heavily on that text when making his report. However, researchers soon discovered that they could not find 230 verses common to Matthew and Luke in the more ancient Mark.

The two more recent authors couldn’t have derived identical verses from a sole source void of necessary information. Consequently, we can only surmise the hypothetical existence of an even earlier document used by all three authors as a template. This deduction would eventually become known as the Q hypothesis (from the German Quelle, meaning source). The canonical appearance of quotes from Thomas’ Gospel reinforces the theoretical existence of Q. While Thomas was completed around the same time as John, it offered an entirely different perspective on the mystery of Jesus. Even though the Thomas account is nothing but a series of Jesus’ sayings, it may help to explain the origin of other Gospel material. Thus, it’s quite possible that a primitive set of quotes served as the foundation from which the Gospel legends arose. In such a scenario, the early Jews may have actually known a man who traveled about and shared his philosophies with a number of audiences. This individual may have even been executed for his heretical teachings. His followers would then collect these teachings on paper, only to later subject them to decades of human hyperbole.

DavidDylan:
I was waiting for this very question. Its a sad commentary on the double standard by which athiests try to force inconsistencies into the bible.

By this very same standard it can be claimed that thousands of ancient documents, whose authorships are surprisingly NEVER QUESTIONED, are also suspect and thus unreliable.