₦airaland Forum

Mr anony: This is a very poor response to prove that Mark made an geographical error, you must show that Gadarenes and Gerasenes are two distinct places that cannot possibly be the same place i.e. you must show that they are not mispellings of the same region or that one is a subregion of the other. Only when you properly show this can your claim stand

Yeah but Josephus and Tacitus also wrote about Augustus who they both never knew. Secondly, the earliest copy of Josephus we have is dated in the the 9th century AD while the earliest copies of Tacitus annals are dated at around 850 AD (interestingly in fact, there are those who actually hold that Tacitus writings were faked by medieval writers)
As I said to you whatever tests you put up, the New Testament trumps them by far.

I think this is the main root of your problem and why you are willing to throw all history under the bus. It is simply the fact that you don't believe in miracles nothing more.

And I have just shown you that that hardly counts as a good counter argument and I really don't know what you mean by "long after his death" especially since we have writings that show that Christ's resurrection was being preached within as little as 5 years after His death (See 1Corinthians 15:1-7).

Too bad for you because it is the same way historians investigate that news reporters and police detectives also carry out their investigations. I marvel at the extent you are willing to go to hold unto your unbelief.

Shifting goal posts now are we?


No one said anything about any intention to visit the villages at once. What I said is that the villages were named as the places near Mount Olives. If you cannot see from the map that the towns named in the verse are around mount Olives, then I'm afraid you are blind.

Arguing from silence now are we?

Lol...as I said, you don't know what embellishments are. Here's an article to help you more fairly evaluate the discovery of the early tomb.
http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2011/06/examining-a-bible-contradiction-who-discovered-the-empty-tomb/

By the way, you have been making the claim that the Gospel writers copied each other, this claim is not a scholarly consensus so how do you know this to be true? Remember you said that History scholars do not speak fact rather they rely on "intelligent guesses". How come you rely on scholar's intelligent guesses only when it helps your anti-Christian bias and reject it when it doesn't? You cannot have it both ways you know. You can't eat your cake and have it, my friend.

Lol, first of all, that's a poor excuse for an "interpolation". The same writer could just as easily have been switching from singular to plural in the same way I will in this following sentence.

"I believe Mazaje's claims are false unless he can provide us with proof". Is the last part of my sentence an interpolation? or is it merely me referring to my audience and myself as 'us'?

Secondly, you have claimed that John was written very late to be of any value. Interestingly the oldest gospel fragment actually comes from the Gospel of John (P52) and it is dated at about 125 AD. I wonder how you know that it was "written too late to be of any value"? When were Josephus works written again?

Thirdly, You claim John paints Christ in a different light than the others, care to show proof of this?

Fourthly, I have shown you that the gospel of John is an eyewitness testimony. Any further demand is unnecessary unless you can prove that it isn't.

Lololol, very interesting. So we are now comparing Luke to Gone with the Wind abi? Let me remind you that you have already conceded that the main character of Luke, Jesus Christ was a real person who existed and was executed by Pilate so your bringing up Gone with the wind is simply dishonest because Scarlet O'hara was never a real person.
The only way you can make a fair comparison is if you are ready to change your claim to Jesus Christ Himself did not exist and I'll like to see your argument for that.

Another poor argument. All you have done here is say "Luke is fiction because I say so"

Interesting. So Josephus was for all intents and purposes a Jewish apologist, yet you trust his history. How do you know he didn't twist some facts to make Jews look good? Why are you so reluctant to apply the same standards of criticism to your sources?

This is also untrue. We have reason to believe that Jesus and His disciples spoke Greek as well as they spoke Hebrew in much the same way I suppose you speak both English and Hausa fluently. How do you suppose Jesus conversed with The Roman centurion, the Syrophonecian woman and Pontius Pilate. How do you suppose Peter spoke with Cornelius, Lydia and other Greek members of the early church? With interpreters? Please come up with valid points and stop grasping.

I'll concede that Josephus was not primarily writing to Jews, but I'll maintain that in the same way the language in which his antiquities were written does not make them any less reliable and the same applies to the New Testament writers

And here you have thrown history under the bus again. The earliest copy of a text does not translate into "therefore it isn't true" or therefore that is when the original text was written. Even if I were to grant a 100 year gap between Christ and the earliest manuscripts of Christ that we have, He still does far better than Tacitus and Josephus writings whose earliest manuscripts show up at some 700 years after they have passed away. apart from that, you have a rich web of correspondence amongst His disciples and the early church fathers after His death and this rich web of information continues all the way down to the present day.

Lol, this is just weird logic. Which of the early church fathers are you referring to? could you name them? because these guys corresponded a lot with each other and the earlier ones with the apostles. They wrote letters to and from one another quoting the New testament in their writings and glorifying Christ.

By the way, think about it carefully, if they wanted to claim to be disciples of the disciples of Christ in order to gain legitimacy, wouldn't this mean that there was already a community existing who knew Jesus and His disciples and held them in respect? For instance if I claim that I am the brother of GEJ in order to gain legitimacy, there must already have been a GEJ that people know and respect before it can even make any sense for me to make that claim.

So even by making the weird claim you are making here, you are at the same time conceding that Christ and his apostles were great, mighty and famous enough for men in faraway Rome and Alexandria and Smyrna (by the way, the church fathers were from diverse countries) to claim to be strongly linked to Jewish fishermen from faraway Judea.

You logic as weird as it is still proves that the fame of Christ which you claim is an unknown was spread far and wide all over the empire. Could it be because He rose from the dead and His disciples travelled about preaching the message?

Even if you want to hold to your conspiracy theory, you still have to explain why men scattered all over the Roman empire who hardly met each other in person all suddenly decided to claim to be disciples of some unknown Jewish fishermen so as to gain a reputation amongst a community of people who already held these fishermen in the highest regard. Really?
Or maybe you want to tell me that while Clement was in Rome working on his scam, Ignatius was 1300 miles away in Antioch inventing the exact same scam, and Papias too was in faraway Heirapolis also working on the exact same scam as well. Dude please don't make me laugh

Lol once again he throws history under the bus with his "historically true does not really mean true". I have asked you to provide your source for this Justin Martyr claim of yours and yet you still haven't

Please provide some of these stories as well as the source for this Justin Martyr claim.

Lol which ones in particular do you have in mind, let us test them side by side with the bible accounts.

Did you miss the part in your bible where Christ went out of His way to preach to Samaritan Gentiles? Did you miss the part where Christ commands His disciples to go into the world and preach the gospel to every creature?

Did you miss john 6:51?
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Please my friend bring up reasonable objections worth discussing.

9jakool: Christian to Muslim to muslim ratios:
Kwara- 45:55
Niger- 35:65
Kaduna- 40:60
Plateau- 80:20
Nassarawa- 50:50
Kogi- 60:40
Ekiti- 70:30
Oyo- 50:50
Borno- 20:80
Abuja- 50:50
Ondo- 65:35
Lagos- 50:50
Osun- 50:50
Benue- 95:5
Ogun- 50:50
Adamawa- 50:50
Taraba- 60:40
Bauchi- 30:70
Gombe- 50:50

Mr Troll: Nice back and forth so far. I must say I'm very impressed by both parties. Anony more so. Anyway, I'd like to make some input based on this quote herein...

By the standards Mazaje has been using, it is quite possible to fault other historical accounts. He himself has said it that most historians do not consider orally passed down history as absolute fact(something like that I think).
Now there's a subtle yet very important difference between other ancient historical accounts and the bible. If today it is proven for example, that plato was in fact not a real person but just a figment of Aristotles imagination then all the works supposedly accredited to him might have to be counted as false, BUT that still doesn't change the fact that they are great writings, philosophical truths etc and heck! Nobody has ever considered them to be inviolable truths, nations have not gone to war because of their belief in such historical accounts, people do not hinge their whole existence here on earth to a promise made in those writings. I hope you do see the point I'm making, that as far as ancient history is concerned especially those recorded based on hear say, it is very dangerous to base your whole life existence on the claims of men 2000 yrs ago whom by modern day standards cannot be absolutely verified to be historically accurate, let alone divinely inspired.
My half cent

Mr anony: Lol, I wonder what you mean by minor and major. Bear in mind that Matthew and Mark for instance are 90% similar. I think you should really do the experiment with your friends. The results would interest you very much.

Lol, "many" is a very vague word. If I said "most Nigerians are civilians", telling me that many Nigerians are soldiers does not refute my claim at all. 1 million military Nigerians counts as many but it is still less than 1% of the Nigerian population. So of course many people wrote about people they knew but this is not what I said. Here is what I said:

"almost all the ancient history you know was written by people who never met those they wrote about."

All you have to do to prove me wrong is provide examples of ancient historical characters (excluding Church history) from before the time of Christ up until around the end of the Roman empire written by people who actually knew these characters. I'll wager that I can provide two characters for every one character you produce.

I'll even push further to argue that based on your contentions, you are equally discounting the works of modern historians working today because almost all of them definitely weren't born and don't personally know the people they are writing about. In fact according to your argument, we must also reject any modern day historian that writes anything about events that happened in 1800 for instance.

According to your argument criticizing the New testament writers for writing in Greek and not Hebrew, How about those modern day historians who are currently writing African history in English? Should we discredit their work too?

Let us play fair with the evidence here and stop being irrational. If you are going to apply some lofty unreasonable standard to one text, then please apply the exact same same standard to all other texts.

Lol, it says it right there in the text. Did you miss it?

Mark 11:1-3 And when they drew near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, He sent out two of His disciples and said to them, "Go into the village in front of you, and immediately as you enter it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat. Untie it and bring it. If anyone says to you, 'Why are you doing this?' say, 'The Lord has need of it and will send it back here immediately.

That burden of proof is yours to bear and not mine. You are the one who was claiming that Mark did not know which cities came first on the way from Jordan to Jerusalem. It is up to you to tell us how you knew that he was trying to tell us which city came first especially with the verse and the map I've shown you. Don't shift try to shift your burden to me

Apparently, not all ran away...

John 18:12 So the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus and bound him.
John 18:13 First they led him to Annas, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year.
John 18:14 It was Caiaphas who had advised the Jews that it would be expedient that one man should die for the people.
John 18:15 Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest,
John 18:16 but Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the servant girl who kept watch at the door, and brought Peter in.

I hope you know that in order to claim that a story is embellished, you must be able to demonstrate that the extra added details are actually false either by providing and defending what the truth ought to be or by showing logical incompatibility in the account. Failure to do that and you cannot make that claim.

Lol, interesting. So your modus operandi is to start by claiming that there is no eyewitness because you find nobody that claimed to witness the event. But then when shown one: someone clearly claiming to have witnessed the event you claim that it is an interpolation. How exactly do you know this? or is it just something that stems from your anti-bible bias? So far all I have seen from you is "it is false because I say so".

You have made the claim that it is an interpolation and therefore have inherited the burden of proof. If you fail to conclusively show that it is an interpolation. I'll just have to disregard your comment as an empty rant.

I listed a few names of historical characters for you. Look them up on wikipedia and you will see that the writings of Luke are cited among the sources for their life stories. That puts an end to your claim that Luke is not studied in historical circles.

About Luke not naming himself in his work, I have explained how that doesn't change anything about the authenticity of his story. You can argue about the authenticity of the author but that is an entirely different argument from the authenticity of his story. For instance, did you know that the earliest copy of Josephus works that we have is dated at least 700 years after Josephus is supposed to have died? Also by the way, Josephus wrote in Greek to Jews about Jewish history. (I hope you realize that this firmly refutes your contention that the writers of the New testament were not writing to a Hebrew audience)

in his most famous work The Republic coupled with the fact that the earliest copy of the republic that we have is dated at least 1000 years(one complete millennium) after Plato's death yet it is unthinkable for anyone to say that Plato didn't write The Republic. Let play fair with the evidence here.

If you want to criticize the gospel texts, then be ready to criticize every other text with the same standard let us see how well they do. Don't use a double standard and claim "interpolations" and "embellishments" especially when you haven't provided an ounce of proof anywhere

The bold is false because it would mean we'll have to throw a lot of classical writings down the toilet.
Secondly, I hope you know that the Church fathers you are talking about, some of them were actual contemporaries of the apostles or at most 1 generation apart; especially the ones who gave these books their names.

In the same way we know about Socrates from Plato, Plato from Aristotle and so on. So do we know about Christ from His disciple John, and John from his disciple Polycarp and so on.
(note that at each stage of the chain, these guys had contemporaries like Paul, Ignatius, Clement e.t.c. all corresponding in a very rich chain network of information - in fact it is said that one can build up the entire New testament just by the citations in the writings of the early church fathers). If you apply one measure to one thing, be sure to apply the same measure to another. No double standards here.

I notice that now you are beginning to play down the authenticity of ancient history just to keep your attack alive. Your argument that the bible is not divinely inspired only makes me laugh at this point because now you have seen that to deny the gospel truth will lead you into the dangerous waters of denying history itself, you cannot possibly make that claim anymore.
The New Testament account has passed the test of what will normally pass as historically true. By any measures you use to fault it, we must apply the same measures to other historical accounts and see if they pass. If they don't pass, then we must declare them false as well.

It is only after you have successfully proven that the gospels and epistles have failed as a historical truth that you can make the claim that it cannot possibly be divinely inspired. Until then, you have no basis upon which to make that claim.

And by "worse" you mean? Please be sure to name the other books it is worse than and in what sense it is worse other than merely your subjective opinion.

But the people Christ is referring to here are Jews. Can't you see how this destroys your claim that Jesus came exclusively for the Jews and didn't want non-Jews to be saved?

musKeeto: Oga Mazaje, good day
Hw fa u and folykaze waka?

Chibuebem: hmmm. Ok oga. Jesus still proves himself shaa. And i trusted in him when i felt the power of his spirit convict me. Have you felt this before? And i dont think science can detect God one day. He is a spiritual being, i dont think he can be detected with physical instrument

Pastor Kun: Real hall of shame

PS: meanwhile most of the wealth estimates are grossly underestimated.

stepone: The question is, is christianity/Islam a man made religion?

D sage: Let assume you were unable to say something about the other questions.

Back to your quoted,I'm sorry to say sir,to me both your original and subsequent statements were sorely based on what you read from scientists works. Have you ever for once try to study personal lives or what inspired the scientists you claimed you know much about?

You mentioned plain fly,computer and the breakthrough in the medical lines, when were those discoveries actually made?

Sir Francis Bacon, Blaise Pascal, Christopher Columbus, Isaac Newton among among many other are believer of God.

So, from where did you established your conclusion?

OLAADEGBU: For your information. God was also the first Surgeon when He surgically operated on Adam to bring forth Eve.

OLAADEGBU: Amen. My conclusion is whatever we do we should do it to the glory of the Lord. God was the first fashion designer when He probably made a leather jacket for Adam and a fur coat for Eve. But the motive was to cover their unclothedness and to dress decently. Anything that reveals or exposes what should be concealed should be done away with. We should endeavour to please our Lord in whatever we wear giving glory to God.

tbaba1234: There is no such as Altaquiyya, it only exists among shias.

Apparently you guys did not read the whole thing.

Jewish maidens were considered marriageable at the age of twelve years and six months, though the actual age of the bride varied with circumstances. The marriage was preceded by the betrothal, after which the bride legally belonged to the bridegroom, though she did not live with him till about a year later, when the marriage used to be celebrated. All this agrees well with the language of the Evangelists. St. Luke (1:27) calls Mary "a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph"; St. Matthew (1:18) says, when as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost". As we know of no brother of Mary, we must suppose that she was an heiress, and was obliged by the law of Numbers 36:6 to marry a member of her tribe. The Law itself prohibited marriage within certain degrees of relationship, so that the marriage of even an heiress was left more or less to choice.

According to Jewish custom, the union between Joseph and Mary had to be arranged by the parents of St. Joseph. One might ask why Mary consented to her betrothal, though she was bound by her vow of virginity. As she had obeyed God's inspiration in making her vow, so she obeyed God's inspiration in becoming the affianced bride of Joseph. Besides, it would have been singular among the Jews to refuse betrothal or marriage; for all the Jewish maidens aspired after marriage as the accomplishment of a natural duty. Mary trusted the Divine guidance implicitly, and thus was certain that her vow would be kept even in her married state.

Also it seems you did not read this:

From the age at which Hebrew maidens became marriageable, it is possible that Mary gave birth to her Son when she was about thirteen or fourteen years of age.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

Now this is the conclusion of the encylclopedia based on what was common practise at the time. Of course, they don't have her actual age but if it was common practise then their conclusion makes perfect sense.

The point is this: IT WAS ABSOLUTELY NORMAL

Before accusing me of lying, read the entire thing first.

tiarabubu: i find it amusing that you can lie so unashamedly. The Catholic Encyclopedia was reporting discredited documents as part of an academic inquiry. The encyclopedia said so its self at the beginning of that section.

For you to use that to claim that the Encyclopedia was making an authoritative statement is intellectual dishonesty. You have been debunked several times on this forum and you still bring it up? LOL

Am not surprised, I have caught you many times lying thus (Altaquiyya?)

Mr anony: 1. I think you really should do that experiment with your friends, the result will interest you.

2. your point about the authors not being born at the time of Christ is moot because almost all the ancient history you know was written by people who never met those they wrote about.

3. Your argument about Mark's geographical knowledge of Bethany, Jerusalem and Bethphage can easily be solved by showing you a map as well as the actual text. Here you go:

Mark 11:1 And when they drew near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, He sent out two of His disciples.

https://s12.postimg.org/4e9jp88fx/6_26_2013_10_14_08_PM.jpg

Notice that though Mark is talking about Christ moving from Jericho towards Jerusalem, he is not in any way attempting to tell the reader which city comes first on the way but rather the focus is that Christ came to Mount Olives. Your argument about Matthew "correcting this error" is just your conspiracy theory. Please tell me what point were you trying to make again?

1. Nonsense again, the odyssey is actually a poem. It was written to entertain Greeks at the time and not record history.
2. And your contention about the trial before Pilate is simply funny. How do you know for sure that no followers of Christ were present in that trial? Merely saying "it is believed" does not make it fact. Believed by who and how do they know?

The author of the gospel of John was an eyewitness.

Lol, this is funny because both Luke and Josephus' works are studied in academic circles. You have just made another blind assumption. Which historians consider Josephus credible and reject Luke?

All you have done here is sneak in the claim that "if one thinks Luke as a historical source, he is wrong". That's circular reasoning my friend because you have not justified why Luke is not acceptable other than just assume that he was wrong because he wrote mainly about Christ.

What we know about Antonius Felix, Pontius Pilate, Porcuis Festus, Aretas IV, Herod Agrippa, Joseph Caiaphas, Jesus Christ, Rabban Gamaliel, James the Just, Paul the Apostle e.t.c. are from the writings of Luke. Were all these people fictional characters?

[/quote]Also, your point about no named author is moot. I have already explained to you why an ancient work having a named author is not really necessary for authenticity. Most of the works we believe today were written by Confucius were merely attributed to him, same as the sayings we attribute to Socrates, same as the works we attribute to Homer so nothing new there my friend.

Lol seriously? For instance: You claimed that in Mark 4 Jesus Christ did not want non-Jews to be converted, I asked you to show where in Mark 4 you got that and suddenly it became irrelevant?

Mr anony: Lol, you really need to read some ancient history writings, you'll see many discrepancies about the lives of historical characters; multiple authors disagreeing on when they were born, when they died and what they did.
To give you a simple experiment you can do: Go to the market with 5 of your friends don't take pictures or record the event on video and then after a month let each of you write about your market visit experience. I can assure you that all 6 accounts will contradict each other. Does this mean the visit to the market never happened? No.
Even people who watched the same football match yesterday still have very different opinions about what happened in it evidenced by long heated football arguments.
As I said, you are making irrational demands for what should count as historical fact

I am sorry but this is really nonsense. If you see no dissimilarity between the odyssey and the new testament, then I think your problem is probably that you lack the ability to tell the difference between whether a document is intended as fact or as fiction by reading it

I'm pretty sure that if I saw a man resurrect from the dead, I would still remember the event vividly 50 years later.

I hope you do realize that this destroys your argument against Christ by appealing to the silence of non-christian sources because those too will fall under the category of sources that cannot be trusted. The only way you can proceed with that argument is if you have an initial bias that christian documents are false. For instance, you haven't shown any reason why Josephus is true and Luke false. You have merely assumed that Josephus is true and then went on to critique Luke based on that assumption. Funny enough you are not even criticizing Luke for contradicting Josephus rather you are criticizing Luke for having accounts that are absent in Josephus. This is simply how not to investigate.

Go back and answer the questions you ignored

musKeeto: Why can't Ihedinobi's posts be understood by anyone else apart from him?

All his epistles can't be a waste of space, surely...

Logicboy03: Guy, post that thread...let us nail Ihedinobi once and for all.....this guy has made that "misunderstood" claim for far too long

noblefada: Again read in context from verse 9, Paul was instructing Timothy who was travelling to oversee churches founded, on how women should behave and how they should be quiet and submissive in church meetings and not to argue with men over doctrinal issues, of course calling to remembrance the experience in the corinth church, but today they teach and even own ministries.
I know of a prominent ministry that donot allow women mount the alter but can serve in other places and even head home cells. When When I inquire why, I was told that some women were using the opportunity to contend with their husbands at home, so the GO put a temporal suspension on women, but his wife could still minister. I think he must have learnt from 2 Tim 2. There must be order in church.

Mr anony: In other words you are saying that we simply can't trust any events of history before the invention of the radio and television because all history before then was based on 'hearsay'. You are taking a very irrational position

oBut then, here lies the problem with your thinking and the difference between you and actual historians. Actual historians compare writings against other writings on the same issue. For instance the person of
1. Pontius Pilate can be reconstructed from comparing texts of Josephus, Luke, Tacitus etc. Some will say more about him while others will say less about him.
2. The person of Socrates can be reconstructed by comparing writings of Aristotle, Plato and Xenophon again, some will say less about him and some more about him.
3. The person of Jesus Christ can be reconstructed by comparing texts like Mark, Josephus, John, Acts of the Apostles e.t.c. Again some will say more and some less.

The only thing that happened with Christ is that a number of those texts were combined into one volume called the bible. In a similar way, one could just as well have combined ancient Greek texts into one volume.

You see your argument that "extra-biblical" stories must talk in the same detail as biblical stories is simply naive. It is just like saying extra-greek sources shuld talk about Socrates in the same detail that Greek sources do.

Now assuming that the church decided to add Josephus' writings into the bible as some sort of Jewish history document similar to Chronicles. I am sure you will be here denouncing the work of Josephus and demanding other "extra-biblical" sources to be provided. See the problem with your argument now?

Again this shows more naivete because you assume that for a book to be authentic the writer must name himself. But then you forget that many of the writings we have from ancient history are anonymous some are even reconstructions of sparsely scattered bits and pieces of parchments copied and recopied by many scribes, some ancient texts are even written by people in the name of other people. It is from texts like these that we form the narrative we call ancient history.
Now I'm not saying that it is Mark who definitely wrote that gospel however, the fact that there is no name claiming authorship does not make the text false by historical standards.

By saying this, you have condemned all history written before the invention of the TV and radio to fiction because all of them are equally 'hearsay' by the same standards. Are you sure you are really interested in the veracity of anything at all?

[/quote]Ok. However, you didn't meet any of my other challenges to your claims

okeyxyz: This time you err, not understanding scriptures . Persons of insight know not to take Jesus's instructions as literal but symbolic. A rich man according to Jesus has nothing to do with financial wealth. Rather it refers to a person who is rich(invested) in human traditions and values(because they are human values, therefore he's popular and thus he's rich. got it??), he thinks being good in human terms is equivalent to godly righteousness. A rich man is someone who in his personal/religious life is more interested in conforming to popular culture and mindset than in being truthful to himself. It is also someone who believes he can attain godhood be keeping the laws of Moses, etc.

noblefada: @logicboy pls read that verse in context by reading the pretext and post-test. That command was to the Corinthian church which was a very canal church and Paul said it to bring calm and order in church and was not a general command bt specific to d church and@ Corinth that's why you can find in other Paul's writings and he said clearly in Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

druid06: The Israelites ''Jews'' are conquering/ruling the earth in their own way. 63% of the world's richest people are Jewish or of Jewish descendant. They can tumble the world's economy just for the fun of it. Watch the movie ''Money never sleeps''. The U.S is predominantly controlled and funded by this same people so is most part of Europe. The top manufactures of arms and amuninations all over the world are own by the Jewish people. Why does the arabs have so much hatred and disdain for Americans if not for the reason as one of the reasons as stated above.

So my point is when GOD said in the Bible that the Israelites are going to be a greatest nation ever, HE did not mean that they were going to launch a bloodthirsty campaign against the world for total dominance like hitler did but as stated previously stated above is what HE meant.

striktlymi: I must have missed where you gave this 'impeccable evidence'...do you mind showing us again? A link with proper guidance will do.



From your comments above, you seem not to trust the works of experts as far as ancient 'history' is concerned....

So that is all you noted from that? Now let me tell you what I noticed from that part of sacred scriptures:

1) The manuscript from which those verses came has been reliably dated close to the time of Christ and his Apostles.

2) The author of the book was part of the very early Christians.

3) He was known by them and to the one whom the book was addressed to, hence there was no need for a formal introduction.

4) He had some other scripts and testimonies that can be traced back to the Apostles and the first disciples of Christ.

5) He did his own private investigations to verify which scripts and stories were true and which were pure myth.

6) The book was intended for just one individual but luckily it got to some third party.

7) The book was not written in secret.

8.) Since it was not written in secret, it follows that people, especially Christians at the time would know who authored the book.

9) Since the author is known, it is not uncommon for those who lived close to this time to know the name of the author.

...so many other things I can get from that passage alone that you fail to realize. I wonder why!

Now, another exercise if you don't mind. Read the following passage and tell me what you noticed:

John 21:22-25
New International Version (NIV)

22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” 24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

PhenomenonVFX: Good job on that Luke research Logicboy. So much for a book written by the inspiration of God. I never trust any book written by people who have a biased interest in the subject they were discussing and then claim their book is factual history. I might as well start believing the Koran while I am at it.

noblefada: Gud mornin @mazaje, again u state things u dnt know. As far as the bible is concern all the bible scriptures were written by Jews. Matthew & John were part of the twelve, Luke was among the 70, why Mark was a relation of Peter n its believe dats it was Peter that furnished Mark's account.
@mazaje ask u again ur history did it state that Jesus came in flesh and if was killed? and I still waiting for d answer abt what u believe in. Tanx

Mr anony: You know what is weird about you? On one hand you claim that the gospels are not authentic because nowhere did the supposed author claim ownership then on the other hand when presented with Paul's letters where he clearly claims ownership. You also claim they are not authentic and it is all a big conspiracy.

As I have been saying and will continue to say, you are simply being irrational

You have started from the default position that it is all a conspiracy by Polycarp, Iraneus and co. so no matter where the evidence points. You'll just blame it on the church fathers.