₦airaland Forum

Mr anony: I put it to you that based on the same criteria you have been using to judge the new testament and the life of Christ, you cannot legitimately form an opinion from the sources you have provided. The reasons are as follows:-

1. Apart from Philo and Mark, none of the others was even born at the time of Christ. They never met Him nor knew Him.
So Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus are hereby disqualified.
By the way this also applies to anything they wrote about that happened before their birth. This includes everything Tacitus wrote about Ceasar Augustus, Tiberius etc. We can't trust that Augustus Ceasar ruled Rome because Tacitus was not yet born during the the time of Augustus according to your logic.

2. We are left with Philo and Mark. The only writings we have of Philo apart from one short paragragraph breifly mentioning him in Josephus' Antiquities are his own writings about himself and since Philo was never a general in the Roman army or some other prominent political ruler we cannot even be sure that Philo even wrote the things we say that he wrote or that he was being honest when he wrote them.
.
By the way, I hope you know that this will also apply to philosophers like Plato and Socrates. They never were prominent and most of what we know about them were written by themselves. In the case of Socrates, he was written entirely by Plato. According to your logic, more and more Frauds are poping up in classical history.

3. And finally we come to Mark, though he was a contemporary of Christ, it is uncertain that Mark actually met Christ. We know about him through the book of Acts....but according to you Acts is a fairy tale so we can't even trust that there was a Mark. besides the oldest surviving version of Acts is dated at about 70 AD some 35 years after the death of Christ. By Mazaje's logic Mark is also discredited.

You see the problem is that you are so intent on discrediting Christ that you have discredited all of history as well. I always point out to you when you are being irrational and this is one such example.

1. Could you tell us where in Mark 4 you got this?

2. Context?

3. And what is this meant to prove?

4. And you have just debunked yourself by admitting that the Sanhendrin did in fact arrest, try and condemn Jesus.

striktlymi: I gave you a very simple task...provide evidence for your claims but yet you repeat what has already been said?

This is very funny! How do you know that the history of Alexander the great is authentic considering that the earliest work available was written over 300 years after the death of Alexander?

I will use the exact same method you used in arriving at the authenticity of the above to determine who to ascribe the Gospels to.

Luke 1:1-4
New International Version (NIV)


1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Mr anony: I hope you do realize that in most if not all of ancient history, the writings come long after the deaths of the protagonists. In fact Jesus Christ is the most attested figure in ancient history. You haven't really made any point here

Lol, now you have denied a whole book because it doesn't fit into the theory you are trying to form

Again all you did here was arbitrarily claim that the book of Acts was fake just so you could claim Paul wasn't tortured. No points scored

This is just weird and quite ignorant. The gospel that Christ resurrected was proclaimed as soon after Christ did. The sad thing is that you've started of by saying that anything that will tell you that Christ resurrected is a lie. The demand you are making is like one asking for a piece of ancient historical writings that proves Socrates died by drinking poison but then I start by saying Plato, Aristotle and other Greek writers are liars. It is simply an irrational position to hold

Please cite some of these people

No actually I want to see the hadiths that talk about Mohammed doing this. Please provide them

But you haven't shown this, you have only claimed it. I'd like to see the Josephus quote and the Hadith quotes please.

By the way, I still want you to tell us which of Paul's letters you think were actually written by him and which ones weren't and why.

Mr anony: Yet the Jewish Encyclopedia written by Jews for Jews disagrees with you

I meant that by 30 AD, the Sanhendrin had such powers therefore they could easily have arrested and tried Jesus Christ in 33 AD.

As I said, they had power to arrest and try Stephen and I have just shown you that Stephen was killed in an outburst of rage rather than a formal judgment. Compare Stephen's trial in Acts 6-7 to Peter and John's trial in Acts 4 and 5:25-42. Notice the difference in the process of judgment.

Are you serious? No one ever said that Paul was a member of the Sanhendrin. The Sanhendrin was a council of 70 elders of which Paul wasn't at the time. The point I am arguing is that Paul was given authority by the Sanhendrin to make arrests and enforce the law. You miss the point so badly it hurts

There is no contradiction there.

Act 9:7 The men travelling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.

Act 22:9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me. (NIV)

The Greek word akouo can be interpreted as "hearing" or "understanding"

Now this is just silly. I have shown you that the Sanhendrin did indeed have the power to prosecute and punish people and I have shown you that Paul was an enforcer empowered by the Sanhendrin. You have no case.

striktlymi: Morning Mazaje,

Now according to your logic...

When a writer is silent about meeting the object of his write-up then it means the writer never met the person.

Writing style determines whether the writer met the object of his write-up.

Can you provide evidence to show that Matthew and John NEVER spoke Greek?

Hope you do know that what you hold on to has very many implications as regards the history of a number of individuals, as Anony has pointed out already?

noblefada: @mazaje going through your posts I can see that you're trying to confuse people by bring fabrications and distorting facts. I'll try and address some of them. I don't see why rendering different accounts is enough to say Apostle Paul was false. First remember Paul did not write the book of Acts Luke did, so the first account of the conversion was not narrated by Paul. Let me say this in human accounts there are always differences, for instance even on NL when something happens in an area and people living there start giving accounts of what transpired, we always see some discrepancies and we have to read 3 or 4 accounts before we get the whole picture, we don't conclude it didn't happen. What I want to ask you is this, in all the accounts rendered did the event happen or not, does any negates that Aspt Paul had an encounter with Christ, if No then its irrelevant how the account was rendered.

Again you lied that Jesus said salvation was for only the Jews and not for the whole world but failed to quote: Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Marks account
Mar 16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Luke's account
Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Pls @mazaje pls what is your believe, are u an atheist, Muslim, pagan or what so that I know who I'm talking with. Thanks

striktlymi: ...and what evidence do you have to back up your claims?

striktlymi: Do you know the difference between a history book and a biography book? Sacred scriptures is neither but throw some light on the life and mission of Christ.

I do not expect the historians you mentioned to even talk about Christ let alone mentioning the way he died and how he was revered by his Apostles and disciples.

Expecting them to start talking about his miracles is stretching it when they were not even present....Are you even aware that Philo did not mention Herod Antipas in his book?

As far as historical facts are concerned, this does not mean anything...if Philo can leave out this character in his book, then leaving out a number of other things does not come as a surprize.

striktlymi: Are you serious?

Did Josephus and co follow Christ? Did they follow any of the Apostles? How come you want people to rely on their account about the miracles of Jesus?

striktlymi: The above represent your opinion without a shred of evidence just like it is my view that President Goodluck Jonathan is a Ghanian by birth.

Okay, let's examine this so called 'evidence from antiquity'...



Now by your logic, when a Historian fails to mention a popular public figure then that figure did not exist in the past? This indeed is some strange logic.

Now do note that Josephus actually mentioned Jesus and Tacitus also mentioned Jesus so Mazaje falsehood would get you nowhere

I can't continue addressing the rest of your post because of the obvious lies and misrepresentations of Sacred scriptures.

PhenomenonVFX: Seriously, I have to hand it to Mazaje . The dude knows his stuff. I used to think I was the only one who could see the rivalry in the new testament (Back in the days when I was a devout christian, I used to bind and cast every spirit of doubt). Some books were dedicated to subtly proving the superiority of one person over another.
Just like I am still inclined to believe that the followers of John the baptist and Jesus may have been rivals. And John the baptist probably never made the claims about Jesus that the new testament, which was written by the followers of Jesus, says he did.
The first part of first chapter of the gospel of John dedicated itself to proving (more like claiming) that Jesus was God and John the baptist was not the light. You dont do that unless u are trying to win an argument of superiority with someone else who was claiming otherwise. The question now is who was the author of the gospel of John arguing with?
Thanks to the Holy Roman Catholic Church there are many things we may never be able to know about Paul and the early apostles because they burnt every book with opposing views or claims.

Mr anony: My response:

Number 1. Why do you think that the Sahendrin didn't have such power? They had the power to arrest Jesus, try him and then hand him over to the Romans to be crucified. They also had the power to arrest Stephen, try him and then stone him to death. They also had the power to arrest and flog Peter and John

Here is an excerpt from the Jewish Encyclopedia:

The extant references to the Sanhedrin are not sufficient to give an exact and detailed idea of its functions and of the position which it occupied. It is certain, however, that the extent of its power varied at different times, and that the sphere of its functions was restricted in various ways by the Roman government. One of these restrictions was Gabinius' above-mentioned division of the Jewish territory into five provinces, each with a sanhedrin of its own, whereby the authority and the functions of the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem were materially diminished. Its power was insignificant under Herod and Archelaus. After the death of these rulers its authority again increased, the internal government of the country being largely in its hands. It administered the criminal law, and had independent powers of police, and hence the right to make arrests through its own officers of justice. It was also empowered to judge cases that did not involve the death penalty, only capital cases requiring the confirmation of the procurator.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13178-sanhedrin#anchor5

From the above we can see that Jewish lands were under control of the Roman government and basically, the power of the Sanhendrin rose and fell depending on who was in power and how friendly he was to the Jews.
We also learn that after the death of Herod and Archelaus, the Sanhendrin increased in power including having the power to make arrests and hold trials and pass judgment. They were only withheld from carrying out capital punishment without the permission of the city's procurator.
Herod died in 4 BC, Archelaus died in 18 AD. [size=15pt]The time of Paul persecuting Christians (about 30 AD) would fit perfectly with the time when the Sanhendrin had powers to make arrests, hold trials and pass judgment[/size]. It would also explain why Christ had two trials: one before the Sanhendrin and one before Pilate because the Jews wanted him dead.
What it might not explain is the death of Stephen but Stephen's then death didn't have an explicit pronouncement of judgment rather he was killed in a fit of rage as he spoke in his trial. Or maybe they could have obtained the permission of the city head. We are not told.

Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him. Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." And when he had said this, he fell asleep. Acts7:54-60

So once again, other than "Rabbi Boteach said so", why are you convinced the Sanhendrin did not have such power?

3. Could you point out the two accounts of Paul's conversion in the book of Acts and tell us why they you think they are contradictory?

4. You missed the point I was making by comparing Paul vs the Christians to GEJ vs Boko Haram. The point I was making is that it is ridiculous to suggest that a person who already has the political upper hand as the persecutor of a certain sect will leave his position because he envies the political clout of someone he has more authority than.
It makes no sense for Paul to become a Christian for reasons of fame because Christians at that time were despised by many and by Paul especially.



To be continued some more.....

striktlymi: ^^^

If the work done above is for the 'little ones' then no ish otherwise the effort was wasted...

Mazaje's post truly does not deserve a response for one simple reason: It lacks sincerity from him!!!

Mr anony: The above demonstrates a very poor understanding of what Jesus, Paul and James preached.

I'll tell you the message they all preached and it is this: Salvation is by faith in Christ alone and not by observing the works of the Law of Moses.
This means that good works does not save a person rather it is God's grace that does. However this does not mean that salvation frees a person from the obligation to do good works. To say it in very simple terms: You do not do good works in order to earn salvation and make Heaven, you do good works because you are saved. Good works are the natural characteristics of a saved person.
To even illustrate it further I'll give you an analogy: You don't buy gifts for your wife so that you can have a good marriage. You buy her gifts because you are in love with her. Buying her gifts is a natural characteristic of a good marriage. I'll show you a few passages to illustrate this point.

Jesus:
"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.

The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.'

But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!'

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."
Luke 18:10-14
(Read it and ponder what Christ is clearly talking about and tell me if you really think we are justified by our faith in God or in our works).
Paul teaches the exact same thing:
Romans 4:5 ....And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness

Does this mean that Paul thinks good works are unnecessary and we will still be justified if we continue in sin? Absolutely not Here is Paul again on the matter

Paul:
What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. - Romans 6:15-18

(Clearly, you can see that Paul is not telling us to abandon righteous living because we live under grace)

Now we come to James. Does James say we should abandon faith because we are justified by good works. Absolutely not.
Let us read what James has to say:
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. James 2:14-17

Has james said faith is unnecessary? No. Has he said that we are saved by good works? No. What James has said is if you have faith it should be evident by the works you do.

So to do a recap I'll post the verses you quoted.

You quoted....
James 2:24 - You see then how a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
Your intention was to make the argument that works and not faith is what justifies a man.

But in context it reads....
But will you know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Do you see how faith worked with his works, and from the works faith was made complete? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness, and he was called the friend of God." You see then how a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
James 2:20-24
Notice that the argument James is making is that true faith is characterized by good works but not the other way round. Notice also that the works talked about in James 2 are not Jewish traditional rites such as circumcision and Sabbath and washing of hands rather James is talking about caring for disadvantaged brethren as evidence of this faith.


Secondly you cited...
Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

When read in context we see....
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it--
Rom 3:22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Rom 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
Rom 3:26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Rom 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Rom 3:29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
Rom 3:30 since God is one--who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
Rom 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

First of all notice that what Paul is referring to as works of the Law are Jewish traditional rites such as circumcision. In fact Paul wrote this letter to quell a dispute between Jew and Gentile Christians when the Jewish Christians were demanding the gentiles must be circumcised.
Notice (in red) that Paul makes it clear that he is not saying we should do away with the law rather he is saying that it is not those works that justify us but our faith in the sacrifice of Christ does. He even argues that the Law and the Prophets attest to this fact.

This is exactly the same way Jesus argued that Jewish customs such as the Sabbath, washing of hands e.t.c were not really what saved a man. However Christ also made it clear that He is not abolishing the Law rather He fulfills it. The fulfilment of the Law happened when Christ came and died for our sins. We who believe in Him are not bound by how well we perform certain rituals and outward ceremonial activities rather we are justified by grace through faith in Christ and empowered to do good works.

So my dear friend Mazaje, I see absolutely no contradiction between the messages of Jesus, Paul and James when read in the context in which they were written.


To be continued....

frosbel: The Book of OLAADEGBU, Chaper 1 , Vs 40.

PhenomenonVFX: Hmmm. Interesting thread. I was too busy to get into the fray.




[This is the same Paul who has about 3 different versions of his conversion story.

Mr anony: Hahahaha, Mazaje don carry come. Let us see if he knows what he is talking about.

Lol, monetary rewards for selling tents or for preaching the gospel?

Lololol, This is like saying that Goodluck Jonathan would stop attacking Boko Haram and join them because he wants to be as respected as Shekau. It makes no sense

Lololol, yeah of course especially when you know beforehand that the new religion will definitely get you tortured and killed as well as the people you are convincing. Heck you were doing the torturing and killing yourself before you chose that it will be nice to get tortured instead. Impeccable reasoning from the desk of Mazaje.

Lol, but that was not what they did. They claimed they witnessed an event that actually took place. They made this claim to people who could easily have disproved it

Interesting. Can you list the ones written by Paul and those written by other people? Just list them for us and why you think this was written by Paul while the other wasn't. Your ability to do this will convince me that you know what you are talking about and not merely rehashing common internet objections.

Hahahaha, and you know that they are bogus how? Let us even leave the ones that you can dispute. Let us talk about the ones recorded by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles. Are they bogus too?

Comparing apples to oranges, Joseph Smith amassed great wealth due to his story. He wasn't tortured for his "story" but died because a mob shot him to death because he tried to marry their wives. Jim Jones was not persecuted but committed mass suicide. That is not matrydom.

But everyone know Paul was repeatedly tortured and beaten for it. What we don't know is precisely how he died.

lol, Yet the tomb of Christ was known in His time and the apostles proclaimed that He had resurrected in the very same city where He had been buried. Unless you have no respect for history, The fact that Christ's tomb was empty three days after his death is a known and widely accepted fact.

How many people saw Mohammed do this?

As I said, I'd like to see historical documents detailing this

Please quote Josephus saying this.

I am not Justin

vedaxcool: didn't the qur'an say the disbelievers r naturally allies to one another, supporting each other in doing evil! We r not moved by the jubilant tunes witnessed so far, rather it confirms what the Qur'an says. truly un their heart is a disease.

davidylan: your examples of "discrimination" are that:

1. you got defriended on facebook and

2. a girl you liked refused to date you?

what a joke.

davidylan: you're genuinely daft and dishonest. Your first post on this thread was to call us ignorant, illiterate, hypocritical dolts. Now you turn around to cry into your milk?
Grow up son. When next you want to tango make sure you address others as you wish to be addressed and come with at least 2 brain cells you can rub together.

benodic: Justice does not wait for the afterlife. there is true divine justice in operation in the universes and it starts here and now. The law of karma or the principle of cause and effect ensures that whatever you throw into life returns back to you.

There is no escape from it. Jesus Christ even made reference to this law when he said that God is not mocked that whatsoever a man soweth so shall he reap. This law applies to all souls irrespective of their religion or race and whether you believe or not.

It is outrageous to even think that someone can lead a life full of good deeds to fellow souls and then end up in a hellish place just because he does not believe in a particular belief.

This misconception of divine justice has lead to a lot of evil in the world today where someone believes that he can blow up fellow human beings and then enjoy in heaven or someone who has been stealing from people and committing atrocities will end up in heaven just because he believes in a particular belief. it does not work that way at all. what ever you sow you will surely reap. it is just a matter of time

striktlymi: Don't tempt me

striktlymi: Sorry bros but the fair play rule has been violated, I can no longer continue with the discourse.


#A bit sad and disappointed!

Okay, fair enough! The reference to John 3:16 is very much in order...Now for you, belief in Christ entails two things: Accepting Christ and accepting his teachings...this is not far from the truth but there is more to this...

Belief in Christ is not about professing faith in Christ and his teachings...it goes beyond these. One can profess faith in Christ and his teachings on the roof tops and still not be a believer in Christ. The Apostle James puts it beautifully:

James 2:19-20
Good News Translation (GNT)
19 Do you believe that there is only one God? Good! The demons also believe—and tremble with fear. 20 You fool! Do you want to be shown that faith without actions is useless?

Even the devil believe in Christ but what separates a true believer from the devil is the individuals actions. Hence to believe in Christ is to do right by him...nothing more and nothing less.

James 2:14-17
Good News Translation (GNT)

14 My friends, what good is it for one of you to say that you have faith if your actions do not prove it? Can that faith save you? 15 Suppose there are brothers or sisters who need clothes and don't have enough to eat. 16 What good is there in your saying to them, “God bless you! Keep warm and eat well!”—if you don't give them the necessities of life? 17 So it is with faith: if it is alone and includes no actions, then it is dead.

I pay little attention to popular opinion...like you rightly pointed out, what matters is what Sacred scriptures has to say about the matter.

I see that you fall into the trap of hanging on to one part of Sacred scriptures without looking at it holistically. It is quite common so I won't blame you for it.

Since I have explained what it means to believe in Christ using Sacred scriptures, my task now is to attempt an explanation on the bold.

But before I do, can you please tell me what you understand by the scriptural references below:

John 3:18
Good News Translation (GNT)
18 Those who believe in the Son are not judged; but those who do not believe have already been judged, because they have not believed in God's only Son.

Luke 9:49-50
Good News Translation (GNT)

49 John spoke up, “Master, we saw a man driving out demons in your name, and we told him to stop, because he doesn't belong to our group.” 50 “Do not try to stop him,” Jesus said to him and to the other disciples, “because whoever is not against you is for you.”

John 10:16
Good News Translation (GNT)
16 There are other sheep which belong to me that are not in this sheep pen. I must bring them, too; they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock with one shepherd.

991: Religions survive because of human stupidity and ignorance. I find it very funny that mortal humans fight for an almighty god.

shdemidemi: Not necessarily my friend, some can use spirituality due of lack of study and understanding. This does not in anyway mean an unbeliever or a carnal believer can understand the ways of this God. There is a wisdom of the world and a wisdom generated from God, you can never bring logic or reason of the world to carp God.