₦airaland Forum

bigfrancis21:
Interesting article. What is the ratio of Igalas claiming Igbo to Igalas claiming Igala?

I sincerely have no idea. I think some kind of survey will have to be carried out to determine that. But from my own experience, they are roughly equal. It depends on which group one's exposed to. But I've noticed that most of those who reside in the village do not claim to come from kogi even when they can't speak Igbo.

Radoillo:
OK. Did he identify himself as Igala?

I'm not trying to start an argument or anything. I happen to also know a few people from Nzam, and I spent a weekend there once a long time ago. From information I gathered it seems they consider Igbo to be their mother tongue and Igala to be a second language. It also seems they consider themselves to be primarily Igbo in origin, though they admit Igala people settled among them and were absorbed (some of their villages do have names that look Igala).

However, here on nairaland and a few other online sites they are often presented as one of the Igala communities in Anambra. It gets confusing. I only want to know what the true picture is.

Yeah, he identified as Igala. Actually, Nzam seems to have a combination of both Igbo and Igala people or perhaps the Igalas in Nzam have been most influenced by the Igbos. Check out this link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nzam

Radoillo:
OP, do you know Nzam people firsthand?

Used to know a guy from there.

OdenigboAroli:
Be proud of who you are and defend your culture. Omanbalas are peaceful and tolerant; We see you as our brothers and will never oppress you,however,don't sit down and expect the government to do everything for you. Stand up and demand your share because Ana Omanbala is your home and nobody can take that away. Identity crises is everywhere and not peculiar to Igala. Udo.

Thank you.

Another nairalander opened a similar thread some time ago. Many people are oblivious to the fact that Igalas can be found outside Kogi State. Several young Igalas from Kogi state think all members of their ethnic group are within the confines of the state. From my own experience, only their elders seem to know there are other Igalas outside, but not much emphasis is laid on this fact. Infact, I have recently met people who have never heard about the Igala people. Well, no thanks to our ethnic diversity in Nigeria.

The Igala people can be found in Kogi, Anambra, Delta(Ebu), Enugu, and Edo states of Nigeria. Of course, the majority of Igalas are found in Kogi state and Idah in Kogi state is the ancestral home of all Igalas. I am an Igala whose hometown is located in Anambra state. This news is often greeted with incredulity. It seems like a travesty, right? "Anambrarians" are all supposed to be igbos, right? No, the truth is that some aren't. The Igala people in Anambra state are found in Anambra West LGA, and are made up of the following villages/towns:
Nzam, Igbedor, Inoma, Odekpe, Owelle, Ukwala, Onugwa, Ode, Ala and Igbokeyi.

I think we Igalas in Anambra are little known largely because of our own attitude. The fault largely lies with us. We attempt to deny who we are or where we're from. We attempt to deny our very identity. Some of us claim to be Igbo while some altogether deny being from Anambra- they claim to come from Kogi state. My parents belong to the latter group.

This latter group usually bear Igala names rather than Igbo ones. Some times, they altogether dump their Igbo names and adopt new Igala ones. Others choose to transliterate their Igbo names to Igala. By doing this, they try to affirm their Igala ethnicity ( which I support and encourage BTW). But then, they go further. They say they are indigenes of Kogi state which is simply not true. What exactly they intend to achieve from this remains unclear to me. Some of these people don't even know the name of the Kogi governor. When they need infrastructure and social amenities, they cry to the Anambra government and yet they say they're from Kogi. Simply doesn't make any sense. The kogi government doesn't know them yet they foist themselves on the state. Do they expect special privileges from the kogi government? The same moribund government that has neglected true indigenes of kogi and has largely remained ineffective?
Makes absolutely no sense.

The former group, as I noted before, claim to be igbo. They deny being Igala. They love their Igbo names and would rather bear them. They would rather speak Igbo than Igala. These are the ones who make weak and frantic arguments to show they're Igbo. They hide their Igala identity or simply don't give it any thought when they say they're Igbo. Granted, I might be overgeneralizing here. Some do this just to get favours from the Igbos whilst privately affirming their Igala ethnicity.

Now, these two groups create a lot of confusion and complexity for us young folks. You see a situation where relatives or siblings are from different states of origin. One is Igbo and the other Igala. You see a person who says he's from kogi but can't precisely tell us where exactly in kogi he's from. I used to be very confused during my childhood. Here, I had my parents who say I'm Igala from kogi. There, I had my relatives who say I'm Igbo from Anambra. This was a rather peculiar dilemma. Which exactly was I? Neither painted the balanced picture. Both were opposite extremes. Thankfully, a well informed cousin provided the answer to this conundrum: we were Igalas but located in Anambra state.QED. As simple as that!

We Igalas in Anambra state must stop living in denial. We are not Igbo. We are not from kogi. Let us create this awareness, let people know who we are and where we're from. We may be a minority but we don't need to prevaricate, lie or be equivocal about it. If your parents made these mistakes, you don't need to perpetuate the same mistake for your kids. Let's correct this error and thus obviate this unnecessary dilemma for our children and generations yet unborn.

Thank you.

PS: Lalasticlala , Seun , Ishilove , Fulaman198 , odumchi , bigfrancis21 or whoever is in charge here, please help me push this to front page. It's really important.

FOLYKAZE:
Wrong.
Is it not man that calls you McSterling?

Na wa for you o.

herald9:
Sorry, all these things, who tagged them 'gods' .... Not man?

I can choose to call anything that fascinates me 'a god', that doesn't make it a universal truth and you can't use that to compel general acceptability of this god concept.

Precisely what I tried to communicate.

FOLYKAZE:
Read and enjoy
https://www.nairaland.com/1460798/universe-conscious

A very interesting thread.

FOLYKAZE:
Disbelieve in one particular God and believe in some others doesnt make one an atheist. Or lett me assume you dont know what atheism is all about and or maybe you choose to call yourself an atheist because you seem to hate Yahweh/Allah or cant justify there existence.

Christians do not believe in millions of Gods that exist in different cultures but consider Yahweh as the only existing God.

The Hindi rejects and also deny the existence of other cultural and concept of God but still have believe in their Krishna.

Does this make them claim to an atheist? Does this in anyway makes them an atheist? Are they atheist to you or theist?

Theist belief in at least one God and reject the other ones. Affirming here that you believe and not atheist to some form of God evidently shows that you are not different from the theist and practically not an atheist. How does disblieve in Yahweh and Allah mades one an atheist when pagans do not have such believe in those deity?

Atheists do not believe in any gods whatsoever, which means an atheist cannot believe in one god or two gods or three gods. The moment a person believes in any god at all, even the deistic or the pantheistic type, that person ceases to be an atheist and becomes a theist of some or other flavour.

Theist is defined as: Someone who claims the existence of at least a deity. http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_theism_what.htm . It is a belief in a god or gods as oppose to atheism.

The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is "not believing in any gods. http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/atheism101.htm An atheist is any person who is not a theist.


Therefore, it is as nonsensical as saying a working light bulb is both off and on or a gate is both open and closed at the same time saying you disbelieve in a particualr God/gods and believe in the existence of some others that it evidence can be substantiate.

Just like every atheists, you just proved that atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.



Moreso, Lady Justice is a personal, anthropomorphised greek god which is represented as a woman nature holding a scale and a sword with a blindfolded face. She represent Justice and equity of the law. Saying Lady Justice does not exist mean Justice and Law is not in our society and this equates to insanity. Mother Nature is another example of personified deity. She represent the good nature of earth. She is indeed earth. Saying that you dont believe in the existence of Mother nature mean earth does not exist. This is the greatest insanity of all age. Venus, Saturn and other member of the Titans took human form. This does not in anyway mean they are human.

Anthropomorphism is a means of expression. That some people personify an object does not mean the object is a person. Learn how to look beyond the surface.

Talking about personality has to do with the language which one use. A country can be person. A nation is a deity which one worship, pray to, have faith in and make sacrifice to. Out of ignorance you fail to realise that you worship a deity the very moment you salute the national flag or when the anthem song is sang. Do you notice the faithfullness to serve and loyal in the pledge and anthem song? Dont you realise this is the reason why some christian think nationalisation is idolatory? They have realised a country is a deity. This is not just been a deity, a country is a personal deity of patriots. So how would you deny the existence of a nation because some peopke choose to worship it as god?

Do you find it hard to comprehend? You seem intent at proving I'm not an atheist, grasping at straws, caviling. Well, good luck with that.
If natural phenomena is the definition of god, then no rational person will claim to be atheist. Atheism itself would be irrational. You expect me to disbelieve natural phenomena? If someone chooses to define their god as the universe or nature, so you expect me to prove I'm an atheist by disbelieving in the universe and nature? Just because some guy thinks that is god? How does believing in natural phenomena equate to choosing one god over others? If someone chooses to define their god as a coconut, then does that prove that I have chosen to believe in the coconut over other gods? Just because I acknowledge the existence of the coconut? Of course, I do not regard natural phenomena as god. I stated that in a previous reply. I have no need for that. The universe is the universe. Nature is nature. God is the supposed creator of the universe who transcends the universe, and I don't believe in god. That's how I see it. If you have a problem with that, then it's just that-YOUR problem. Nothing I can do about it.

The ish is not answered.

Do you disbelieve in the supernatural occurence of this age? Is an unexplainable event not happening today? Do you believe it happens but cant be explain yet?

So why the hell did you say you dont believe in supernatural?

*Sighs* The point I was trying to make is this: Just because a phenomenon isn't explainable today, it doesn't mean it is supernatural. Several perfectly explainable phenomena today were not explainable in the past. Does that mean they were supernatural then but have now ceased to be supernatural?

I want to you know that perception is not the reality.

If you read what panpsychism is, you will understand it states that everything including the inaniminated objects are conscious.

The Earth in Yoruba is worhip as Iyale, Gaia in greek because it is believe that this entity is conscious. Well I dont see earth having brain?

So how do you explain consciousness with brain when lot of people agree that everything in the universe and the universe itself is conscious?

I am not an expert in this field (probably even less than a dilettante) but it's clear we both mean consciousness in different ways. In the way that I see it, there's no way an inanimate object or a cadaver can be said to be conscious. Are they conscious in the same sense as animate beings? In what sense exactly are they said to be conscious?
Interestingly, when I was a little boy, I used to wonder if inanimate things like a chair, the bar of soap on the table, my pencils, were able to observe me as I could do them, or were able to "know themselves" as I did. It was something I didn't have words for. And I never asked anybody because I didn't know how to. Now, I know the word I was searching for is "consciousness". "Is the bar of soap conscious?" was what I wanted to know as a child. I'll read up more on panpsychism.

Scholar8200:
I speak for the Four Gospels; as per the highlighted, deceiving them as regards what? What then is the Truth? How do you objectively establish this?

I was actually making reference to the addition to Mark, and I supposed your penultimate post was with reference to that too. The anonymous writer of the book of Mark didn't write verses 9-20 of Mark 16. Those verses were later appended. Whoever appended them wanted to give the impression that they were originally by the author of Mark. That is deception irrespective of the intention.

Both then and now, those who repent and truly believe on Jesus Christ (as the Gospels present Him) testify to a transformation of life; even those around them noticed this change (infact there were times when sheriffs testified to crime infested areas being turned around after a Gospel outreach! Do we then say that the devil now deals in righteousness, restitution, holiness of life?

This is not germane to the subject of our discussion.

The name of the website already gives me the mindset of the author. (I read some parts and scanned through the rest when it became obvious to me that the author was indeed a biased skeptic)
Right from Genesis when God spoke to Abraham of his Seed, any objective judge will see that God's declarations concerning His, usually have a proximate and ultimate fulfilment! Isaac was Abraham's Seed but ultimately he is not the One through Whom all the nations of the Earth was to be blessed or that will possess the gates of His enemies!(Isaac did not even fight any battle!!!) as stated in Genesis 22:17,18.

This principle alone refutes many of the authors points. Another example is the prophecy of Daniel that had its proximate fulfilment in the man, Antiochus Epiphanes but that was not the end; the ultimate fulfilment will be in the anti-christ!
Isaiah53:6,7 perfectly agrees with Daniel 9:26 then I wonder how Isaiah 53 was about the people of Israel?!

In a normal skeptic way, he falsely accuses Mark of mentioning Isaiah when what Mark said was that,"as it is written in the prophet[size=14pt]s[/size]" meaning Mark had more than Isaiah's prophecy in mind!!! Mark 1:2

I wish I could have those claims one after the other however it will be a waste of time because the above described principle was not recognised!

OK. The first link is an excerpt from the classic, "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine. This "principle" of yours seems to me like the quintessential eisegesis. You do not have the liberty to read your own meaning into the text. If a prophecy or any pronouncement was made in a text, the only way we can correctly understand it is within the context of the text. If a fulfilment is seen to have occurred in the text, we do not have liberty to extrapolate and say the prophecy has an "ultimate" fulfilment in the future. That would be reading our own meaning into the text and thus meaning what the author never meant.

You should have at least given the author the benefit of the doubt. Seems you just wrote him off cos he's a sceptic. I'm a sceptic too, you know, and we've kept this back and forth on since. Why not approach the author this same way too.

Scholar8200:
I am on it but perhaps we should consider the following:

Mark 16:6,7
But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has been raised! He is not here. Look, there is the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples, even Peter, that he is going ahead of you into Galilee. You will see him there, just as he told you.”

The above spoken by the angel perfectly agrees with what Jesus Himself had spoken of in Mark 10:33,34
Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and experts in the law. They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles. 34 They will mock him, spit on him, flog him severely, and kill him. Yet after three days, he will rise again.”


And since all these are consistent with the other Gospels, Epistles and Prophecies, it means that part was neither an embellishment or addition for a deceptive/subversive purpose!

Well, many pseudonymous writings were probably not for a deceptive/ subversive purpose. That's why they're referred to as pious fraud. The purpose of these embellishments and additions can be contended, but the fact that there are indeed such embellishments can not be denied. Maybe their authors had good intentions but the fact is that they ended up deceiving many people. Did you read the link? You can take your time on it. Here's a less lengthy one too:
www.skeptically.org/newtestament/id21.html

FOLYKAZE:
Brace peace man. I am not the OP and I we have different view of what God is. The OP could be christian but does that mean he has the priviledge only to us the terrm God?

Lets leave that aside. There are some particualr concept of God you believe becuse they exist. Does this stances still make you an atheist? Or does you atheism is to a particular god while you are theist to other ones?

If any concept of god is backed up by indisputable evidence, how can I be atheist with respect to them? If for instance, god is defined as the rock basalt, then it would be illogical for me to say I'm atheist, since basalt is observable in the lab and even its constituent minerals and mode of formation is known. Likewise, I can't say I am atheist with respect to pantheism or Spinoza's god. I am basically atheist to personal, anthropomorphic gods- gods with human characteristics, e.g yahweh and his fellows. Clearly the creation of man and consequently infused with human characteristics and imbued with pretentious uber-qualities. I do not believe in such gods due to the lack of evidence for them.

Anything that cannot be explained scientifically is supernatural

That would mean phenomena like thunder and lightning, earthquakes, volcanic eruption, etc. was supernatural in ancient times.

I dont seem to find a scientific explanation for it. That is while it is God in panpsychism.

Ah! consciousness as I perceive it is simply the result of a physical organ: the brain. Even the "inner entity" you speak of which I like to simply call the mind, is also the result of the brain.

FOLYKAZE:
Abeg stop kidding yourself.

How can you tell me there is no pen on a table when you cant tell me what a pen is?

Let me take it on with you on your most theist statement. In the bible, men and judges were called God. Even a paper money is explained to be worship as God. Can you pls explain how a Man or Judge or Money is an extraterrestial personage with an omni-ability who made the universe and transend it.

And again, why is your choice of God application applies to most theist? Are other Gods in the category of not most and have no or any attribution you have up there not befitting to be called God? The Goddess of law and justice - lady justice is not having omnis attribute or is any claim of creating the universe attributed to her. Natural entities in pagan religion are called God. So why is your definition not covering all these? Yemoja is a body of water and also a deity. Gaia is earth and a greek goddess. The sun is Ra, an egyptian God. Mars is the god of Iron. The moon is a god in ancient cultures. Yet they do not have omni-abilities, non did they create the universe. Does these non attribute stop them from been God?

Haba! My "choice" of god? What exactly is your problem? My said disbelief in the supernatural? What do you think the op refers to as god? Yemoja? Man? Gaia? Ra? Was I supposed to address your esoteric definition of god or the op's and most people's? If you choose to think a body of water or other natural entities can be defined as gods, then good. I believe they exist too though I don't term them god. There is no question of evidence for such, since they are essentially evidential in themselves. But that's obviously not what the op meant by god. So, I don't understand your contention. You seem to just be caviling at my comments.

Supernatural is nothing but an event or phenomenon that can not be explained by natural laws. I think that is simple enough.

So anything we can't explain just yet is supernatural?

The Inner I/self/me cannot be known or explain scientifically. This implies that it transend observabke natural world. Does this mean I dont have inner self? Does this mean you dont believe in an entity that live inside you, your reak self?

Does this mean you believe consciousness is transcendental or supernatural?

Scholar8200:
I wish you will outline some of these prophecies! The other time I made a similar request your response was to accuse me of insincerity! Is it the prophecy of Jesus being born in Bethlehem (unmistakably affirmed by the Jews also stated in Micah 5:2) or that He will be killed for sins He never committed (Daniel 9/ Isaiah 53)? Even if the Jews gave many interpretations we have the same prophecies and the Spirit gives their meanings!

Apologies if I irked you with my choice of words: "insincere" and "ignorant". I just didn't expect you to ask me such questions. I don't think I can outline these so called "prophecies" more brilliantly than Thomas Paine did in this link: www.deism.com/paine_essay_false_prophecies_of_jesus_1.htm

As per the highlighted, that was not the purpose of His coming; just like saying the Body of Christ should consist of just one person!
Ephesians 4:11-13
11And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,

12 for the equipping of the [d]saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;

13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature [f]which belongs to the fullness of Christ.

Verse 11 shows God intends everyone function in his office if Knowledge of Christ will be clear Vs13. In spite of your opinion,this is God's purpose, take it or leave it!



Besides, the substance of the Gospel (Christ's birth, death and resurrection) remains unchanged and that was the purpose of the Gospels. Most questions that arose in those days was in the area of prophecies and principles according to the Law and Prophets and the Gospels were written to lead readers to faith in Christ. Issues being raised today on , who rolled the stone, who did not go afishing etc are peripheries the inclusion or omission neither adds to nor diminishes the essence of the Gospel!

These seemingly quibbling issues are to be explicated punctiliously if the gospels were to be regarded as infallible. The gospels aren't simply wholly fallible human personal accounts of the life of Jesus by non-eye-witnesses decades after Jesus' death now or are they?

Alright consider this:


An angel rolls away the stone from the tomb before sunrise (Matthew 28:2-4). The guards are seized with fear and eventually flee.
2. Women disciples visit the tomb and discover Christ missing (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1-4; Luke 24:1-3; John 20:1).
3. Mary Magdalene leaves to tell Peter and John (John 20:1-2).
4. Other women remain at the tomb; they see two angels who tell them of Christ's resurrection (Matthew 28:5-7; Mark 16:5-7; Luke 24:4-.
5. Peter and John run to the tomb and then leave (Luke 24:12; John 20:3-10).
6. Christ's First Appearance: Mary Magdalene returns to the tomb; Christ appears to her (Mark 16:9-11; John 20:11-18).
7. Christ's Second Appearance: Jesus appears to the other women (Mary, mother of James, Salome, and Joanna) (Matthew 28:8-10).
8. At this time, the guards report the events to the religious leaders and are bribed to lie (Matthew 28:11-15).
9. Christ's Third Appearance: Jesus privately appears to Peter (1 Corinthians 15:5).
10. Christ's Fourth Appearance: Jesus appears to Cleopas and companion (Mark 16:12-13; Luke 24:13-32).
11. Christ's Fifth Appearance: Jesus appears to 10 apostles, with Thomas missing, in the Upper Room (Luke 24:36-43).
12. Christ's Sixth Appearance: Eight days after His appearance to the 10 apostles, Jesus appears to all 11 apostles, including Thomas (John 20:26-28).
13. Christ's Seventh Appearance: Jesus appears to 7 disciples by the Sea of Galilee and performs the miracle of the fish (John 21:1-14).
14. Christ's Eight Appearance: Jesus appears to 500 on a mountain in Galilee (Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:15-18; 1 Corinthians 15:6).
15. Christ's Ninth Appearance: Jesus appears to His half-brother James (1 Corinthians 15:7).
16. Christ's Tenth Appearance: In Jerusalem, Jesus appears again to His disciples (Acts 1:3-.
17. Christ's Eleventh Appearance: Jesus ascends into Heaven while the disciples look on (Mark 16:19-20; Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:9-12).

Conclusions

The different perspectives in the gospel's accounts of Christ's resurrection are indicative of the veracity of the eye witness statements. Those who have seen something unexpected often report the details in somewhat of a frenetic and seemingly disconnected way, as they attempt to communicate the depth of what they have witnessed even while processing the events for themselves. Were the gospel writers or the disciples lying, they would have presented a uniform story. And the same critics who try to point out contradictions in the gospels would no doubt cry 'collusion' if they found exact verbal parallelism and a singular account of the resurrection.

In the end, the recordings of the resurrection found in the four gospels harmonize quite well upon closer examination, and perhaps most importantly, strongly agree on the one key fact that has universal life impact: Christ is risen from the dead!
http://www.compellingtruth.org/resurrection-accounts.html

Not a very bad attempt. But as much as I appreciate this attempt, I can't help but notice its flaws. Some of the points you make invalidate some claims in another gospel, e.g. two angels invalidates one angel; Matthew quoted in your first point invalidates Mark and the two angels, etc. Your designation of 1st appearance of Jesus et al., is quite interesting too. For example, the supposed third appearance to Peter which is no where mentioned in the gospels, but only by Paul who himself wasn't an eyewitness. Some of these separate appearances you outlined actually are not distinct at all if one would take a closer look. In all, this attempt seems like a frantic effort to sew together different contradictory pieces of information into one fabric. Certainly not approved of by critical scholars. A clever attempt though. It most likely will sate a christian. Would have loved to look at each reference for comparison just to make sure but I don't have the time now. What I however noticed almost immediately is the quoting of verse 9 downwards of Mark 16. You sure know those verses are not part of the original gospel of Mark, but are later additions, right? Mark actually stops in verse 8.

FOLYKAZE:
Lol.

Before I take you on this, can you explain what you mean by God and supernatural?

Because to me and others, the sun is god. Does this mean there is no evidence for the sun?


Kindly define God as per the sun pls

It isn't really my duty to define god since I have no belief in the concept in whatever form. But I mostly use the word god in the sense that most theists mean. A divine, benevolent, extraterrestrial personage with omni-abilities who made the universe and transcends it. Supernatural would mean transcending the observable natural world. God transcends the natural world. God is supernatural. I do not believe in god and disbelief in the supernatural follows as a corollary.

FOLYKAZE:
As I can remembered, atheism is disbelieve in God and not disbelieve in supernaturals.

There is no evidence for god and the supernatural.

Scholar8200:
Interesting!
This is why I spoke about weighing each book with the balance of the Law, the Prophets, the Gospels and the Epistles! Since the Gospels were about Christ, we consider all that was said about Him in the Law,Prophets and Psalms both in prophesy and type. Using this method, it will be easy to differentiate truth from counterfeit gospels. I am persuaded that some authors of the other 'gospels' were oblivious of the fact of the prophesies.

What prophecies? You sure know the Jews have different interpretations of these "prophecies" which have nothing at all to do with the Messiah or Jesus. In fact, some of these so called "prophecies" that the early Christians feasted on clearly had nothing to do with Jesus, since they had already happened.

Even in sciences, methods have been changed meaning they were discovered to be faulty; I guess the same liberty should be allowed academic historians.

The scientific method has essentially remained the same. Procedures can be changed to increase precision. It isn't seen as liberty to change basic methods that have been proven to produce good results. Surely, if any change should be welcome, it should be a progressive one rather than a regressive one. You surely do not expect that some day historians would establish historical fact on a single biased document without any outside independent sources, biased or non-biased, to support the claims of the original document. If at all any changes should be made, then increased stringency in the analysis of sources rather than reduced stringency would be beneficial to establishing events as historical.

when I said complementary, I mean Matthew will include details left out by Luke vice versa. You may ask," were they not supposed to be inspired?" I answer," Inspiration does not make us an Island/Repository of all knowledge. Else, we wouldnt need church/fellowship since those who receive the Spirit are to 'know everything'!"

Certainly, inspiration by a divine, omniscient entity should make one an island of knowledge. The knowledge we are even concerned with here isn't brobdingnagian. It is rather quite simple. A precise, punctilious chronological account of Jesus' life. This shouldn't be such a big deal especially when one is under the influence of an omniscient entity.

I believe this will answer your questions, patiently read through.

The apostle Paul stated, “If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ.… And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins… . If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable” (I Corinthians 15:14, 15, 17, 19, KJV).

A common objection to the fact of the resurrection is that the four Gospel narratives contain hopeless contradictions. If the four accounts were placed in parallel columns, a number of apparent differences would be highlighted. However, these apparent differences ultimately confirm the truthfulness of these accounts, rather than refute them.

If all four Gospels gave exactly the same story, in exactly the same order, with exactly the same details, we would immediately become suspicious. We could also wonder why all four writers did not simply attach their names as co-authors of one account. Obviously, this is not the case. None of the four Gospels gives all the details of what transpired.

Matthew is the only writer who records the first appearance to the women, while only in Luke do we find the account of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. The appearance of Mary Magdalene is omitted by both Matthew and Luke. Only John records the appearance of our Lord in the upper room, when Thomas was absent and the appearance on the sea of Galilee.

It is quite clear that all of the Gospels relate their portraits of Jesus differently. This is what we should expect. No four witnesses (or news reporters), all of whom witness a series of events, will write them up in exactly the same way, detail for detail. If they did, there would be obvious collusion.

If the differences concerned the main points of the story, then there would be justification for doubt, but when the salient points are agreed upon by every witness, insignificant differences add to, rather than subtract from, the validity.

It should be noted, too, that none of the details necessarily flatly contradicts any others, but in some plausible way they correlate together to supply the larger picture. The variations in detail the different writers chose to include in the resurrection narratives consist of incidental things which in no way jeopardize the main plot of the story.

One of the seeming contradictions that bothers people concerns the time the women came to the tomb, related differently by John and Mark. Mark’s account has the women coming to the tomb at the rising of the sun, while John states that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb when it was dark.

This difficulty is solved when it is realized that the women had to walk quite some distance to reach the grave, since they stayed in Jerusalem or Bethany. It was dark when they left the place in which they were staying, but when they arrived at the tomb the sun was beginning to shine. Therefore, Mark is speaking of their arrival, while John refers to their departure.

The area which has generated the most discussion concerns the angels who were at the tomb of Jesus. Matthew and Mark relate that one angel addressed the women, while Luke and John say that two angels were at the tomb.

This seems to be a discrepancy, with Matthew and Mark knowing of only one angel while Luke and John speak of two. However, Matthew and Mark do not say that there was only one angel at the tomb, but that one angel spoke to the women.

This does not contradict Luke and John, for Matthew and Mark specify that one angel spoke, but they do not say there was only one angel present or only one angel spoke. Quite possibly one of the angels served as the spokesman for the two, thus he was emphasized. There is no need to assume a discrepancy.

Though they report some of the details differently, the Gospels agree in all important points. The accounts are in harmony on the fact that Jesus was dead and buried; that the disciples were not prepared for His death, but were totally confused; that the tomb was empty on Easter morning; that the empty tomb did not convince them that Jesus had risen; that Mary thought the body had been stolen.

The Gospel writers also concur that the disciples had certain experiences which they believed to be appearances of the resurrected Christ. That normative first century Judaism had no concept of a dying and rising Messiah is a historical fact.

The disciples proclaimed the resurrection story in Jerusalem, in the place where Jesus had been killed and buried. All these facts considered together constitute a powerful argument for the validity of the resurrection story.

The venerable scholar, Wilbur Smith, had this to say about the differences in the resurrection accounts and the areas in which the Gospels agree:

“In these fundamental truths, there are absolutely no contradictions. The so-called variations in the narratives are only the details which were mostly vividly impressed on one mind or another of the witnesses of our Lord’s resurrection, or on the mind of the writers of these four respective Gospels.

“The closest, most critical, examination of these narratives throughout the ages never has destroyed and can never destroy their powerful testimony to the truth that Christ did rise from the dead on the third day, and was seen of many” (The Supernaturalness of Christ, W.A. Wilde Company, 1954, p. 205).
George Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, Eerdmans, 1975
Wilbur Smith, The Supernaturalness of Christ, W.A. Wilde Company, 1954
W.J. Sparrow-Simpson, The Resurrection and the Christian Faith, Zondervan, 1968
Merrill Tenney, The Reality of the Resurrection, Harper and Row, 1963
Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics Ask About the Christian Faith, P. 85
http://www.josh.org/resources/study-research/answers-to-skeptics-questions/how-do-you-explain-contradictions-in-the-resurrection-story/

This epistle you've posted precisely makes my point. You can not precisely answer the questions I posed. Because by attempting to do so, you'd also be invalidating some of the other gospel accounts. Certainly, there couldn't have been one and two angels in the tomb at a time. The stone couldn't have been both in place and rolled away when the women arrived. They can't all be right. Something's got to give. At least some, if not all, of the gospels are very wrong about what really happened

I don't believe in the existence of god(s) and the supernatural.

Scholar8200:
1. Give those embellishments and show how they contradict other prophesies, patterns and principles in the Law, Prophets, Epistles and other Gospels!

Asking this shows that you're either simply being insincere or plain ignorant.

2. A good number of the other 'gospels' are the ones contaminated by the gnostics: a cult that existed in pre-christian times. It was the error of this same cult that Paul confronted in the Epistle to the Colossians. In fact it wont be illogical to say that the emphasis of the Divinity of Christ by John shows that he was also countering the lie of the Gnostics (existence of lesser, intermediary gods and perhaps trying to make Jesus one of them). That is why John specifically wrote:
1 John 4:2,3a
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist,

The highlighted was a direct rebuttal to the lie of the gnostic gospellers that Christ did not actual come in the flesh (rings a bell!.) because of their belief that the flesh is intrinsically evil.

What proof have you that the gnostic gospels were "contaminated"? There were diverse Christian sects beginning from the first century CE. As much as we know, gnosticism dates back to the first century too. The fact that the Christian view which you now consider orthodox was adopted by Constantine's state church, doesn't mean it is any more credible or less "contaminated". If the gnostics or any other sect had won the doctrinal war, perhaps gnosticism would be your "truth" today.

5. The record of Zacchaeus, parable of Lazarus and the rich man etc are peculiar only to Luke, going by your parameter, do we then discredit those too?

My parameter It isn't my parameter. Like I stated before, it is one of the methods used by historians to establish that an event did occur in the past. As a Christian, you can of course personally believe everything in the Bible by faith, but for any biblical account to be established historically as fact, it must pass the necessary tests. Just like there is the scientific method, there also is the historical method.

Inspiration was not designed to foster independence and mental perfection; the 4 Gospels that made it into the Bible are complementary and prove that, in spite of what the devil may try God will preserve that which is His:

Isaiah 34:16
Seek from the book of the Lord, and read:

Not one of these will be missing;
None will lack its mate.
For His mouth has commanded,
And His Spirit has gathered them.

I fail to understand how the contradictions in the gospels are complementary? I would like you to give precise answers to these questions:
What were the last words of Jesus on the cross?
Did the two thieves crucified with Jesus ridicule him or only one?
Who saw the risen Christ first?
Who were the group of women that visited the tomb that morning?
Was the stone rolled away before or after they arrived?
How many angels( or men) did they see?
Where did they see these angels? Inside the tomb? Outside it? Sitting on the rolled-away stone?Standing?
Did Magdalene see Jesus himself rather than the angels?
Where were the disciples told they'd see Jesus?
Where did Jesus appear to his disciples and gave his final command?

Scholar8200:
The gospels complement one another. You will readily agree with me that no man is an island of knowledge;I will also add that the Spirit was not sent to make individuals islands of knowledge, independent of others! Else what is the role of teaching and preaching if every believer is to know everything?

Hence, four gospels was given that one might complement the other.

Actually, John is very different from the synoptic gospels. This is an established fact. And it's the latest of the four, giving room for embellishments. There are/were many gospels. Stop emphasising on four like there aren't more. Four were only selected at the council of Nicea by men no smarter than you. What all these gospels have in common is that they were not written by eye witnesses.

Now for reason 2, the fact that other gospels did not record that event does not mean it did not happen! The fact that other Gospels did not record the encounter of Christ with the woman of Samaria at the well does not mean it did not happen!

It however reduces the reliability of the account. One of the methods historians use to establish that an event did happen in the past is agreement between independent sources. If there aren't outside sources to support said account, it can not be established.

Blackfire:
@op u didnt mention me?.
Ok i left deeper life to become an atheist.

Asari dokunbo left deeper life to become a millitant and a muslim.

Seriously, Asari Dokubo attended deeper life?

No. Cos praying to god is akin to praying to a stone, a pencil or some other inanimate object. Hard work is the key, bro. And you have to accept that there are things you just can't change. Lighthouse family says, "....that's the beauty of life. It takes a while to find. But you can't have things your own way all the time".

dorox:
It certainly is the largest sheep farm that I have ever seen. I am very sure that with a farm that big the owner must be making a jackpot killing.

I tell ya

I have tried putting it on recovery mode but it won't respond, just vibrating. It refuses to unlock and every screen function like power off and reboot doesn't respond too. Who knows what I can do?

Interesting but no comments. Believers don't like stuff like this.

johnydon22:
And you know the names the gospels bear are all later additions to it. . . . All the 50 gospels vary in timeline as well as content, individual perception and ideas

Yes, the gospels are anonymous. Those names were later attached probably to give them authority.

Scholar8200:
Luke's scope of study as stated in the introduction suggests his focus was to be more on what Theophilus had already believed- the life and teachings of Jesus - hence quickly brushing through such prefatory aspects might be pardonable.

Luke 1:3,4

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.

I am persuaded that the highlighted may not concern as much issues as Mary's father or how old she was or how they had to go to Egypt etc

OK

Jesus appeared more than once to the disciples.

Maybe I didn't phrase that well. I mean, Where did Jesus ask them to meet him? Where was he taken up to heaven: Galilee or Bethany? Matthew says Galilee. Luke says Bethany( a few miles from Jerusalem). John alone talks of multiple appearances.

johnydon22:
McSterlin very correct, there are in fact up 50 of these gospels written. . . The ones that made it in the bible are called Synoptic gospels while the ones left our are called Gnostic gospels of which Gnostic christians and churches still make use of some of these texts too. .

In fact, one of the non-synoptic gospels made it to the Bible: the gospel of John. It isn't synoptic. It makes no claims of a virgin birth and contains ideas and many accounts not found in the previous three. Again, it was written later than the other three. It's only John that contains the idea that Jesus is the word or "logus" in Greek. And it is John who tries to make Jesus God or equal with God.

Scholar8200:
If we would be fair, the highlighted points would be answered accordingly:
1. It would be wrong to dispense with the culture and practice of the people Luke was writing about; besides, the genealogies were not generated by Luke, being an elite himself (a physician), I am persuaded that he had access to the genealogies in Genesis, 1 Chronicles , Inter-testament period (just about 400 years) etc. If Luke had dispensed with the practise and changed the genealogies, there are some today that will claim that to be a contradiction too!

Fair enough, but I still think Luke would have clarified better as he was wont to do, if he did mean what you imply.

2. Luke wont be attempting to confuse one of such a high position; perhaps if he had written to a group of recently converted savages, this would be hard to prove. In those days, it was the practise of such highly placed people to search through the rolls when informations and claims are made. Examples can be found in Ezra 6:1,2 Matthew 2:4-6, Acts 17:10-11. Writing to such enlightened person / group calls for painstaking carefulness and diligence for the very fact that you know your claims will be cross-examined.

The bolded is the very reason I expect that Luke would have clarified better. It is hard for anybody to simply wring out the explanation of Heli being Mary's father from what Luke wrote. It appears Luke wanted to quickly brush through this very significant item in Christian theology. Or do the chronicles say Heli was Mary's father? The idea that Heli was Mary's father seems more like a conjecture borne out of the contradiction in Matthew and Luke. It's also interesting to note that some Church fathers didn't accept this explication.

The gospels complement one another. You will readily agree with me that no man is an island of knowledge;I will also add that the Spirit was not sent to make individuals islands of knowledge, independent of others! Else what is the role of teaching and preaching if every believer is to know everything? The principle is this:

Ephesians 4:16
16 He makes the whole body fit together perfectly. As each part does its own special work, it helps the other parts grow, so that the whole body is healthy and growing and full of love.

and

1 Corinthians 14:26

26 Well, my brothers and sisters, let’s summarize. When you meet together, one will sing, another will teach, another will tell some special revelation God has given, one will speak in tongues, and another will interpret what is said. But everything that is done must strengthen all of you.

Where did the disciples see the risen Christ? Galilee or Jerusalem. It's either one or other, or maybe neither, but never both. How do they complement each other?

Summary, four gospels was given that one might complement the other.

There more gospels than that actually. You have four in your Bible now because men like you voted about it more than a thousand years ago.

malvisguy212:
before you accused the bible of contradiction, you should know that the bible was not written by ONE author , the bible was written by more than FORTY MEN between 1500 years, during this period of times ethics would have change, culture and soo many thing included. Take for example, if I want to greet you in hausa language, Good morning is "inakwana " but to translated it in English is "were you sleep" which mean a contradiction, but when you understand this culture you will find out that the contradiction doesent exist. God did not inspired his writers to contradicts each other, the bible is simply "THE WORD OF GOD IN THE WORD OF MEN" this mean history must be treated as history and culture as culture. Satan is manipulating most of you guys here on nairaland, honestly, I wept for you guys here.

Jesus christ is the first begotten son of God , the bible made it clear, the conception of Mary is not a physical thing, it is God himself who sanctioned the unique birth of Jesus, if you believe in God , is it difficult to believe God can caused a woman to give birth to a son without the agency of a man ? I will past an articles of how animals were having the virgin birth. Read it

Scientists are discovering that virgin
births occur in many different species;
amphibians, reptiles, cartilaginous and
bony fish and birds and it happens for
reasons we don't quite understand.
Read more:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141219-spectacular-real-virgin-births

Yes, the Bible contains all these contradictions precisely because it was written by several men over a wide stretch of time. Men who had different backgrounds and wrote for different purposes, sometimes making pretensions to being a significant figure in the writ like Moses, Solomon, David, Samuel, the apostles, etc., in order to give the writ authority and acceptance. It is clearly not a divine document. It a wholly human document. Several other writs from antiquity are more deserving of the title of divine, though none of them obviously are. Don't weep for me or anybody posting their ideas on the internet. It's not worth it. It's a free world.

Thanks for the link. But asexual reproduction has not been demonstrated in mammals or primates to be more precise. The article had this to say:

Researchers today say that it remains highly
unlikely, and perhaps even impossible, for a
virgin mammal to naturally produce viable
offspring, due to some fundamental aspects of
their biology.
But perhaps, someday, somewhere, somehow, a
mammal will surprise us all.

Even if it becomes demonstrable, it doesn't prove that some holy ghost did it. Neither would it prove that Jesus had a virgin birth. You sure know that those animals' asexual reproduction has a lot to do with their biology. It is entirely scientific. Or do you think the holy ghost was responsible for Thelma's baby snakes?

malvisguy212:
I have just two things to say:
1.you are using the bible to proved your points, and you want the bible to contradicte its self by calling Joseph the biological son of Joseph and then say again , Jesus is the first begotten son of God ?you are wrong my friend.
2.Jesus cannot be the son of God and then be the biological son of Joseph, abi ? God plan of salvation began since the foundation of this world, Jesus HAD to be born of a virgin so that by accepting Jesus as your Lord mean you are a adopted son of God. If you called Jesus biological son of Joseph, then can you proved it ? Using the bible, I doubt soo.

I don't have to want the Bible to contradict itself. The truth is that it does in many places. Many critical biblical scholars can attest to this. To say Jesus wasn't born as a result of the union of a man and woman is entirely a matter of faith, because as much as we know empirically, a zygote is only formed due to the fusion of the male and female gametes. If anyone claims otherwise, it would be only reasonable to disbelieve. If I claimed I was the son of Thor, would you take my word for it? Would you believe me?

Scholar8200:
The point is Joseph cannot be Heli's biological son and Jacob's biological son at the same time! Heli was a descendant of Nathan while Jacob Matthew 1:16 was a descendant of Solomon; Nathan and Solomon being David's sons.

It was common practice to use only the names of Israelite men in genealogical trees; the women mentioned are usually those from other countries who, through marriage, became Israelites too. The purpose of this genealogies was to preserve inheritance in the tribe. As regards inheritance, this was the practice.

Numbers 36:8
The daughters throughout the tribes of Israel who are in line to inherit property must marry within their tribe, so that all the Israelites will keep their ancestral property

I believe this principle underscored the use of the husband's name in genealogies.


Hence Joseph was actually a son-in-law to Heli, a legal but not biological son.

I believe Luke (who was writing to a gentile, elite believer-Theophilus Luke 1:1-4) anticipated this issue of how Christ could be the son of David when we consider the virgin birth, hence he used the genealogy of Mary.

In other words, Jesus had no link with Joseph. He was a descendant of David because his only blood relative Mary was a descendant of David through her father Heli. I'm curious as to why this explanation was wrung out of that verse. Nowhere is it said that Mary's father was Heli. This explanation is only borne out of the fact that Matthew and Luke's genealogies are very divergent.

And since Luke (a gentile himself) was writing to another gentile, I see no reason why he had to adhere to the Jewish tradition of naming only males in genealogical trees. If he really meant Heli was Mary's father, why didn't he just say so? Why didn't he simply clarify that Joseph was a "son-in-law" as opposed to "son" of Heli? One would expect him to have made this clarification since he was writing to a gentile who most likely was not familiar with Jewish tradition. Or do you think Luke was deliberately trying to confuse his recipient?

The gospels also contradict one another on the account of Jesus' resurrection. Their different accounts can simply not be reconciled. It's either one is correct and others are wrong or they're all wrong. They can't all be correct. I think the same applies to the different genealogies in Matthew and Luke.