₦airaland Forum

frosbel: In which case you may have a problem with English comprehension, I suggest you go back to page 1 and start all over again.

I have and I didn't see anything resembling a reason. Can you post a link to the specific post you are talking about?

frosbel: your fake lols will not deter us from pounding your pagan myths into the ground , until they are revealed for what they are, fables and myths.

Lol, I can see that you are now trying hard to derail your own thread in the hope that you can evade the question of Christ's pre-existence which you initiated yourself.

frosbel: Look at this hypocrite who is immersed into false doctrine asking me to repent , lol.

Remove the LOG from your Pharisee eyes before you see clearly to remove the speck in the eyes of others.

It is interesting to notice that in 6 pages and counting, you are yet to tell us anything about the topic of your thread.

#FrosbelExposed

ijawkid: Lo and behold this Yahweh who decsended didn't know the day and hour when he would return but someone else knew..........

You guys don't know how foolish y'all look when you just quote scriptures without understanding them....

Now can you kindly string out the word that should make that rendering fix YHWH in that verse??....

Is the tetragrammaton present or is it a reference to YHWH coming to earth as man whom no one can see and hath seen??....

Small time na ona go run around dey quote phillipians 2:5-6 saying Jesus dropped his divinity and came to the earth,....

Here are the same double mouthed persons pressing that YHWH was a man who died.......

Rubbish.....

Lol, sometimes I really feel sorry for you lot and all the scripture you have to diligently deny in order to keep your false doctrine afloat.

Reyginus: Slight oversight on your part. Can you appreciate your answer 'No' with number 3?

My apologies, I was too hasty.

For question number 3, the answer is simple. God has already granted us forgiveness through Christ Jesus (while we were yet sinners), it is now left to us to accept His gift which He has freely given. As I always say, God will not force us into Heaven against our will.

You are not justified to bear grudges until the offender pleads for mercy however, you can have mercy and yet the offender can choose to reject mercy and you cannot force mercy upon the person.

shdemidemi: I believe the defendant of the thread is not with the scripture with this one, we don't have to crucify the brother. We should gently call him to order while we end the thread for good.

My dear brother, my bible teaches me that if anyone goes astray, I should lovingly call him back to truth and admonish him. But after the first and second admonition and he still refuses to repent, I am to wash my hands off him and regard him as the sinner he is.

There was a time when I called out to frosbel to repent. I called out to him as a brother to examine scripture with me and turn back to the Lord but he has continued down the part of destruction.

Now all that is left for me is to expose his heresies for all to see so that he doesn't drag down any of God's people into the pit with him. I still hope and pray that he will repent and escape from the judgment of God's wrath.


Notice that he didn't respond to my post above where I have shown through scripture the words of Jesus Christ totally debunking his false teaching. Rather than repent, he'll ignore it and and like a dog returning to it's vomit he'll open a thread another day to claim the same nonsense all over again.

Permit me to give you rapid fire answers here

Reyginus: First and most importantly, I am a christain.
There is this problem I encountered while fliping through some pages with my mind.
That is, can we be justified when we chose not to forgive someone who continously wrong us but is yet to ask for forgiveness?
If yes, wouldn't that weaken our lord's prayer?
If no, can God forgive a serial sinner who is without remorse?
If yes, wouldn't it show a mark of contradiction on the person of God?
I need answers, please.

1. That is, can we be justified when we chose not to forgive someone who continously wrong us but is yet to ask for forgiveness?

You are NOT justified to do this.

2. If yes, wouldn't that weaken our lord's prayer?
3. If no, can God forgive a serial sinner who is without remorse?
4. If yes, wouldn't it show a mark of contradiction on the person of God?

Questions 2,3 and 4 disintegrate following from the answer to question 1

hisblud: Interesting, read this in the Hebrew Root version of
1 Corithians 15
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. KJV


1 Corithians 15
45 So it is also written, Adam, the first man, became a living nefesh; and the last Adam, a quickening spirit.
46 But the spiritual was not first but the natural and then the spiritual.
47 The first son of man* was dust that was from the earth. The second man was YHWH from heaven. HRV[b][/b]

WOOOOOW! This is BEAUTIFULL! (with double L for emphasis)

Brethren, why don't we end this nonsense once and for all.

Frosbel has claimed that Jesus did not exist before he was physically born

Jesus has answered by saying:

No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.(John 3:13)


Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away; for I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. (John 6:37-38)

......When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?" But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, "Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see [size=14pt]the Son of Man ascending to where he was before[/size]? (John 6:60-62)

The above words of Jesus Christ himself are explicitly clear and unambiguous.

#CaseClosed

frosbel: I can see you also have a quick temper hence the insult, but hey I can accomodate your tantrums.

Let me repeat just in case you are hard of hearing, you will not know the truth if you ran into it.

There is hope , don't lose heart, with some humility and diligence , you just may come to a knowledge of this truth.

Lololol, so asking you to give us the link to what you claimed to have posted is now an insult?

Na wa for you o! I wonder how you reason.

shdemidemi: I don't understand frosbel o, you open a thread for the sake of it and you sound so proud that you can't back the topic up.

What is wrong with u ?

Nna mehn, the thing dey amuse me no be small. This is the first time I'm seeing someone impressed with his own incompetence.

frosbel: of course you will miss the TRUTH since you dwell with the LIE , that's why you are deceived.

Dude, either you post a link to where you posted this "truth" of yours or you shut up.

OLAADEGBU: So I'm not the only one to have noticed this fact?

The fact is so obvious it is scary

frosbel: anony , I can call you dishonest and lacking in integrity , but I choose not to descend to that level of personal vendetta, because after all we are only here to voice our opinions on certain church doctrines and debate our position.

My point has been made and hundreds enlightened on the TRUTH , this is what matters to be , not the rants of anony.

Lol, please where did you make this mysterious truth point of yours? Please link to it, I guess I must have missed it.

....or you can dodge this request and open another thread as usual.

Frank4YAHWEH: You asked in your previous post about error in translation and I gave you an examples. Do you believe that the translation that you use is witout error? I do not believe that any translation is without error.

I have answered this. Any mistranslations that occur will usually be very minor as is normally expected any time one translates from one language to another. The only way to legitimately claim a mistranslation has occured is if you are fluent in the two languages

Would you like to show me from your translation where it says "Jesus pre-existed his birth."? I do not believe there is any translation of Scripture that says this.

This is where you are wrong.

Let us examine scripture:

JESUS IN CONVERSATION WITH NICODEMUS.

Jesus answered him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. - John 3:10-13 (Emphasis on John 3:13)

---

JOHN THE BAPTIST TELLING HIS DISCIPLES ABOUT JESUS CHRIST.

And they came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, he who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you bore witness--look, he is baptizing, and all are going to him." John answered, "A person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven. You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, 'I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.' The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete. He must increase, but I must decrease." He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all. He bears witness to what he has seen and heard, yet no one receives his testimony. Whoever receives his testimony sets his seal to this, that God is true. For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure. The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. - John 3:26-36 (Emphasis on verses 31 and 32)

---

JESUS CHRIST SPEAKING TO THE JEWS.
So they said to him, "Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'" Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?"
Jesus answered them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me-- not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father.
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."
The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"
But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. - John 6:30-66 (Emphasis on verses 38, 41, 42, 46, and 62)

---

Notice that I have taken the pains to quote those verses in their context so that you don't miss exactly what the bible is saying

Yes, I believe that all translations have been twisted, so we have nothing to talk about.

I suppose you don't think the whole bible is twisted because you have claimed to stand by what it says. Now I'll ask: What method do you use to tell the difference between the "twisted" parts and the non-twisted parts of the bible?

Frank4YAHWEH: When one says "The Bible says "Jesus is God.", this is twisting Scripture, since nowhere in ANY TRANSLATION of Scripture does it say this. What it does say throughout the so-called "New Testament" in your own translation is "Jesus is the SON of God." In this section of Scripture it even ask us to believe and confess this:

Whosoever shall confess that Yahshua is the son of Yahweh, Yahweh dwells in him, and he in Yahweh (1 Yahchanan [John] 4:15).

Another example of twisting of Scripture is with the translators. There are words, verses and even a whole pargraph that has been added to Scripture that changes or takes away from the meaning of what is being said. Take a look through the footnotes in the more modern translations and you will find MANY times that these footnotes will say concerning a certain word or words "Not found in the most ancient (or any former)." manuscripts." Many times it is these manuscripts that they used in translating the Scriptures. It only stands to reason that if these words were not in the most ancient or fomer manuscipts, that these words were not there originally and have been added on to the text of Scripture. The title of the first edition of the KIng James translation was "THE HOLY BIBLE, Containing the Old Testament, AND THE NEW: Newly Translated out of the Original tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties special Commandment". You will note that it says close to this on the more modern King James versions centered on the title page. Do you really believe that there were no errors made in translation with this being the practice of the transltors? Do you really beleve there was no bias in translation with those transaltors who were Trinitarians? I do not!

You are shifting goal posts. We are not talking about Trinity, we are talking specifically about whether Christ pre-existed His physical birth.

I have not said that errors cannot be made in translations however the only people who can truly say that a text has been mistranslated are people who actually have a good understanding of the language that has been translated from as well as the one that has been translated to. For instance if I wanted to claim that an English text has been mistranslated from Yoruba, I must be able to understand the two languages in order to legitimately make that claim.

Now, in your long response, the question you neglected to answer was if there are any translations that you think are genuine. If you provide such a translation, then we can proceed to do examine the claims you are making. Or do you think that ALL TRANSLATIONS of the bible are twisted?

If you think all translations are twisted, then we cannot have any discussion because all the documents we would have used to base our argument upon would be unnacceptable to you.

So my question again: Which bible translations if any do you think are free from "twisting"?

Frank4YAHWEH: 1. Yes, I do, but I believe that many translations of Father Yahweh's inspired prophetic word have been twisted ("wrest" - 2 Kepha [Peter] 3:16-17) and added on to and in turn taken away from.

1b. No, I do not believe Yahshua pre-existed his birth as an actual being for the simple fact that nowhere in Scripture is such foolishness taught. It is what is actually said in Scripture that leads me to believe that Yahshua was and is "A MAN" and not "God", "a god", a "God-Man, or an "angel". Scripture clearly teaches that Yahshua came in the flesh and Father Yahweh is not flesh and blood.

Yahshua replied, "Blessed are you, Simeon ben Yahnah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father IN HEAVEN (Mattithyah [Matthew] 16:17).

Note that the verse above clearly reveals that Father Yahweh is not flesh and blood. It is clearly revealed in Scripture that FATHER Yahweh is spirit. It is FATHER Yahweh's SOn who is flesh and blood and who was born a mortal being. It is FATHER Yahweh that is an immoratal being, not His SON Yahshua. Yahshua was born a mortal being that was susepible to death. Father Yahweh can not die! I would be impossible for mere men to execute FATHER Yahweh by nailing Him to a pagan cross! Not true with HIs son, since he was born a moratl being that was susepible tp death.

I figured I would give you a different explanation, since I have previously explained why I do not believe Yahshua pr-existed his birth because of other reasons. Please do review my posts!


Did Yahshua Create Or Pre-exist His Birth?
http://frank4yahweh.tripod.com/ByAndThrough.html

Ok, now before we proceed further I'd like to address a something you've said here: You have said that you believe the Word of God has been twisted. I'll ask:

1. How exactly do you know that a translation is twisted and another isn't? This is an important question because it wouldn't make sense if you only believe that the bible is twisted in places it doesn't fit with your ideas.

To legitimately claim that the bible is twisted, you have to show that you have access to and correctly understand the original documents then also be able to properly point out exactly where the offending translations have erred.

2. If you can meet the conditions in 1. above (or even if you don't), then please provide which translations if any that you think are not twisted explaining why you think they are more in accordance to the original documents and then we'll work with those.

Once you have provided the translation you want us to work with, then we'll begin investigate and see if according to scripture, Jesus Christ pre-existed His physical birth.

I am keen to hear your reply

Originally, I asked to be given some time to respond to this because I wanted to be sure I could pinpoint what the New Atheism actually is but unfortunately I failed at that because the so called "new atheism" is largely undefined and is best recognized by the faces of Dawkins and co. I think the easiest way to honestly define new atheism is to call it the atheism of the 4 horsemen namely: Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and Hitchens. If you don't mind, in order to keep the argument from flying on tangents I'll suggest we focus on these 4. You are free to add other names you feel are New atheists but for the ease of discussion, I'll refer to them as Dawkins et al.

Logicboy03: Sorry, I had to laugh for 2 minutes because of the bold....yes, it is true; we no longer have meaningful debates...our debates used to enter 5 pages and were the reading diets of the religion section...
===========================================

Lol, oh well.

So, on topic- what do you honestly mean by

1) "they never make any argument for why atheism is true instead of theism."
Dawkins and co. have stated that there is no evidence for god....they have explained the world without God- evolution, big bang etc

Let's see, can you mention any arguments Dawkins et al have made to conclude that God does not exist? If so, please present the argument thus:

According to Dawkins et al (insert name of horseman): God does not exist because.....

Note: I am not talking about counter arguments like "theists claim X but X doesn't really prove that...." I am talking about actual positive arguments made by them.

2) "The claim that they want to criticize religion rationally is always destroyed by the fact that their favourite weapon of choice is irrational mockery."
Dawkins and co, have explained the failures of religion. Hitchens murdered the catholic church on its homophobia...Dawkins talked about the heavy habdedness of the old testament God.

Have they now? I really don't think so. For instance, Dawkins' favourite weapon of choice is to set up the false parallel between science and religion and then proceed to play the game of religion = dumb, science = smart. Ironically, most of his fans do not really learn to actually reason and question things rather they learn instead to trust the "scientist" in a remarkably similar way the religious learn to trust their priests.

By the way, dont you think that it is a bit fallacious to claim that new atheism is the actions of the most popular new atheists?

I would agree that there is something quite wrong with defining new atheism by the actions of dawkins et al, however I know of no better way of defining it. If you present a better definition for us, I would gladly consider it

Frank4YAHWEH: I have never said that I have no respect for the so-called "New Testament". Have you not seen me in this forum thread constantly quoting it?

Let us see how honest you are.

1. Do you believe that the New Testament's account of Jesus Christ is true?
1a. If no, then we have no basis for discussion
1b. If yes, then please give biblical reasons that led you to the conclusion that Jesus Christ did not pre-exist His physical birth

Basically, I don't need any long story. If 1b is true for you, just give your reasons in the following format

Jesus Christ did not exist before his physical birth because.....

frosbel: Oh please criticize my character, because that's what losers in a debate do when they have lost an argument.

Lolololol, you know, this would have made some sense if you had actually made an argument in the first place. There has to actually be a debate first before you can legitimately say that someone lost it. That's how debates work

So far, you have not given us a single reason why you think that Jesus Christ did not exist before He was born physically.


P/s: I am not criticizing your character to make you look bad - You look bad enough already. I am criticizing your character to make you aware of your defects and in the hope that you will change for the better.

frosbel: This is an open forum where I can open a million articles and do whatever I want with them , including but not limited to ignoring or not responding to certain people, reading without commenting, replying comments 3 years down the line and so on and so forth.

If you are not comfortable with this approach, accept my sympathy.

Lol, I don't have any problem with how you choose to respond or not respond but then you equally shouldn't have a problem with me calling you out or criticizing your character either. It is an open forum remember.

It works both ways my friend

Frank4YAHWEH: The problem is, nowhere in Scripture is it made known that he existed before His birth and nowhere in Scripture is there one verse telling or the Messiah himself telling people that he existed before his physical birth. There is no verse in Scripture that clearly or actually says 'Yahshua existed before his physical birth.' nor is he ever recorded in the so-called "New Testament" as saying 'I existed before my physical birth.'

I was going to reply you but when I saw you use the phrase "so called New Testament" I decided not to bother. It makes no sense arguing with someone when we don't have anything in common upon which to base our arguments. If you don't respect the New Testament, there is no point proving anything to you from it.

frosbel: Mate, slander is fact becoming your preoccupation.

I trust you understand some of us have Jobs and cannot always respond at the pace which you want us to.

Lol dude, describing you accurately is not slander. . . .unless you have an unfavourable opinion of yourself. There is a difference between avoiding discussion on the very topic you created and not being able to discuss because of job constraints.

I am still yet to see you present any reasons why you believe that Christ did not exist before He came to the world. Mind you, it was you who initiated the topic not us.

mazaje: I thought the said the bible is the word of god, so your god can not make people to write down things accurately without embelishments, eh?. . .By the way the authors of the gospels were NOT witness to any of the events they recorded, the gospels were NOT written by people who knew Jesus or even meet him. . .Just greek speaking christians writing for different audiences based on hear say stories about Jesus. . .If me and my friends go to a market and are told to recillect what we saw we can never give very contradictory stories as are found in the bible, like one saying he saw a man while another saying he saw two angles. . .The bible is NOT reliable and it has been shown that the later authors tried to correct the mistakes that were made by mark by ommiting some of his errors and putting their own new stories. .For example : In Mark 10:46, 11:1-11, Mark describes Jesus as travelling from Jericho to Jerusalem via Bethpage and then Bethany. D.E. Nineham (Saint Mark) says that as Bethphage and Bethany are given in reverse order to that in which travellers from Jericho would reach them, we must therefore assume that St Mark did not know the relative positions of the two villages on the Jericho road. Matthew appears to have recognised the error since, in his account, he removed the reference to Bethany.

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?

Now you consider the oddesy as fiction, eh?. . .It was not written as fiction, jut the way the bible was not written as a work of fiction even though the bible is also fictitious in reality. . .A lot of fictitious tales abound in the bible, I gave you an example of the trail before Pilate, no followers of Jesus were believed to have been present at any such trial, so the dialogues recorded in gospel accounts (which range from the few words in Mark to a more extensive dialogue between Pilate and Jesus in John's version) are almost certainly fictitious. . . .

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?

Only that non of the authors of the gospels claimed to have witnessed it or saw it themselves. . .The gospels were not written by eye witness. . .They were written based on hear say and their primary aim is to evangelize. . .

The author of the gospel of John was an eyewitness.

Why do historians consider Josephus credible but not Luke?. . .Josephus is considered to be a credible historian by all and his works are studied in academic circles. . .No one even knows Luke and no body apart from religious apoligist consider him to be a historian at all. . .No one even knows Luke any where because Luke does not even claim to have written anything to begin with. .Who is Luke?. . .Who knows him any where?. . .Where has he ever introcuded himself as Luke any where in his writtings?. . .

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?

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.

the question is irrelevent as I have told you already. . .

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?

So in Mazaje's world asking people to back up their claims is now irrelevant eh? I see.

Kay 17: Our criminal code:



This finishes the entire case.

Ah I see, I hope you know that by your argument, nobody was murdered during the holocaust because according to German law then, what they did to the Jews was not murder.
Also during the slave trade, slaves were not counted as human beings but as property. By your logic, those who hung their slaves or had dogs eat them up also did not commit murder?

When we say that murder is unlawful, we are not referring to some arbitrary laws that can be made up by anyone rather we are referring to an objective moral law that binds all of us.

Kay 17: I just googled the Criminal Code applicable to Nigeria and went through it.

Is abortion murder?

yes it is

Kay 17: @anony

What is Murder?

Unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by another

mazaje: It is NOT an irrational position because notable historians themselves have said it. . .Ancient history is mostly reconstructed inbtelligently. . . .You can NEVER trust oral history or hear say stories, especially ones recorded as theological books made for religious belief . . .It is always embellished . . .I gave an example of such embelishment even in the bible. According to Mark the first gospel that was written when the ladies enetered the empty tomb of Jesus they saw a man who told them Jesus had risen , by the time Matthew was written the man had turned to an angle and he told them that Jesus had risen, in Luke it was two men they saw who told them that Jesus had risen . .By the time John the last gospel was written they man in Mark had turned into two angles who told the woman Jesus had risen . .So even there you can see the tradition of embelishment. . .In the first gospel written it was one man by the time the last one was written many years later the man turned into two angles. . .Hear say stories are NOT to be trusted. .

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 have told you that the gospels are NOT historical accounts, they were written primarily as a theological document. . .No body considers the oddessy as a historical document . . .No body considers the verders as historical documents. . .They are religious documents that are NOT to be regarded historical . . .Their primary aim is to evangelize and not to report history . . .

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

Sure, for a book to be considered worthy the writer MUST identify himself and state his sources so that we can know if he is lying or telling the truth . . .That is why i said the bible is not a religious document and needs not be taken seriously since no one knows who wrote most of the gospel stories . . .They were anonymous documents floating around until some fathers decided to attach name to them to give them credibility, even the fathers knew that no one will consider an anonymous document credible that was why they decided to attach names to them. . . I have told you that historians themselves have admitted that ancient history is not to be trusted because of how difficult it is to verfy things based on the tradtion used at that time. . .How can you expect a person that was not a witness to an event to tell you exactly how it happened like 50 year after the event happened?. . .Even now with our ability to use sophisticated cameras and report live enents we still mixc things up talk more of some one reporting an event he never witnessed 50 year before he was born. . . Ancient history is not very credible. . .I am an Hausa guy and most of our history was tranmitted using oral traditions but most people do not give it credence because it is mostly false just by listening to 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 have answered, most ancient history is not to be trusted, most are embellised. . .the tradition they use which is the oral tradition is not credible. . .Most of the stories get changed. . .

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.

And what is your challenge?

Go back and answer the questions you ignored

thehomer: We have a fully conscious man,
The man asleep,
The man comatose,
The man deeply comatose,
The man comatose requiring life support,
The man on life support for 10 years,
The man on life support for 50 years,
The man on life support for 100 years,
The man on life support for 200 years,

If you came across the man in his hospital bed at this stage, would you say he was dead?

No I'll say he is alive. I don't even see the slope you are trying to build. A person can either be alive or dead, I really see no inbetween

So what determines whether or not he ought to be saved first?



Has the 30 year old man become a president? This is an example of a red-herring. I'm asking for what you would do not some other hypothetical involving the Nigerian president.



Another red-herring. We know that physically, men are tougher than both women and children. And what I'm asking you for is what you'll do not what some trained rescuers would do.



And finally we come to your actual reason which is that you simply wish to dance away from the implications of your position. My contention shows that you strongly wish to avoid it.

Basically all you did there was split my response into bits and respond to each bit out of context. My point has already been made which is that during emergency situations, we tend to discriminate between humans; which ones to prioritize their safety and which ones to give less priority within the context of the situation. This does not make the humans any more or less human.
Rescuing people in an emergency situation is very different from a situation where one goes about actively and purposefully committing murder.

And what exactly is murder? Who determines whether or not a case of killing is murder? Is it murder to kill people for the purpose of taking away their land?

Lol, very interesting so suddenly you can't tell the difference between murder and other types of killing now? I won't fly with you on the tangent you are setting up. Go pick up a dictionary and look up the word. If you are confused by the meaning you find, come back and let's discuss.

Also, are the products of fertilization in a test-tube human? And are your skin cells human?

Test tube babies are human, skin cells aren't human beings rather they are part of the human body. How exactly do these relate to our discourse?

No I'm not. The woman who makes the decision bears the responsibility for her decision.

Very good non-answer, however the fact that you bear responsibility for your actions doesn't really tell us if you ought to do them or not. For instance telling you that a person who decides to molest children bears the responsibility of his/her decision. Tells us nothing about whether or not the person has a moral right to molest kids. You may as well have said that a person who decides to eat amala and ewedu soup bears the responsibility of his/her decision.

Wrong she doesn't that is why in modern societies, there are laws against negligence and the government can still take care of the child. Again, what you're ignoring here is the fact that the 2 year old child can live independently of the mother at this point so if she feels she is unable to cope, she can put the child up for adoption or use any of the other legal means available.

Lolol, What happened to "The woman who makes the decision bears the responsibility for her decision"?
Are you arguing that a mother is not responsible for her child while in the womb? But should only be held responsible for the child once it is outside the womb?
It appears to me that you are of the opinion that the responsibility of childcare should not normally fall upon the parent but on whoever chooses to take care of the baby and hence the neglecting parent is only wrong as long as someone else (or the government) is available to take up care of the child.
If this is case then it follows that women who don't live in "modern societies" where the government is in the habit of taking care of unwanted babies, have the right to abandon their children.
Consequently, practices like women abandoning twins in the evil forest will also not be wrong in your book since both the women and the community they live in are unwilling to take care of the babies.

The age of viability already addresses this issue. That is why there are moral abortions and immoral ones. Remember that you're taking the position that all abortions are immoral.

I'll be very interested in hearing how you draw the line between moral and immoral abortions.

By the way, the age of viability did not address my point since your argument is that a woman has the right to expel a person from the use of her body, and my counter is that such a 'right' still doesn't allow her to kill the person before he/she leaves her body and if you watched the video in the op, that is exactly what these women are doing.

Ihedinobi: Hehehehehehehehahahhahaha... No be small tin.

Lol but seriously that's how it often is with us and those of the fair s[color=#000000]ex[/color]

Frosbel's modus operandi.

Step 1. Open a thread and announce that you want to show that Christ did not pre-exist His birth

Step 2. When you are asked why you think Christ did not exist from the beginning, don't answer just accuse the person who asked you the question of arrogance

Step 3. When shown from the bible that Jesus clearly existed before His birth, ignore that too instead ask an irrelevant question pertaining to trinity

Step 4. When provided with more verse including those of Jesus Himself telling people that He existed before his physical birth, dodge those as well, instead ask the irrelevant question of whether the pre-existence of Christ is relevant to Christianity. Conveniently forget that you bothered to open a thread that you didn't think was relevant at all.

Step 5. When finally pressed to the wall and asked to make your case clear why you hold the opinions you hold. Promise everyone that you will come back to answer properly as soon as you "finish what you are doing now".

Step 6. Unfollow the thread. They can wait forever if they like.

Step 7. After a week or two, open another thread on the very same topic and repeat the process all over again

Enigma: ^^^ You guys haven't seen anything! Many are the promises "I am busy now; I will reply later" --- all na lie; na to take style run!

See how long people have been waiting on the promise here (and that is just one example) https://www.nairaland.com/1064416/put-hard-questions-trinitarian-theologians/1#12501321

Lololol....na frosbel way be that.

Notice that he hasn't yet given us any positive argument why he thinks Christ did not pre-exist his birth.