₦airaland Forum

mazaje: Disproved what?. . .The first gospels were written very long after Jesus died at least 45 years after he died by people living in another part of the world where he did not live. . .There was never a time in any Jewish historical document where the story of Jesu's resurrection was an issue any where. . .The story came long after Jesus died, it was written by unknown greek speaking christians based on hear say. . .There was nothing to disprove because nothing like the resurrection of Jesus happened any where. . .It happened ONLY in the pages of story books written by people who have never meet Jesus or knew him any where very long after he died. . .

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

Sure, the author of the book of acts was writing his own fairy tales. . .By the way nobody knows if Luke wrote the book of acts. . .Church tradition claimed he did, no know knows if its true. . .

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

I repeat you do not know if Paul was killed or suffered for his new religion. . .The entire book of acts has no credibility, for example the book of acts will claim one things or say one thing about Paul. later Paul himself will come and say another thing. . .For example Paul reports that King Aretas was the one out to get him while Luke says it was Jews.

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

No body knows if its true. . .He just claimed he was tortured, no body know if its true. . .

This is just more poor reasoning from you. All you've done once more is arbitrarily claim that Paul and Luke lied with no proof.

False, the empty tomb of Jesus was NOT know in his time, the bible is NOT a historical book, pls bring me just one book from the time of Jesus outside the bible that says the tomb of Jesus was empty. . .It is a known and widely accepted story among christians, it is NOT a fact. . .The gospels were written very long after Jesus died by people that never meet him. . .They were just writing stories based on hear say. . .There is no empty tomb of Jesus any where only stories about the empty tomb

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

Many people, and they wrote what they saw. . .

Please cite some of these people

If you can provide historical documents outside the bible that talk about Jesus ascending into heaven. . .Then I will show you historical documents outside the Hadiths that show Mohammed ascending into heaven on the back of a winged beast.

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

I will check it out and get back to you. . . .

I'm still waiting

Just trying to show you that the christian story about resurrection is NOT uniquely a christian story. . .

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

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

Logicboy03: The last time I checked on this thread, Majaze clearly said that he wasnt arguing that Jesus didnt exist....
Logicboy- fighting Anonyism since 2012

mazaje:
No where did I say that Jesus did not exist, that is your own making. . .What I am saying is that NON of the historians that covered the entire fist century say any of the things written about Jesus in the gospels and in the bible. A lot of what was written in the gospels actually contradicts known history. .Lets look at Tacitus for example. . .

Last time I checked, nowhere did I say that Mazaje was arguing that Christ didn't exist.

Notice how Mazaje argues from silence i.e. "Tacitus and Josephus etc didn't talk about Christ's miracles therefore they didn't happen".

By the way it will interest you to know that Tacitus and Josephus were not even yet born at the time of Christ and therefore couldn't have met Christ.


Logicboy: disgracing himself since 2012

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

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

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

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

That's Mazaje's favourite fallacy. He argues from silence.

i.e. "Mazaje has never talked about X therefore X must not exist".

It's one of the simplest examples of bad logic, yet he does it over and over again.

mazaje: Anony is trying to tell us that christianity has divine origins but that is VERY FALSE and there is NOTHING in early christianity that suggest such. . .The religion was formed by people after the character called Jesus. I consider the founders of christianity to be the early church fathers like Justin Matyr, Papias, Ireneaus, Polycarp etc and not even Jesus, Paul or Peter. . .The early church fathers brought the gospels to us, they were the ones that ascribed the names on the nameless gospels, they were the ones that claimed Paul wrote down all the letters ascribed to him etc They were the ones that brought the book of acts and said Luke wrote it. . .

In order to form a proper opinion on the start of the Jesus cult of Christians it is absolutely mandatory that the evidence from antiquity be first examined.

There is no other way to form an opinion of the start of the Jesus--Evidence First. It doesn't work that way, you have to look at other sources. . .

Its very good to look at non-apologetic writers like Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonus.

These four ancient writers remarkably covered the ENTIRE 1st century and wrote about events and the history of the Jews. Their writing are considered as the standard historical accounts of the Jews during the first century and they wrote about all the major events that happened throughout the 1st century. .

There is no mention whatsoever in Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius of a Jesus cult of Christians where Jews worshiped a known man as a god, the logos and god creator who was claimed to have been raised from the dead and was the son of god born of a holy ghost or spirit conceived by a virgin.

I cannot form an opinion that the Jews worshiped a Jewish man as a god when no corroborative evidence from antiquity exist in the history of the Jews at all.

Next, examine the so-called canonized gospels.

In order to form an opinion on the start of the Jesus cult of Christians it is imperative that the Gospel be first examined. . . .The earliest version of the Jesus story in gospel of Mark is extremely significant because it can be easily seen that there was NO Jesus cult at all when Jesus was supposedly alive.

1. In gospel Mark, the very supposed Jesus Christ claimed he did NOT want the outsiders to be converted. See Mark 4

2. In gospel of Mark, the very supposed Jesus Christ instructed his own disciples NOT to tell anyone he was Christ. See Mark 8

3. When Jesus was arrested his disciples either betrayed, abandoned or denied him. See Mark 14.

4. When Jesus was put on trial before the Sanhedrin he was considered a blasphemer and the Jews asked that Jesus be crucified before Pilate. See Mark 15. . .

I will form an opinion on gospel of Mark, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius because these are the earliest sources of what happened in the 1st century Palestine. . .

In the earliest version of the Jesus story there was NO Jesus cult of Christians up to the day Jesus was supposedly crucified and this appears to be in harmony with Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suestonius.

There was no Jewish person called Jesus the Messianic ruler who was worshiped as a god in the time of Pilate and NO Jesus cult of Christians. . . .If Jesus did exist he would have been known merely as blasphemer whose so-called disciples either betrayed, abandoned or denied and NOT as one who started a cult.

So, when gosel of Mark was composed there was NO Jesus cult of Christians. . . . The Jesus cult of Christians most likely started AFTER the story was composed. . . . It was people who believed the story who called themselves Christians.. . . The story in the early version of gospel of Mark is that the Jews killed or asked that Jesus be killed. . . .Those who believed the story were called Christians.

But if we are to look at it historically Jesus did NOT start any religion himself. . .Christianity started with the gentiles and the early church father made it what it is today. . .They brought the gospels and all the other writing in the new testament out to the public. . .They wrote down the christian history and made it what it is today. . .Not even Paul or Jesus. . .No body knows Paul anywhere. . .His name does NOT appear in any document outside that of the early church fathers, they claimed he wrote his letters, no one knows him any where. . .Paul could be their own creation. ..

Very interesting.

It is comments like these that expose your irrationality. Let us look at the sources you respect

mazaje: I will form an opinion on gospel of Mark, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius because these are the earliest sources of what happened in the 1st century Palestine. . .

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

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

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

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

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


P/s: By the way for anyone else who is reading this, read some of Philo's writings about the God and the Logos, I think you'll find them very interesting.

1. In gospel Mark, the very supposed Jesus Christ claimed he did NOT want the outsiders to be converted. See Mark 4

2. In gospel of Mark, the very supposed Jesus Christ instructed his own disciples NOT to tell anyone he was Christ. See Mark 8

3. When Jesus was arrested his disciples either betrayed, abandoned or denied him. See Mark 14.

4. When Jesus was put on trial before the Sanhedrin he was considered a blasphemer and the Jews asked that Jesus be crucified before Pilate. See Mark 15. . .

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

2. Context?

3. And what is this meant to prove?

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

2.

mazaje: Disproved what?. . .The first gospels were written very long after Jesus died at least 45 years after he died by people living in another part of the world where he did not live. . .There was never a time in any Jewish historical document where the story of Jesu's resurrection was an issue any where. . .The story came long after Jesus died, it was written by unknown greek speaking christians based on hear say. . .There was nothing to disprove because nothing like the resurrection of Jesus happened any where. . .It happened ONLY in the pages of story books written by people who have never meet Jesus or knew him any where very long after he died. . .


Sure, the author of the book of acts was writing his own fairy tales. . .By the way nobody knows if Luke wrote the book of acts. . .Church tradition claimed he did, no know knows if its true. . .



I repeat you do not know if Paul was killed or suffered for his new religion. . .The entire book of acts has no credibility, for example the book of acts will claim one things or say one thing about Paul. later Paul himself will come and say another thing. . .For example Paul reports that King Aretas was the one out to get him while Luke says it was Jews.



No body knows if its true. . .He just claimed he was tortured, no body know if its true. . .



False, the empty tomb of Jesus was NOT know in his time, the bible is NOT a historical book, pls bring me just one book from the time of Jesus outside the bible that says the tomb of Jesus was empty. . .It is a known and widely accepted story among christians, it is NOT a fact. . .The gospels were written very long after Jesus died by people that never meet him. . .They were just writing stories based on hear say. . .There is no empty tomb of Jesus any where only stories about the empty tomb



Many people, and they wrote what they saw. . .




If you can provide historical documents outside the bible that talk about Jesus ascending into heaven. . .Then I will show you historical documents outside the Hadiths that show Mohammed ascending into heaven on the back of a winged beast.




I will check it out and get back to you. . . .




Just trying to show you that the christian story about resurrection is NOT uniquely a christian story. . .

The remaining part of your post as quoted here depends on you telling us which of Paul's letters you think were actually written by him and which ones weren't.

musKeeto: And Jesus made no sacrifice.

Of course he didn't. He only gave up His God privileges and allowed himself to be humiliated into the form of a man and bore your dirty disgusting sin that He was too holy to behold, then allowed puny little men to brutally torture and crucify Him. And after He had provided the cleansing required for your sin and given it freely to you (a favour you don't deserve) He rose back into Heaven. But of course there was no sacrifice as far as Muskeeto is concerned. smh

PhenomenonVFX: I dont agree.
It should be noted that Abraham himself never claimed he believed his son would resurrect. All he was just trying to do is obey God. The Hebrews (a book written in an era where everyone believed in resurrection) u quoted earlier is only claiming that Abraham believed so. We dont know for sure. It was not recorded what Abraham himself thought about the whole saga.
Maybe he just believed God wont allow him to kill Isaac and that is why he kept saying "God will provide" when Isaac asked him about the ram for sacrifce. Or he just believed God would make Sarah conceive another child, an Isaac clone . Or one of his concubines would produce another.
Anyway I dont know why I am arguing about a fairytale.

another one bites the dust

@Striktlymi, the book of Acts is actually dated at about 30 years after Christ. That pushes Luke further ahead and Mark even earlier.

mazaje: I repeat Paul was NOT tortured and killed any where. . .Stories came very long after he died by the church fathers who did not know him or have ever meet him that he was killed. No one knows how he died. . .Paul is a liar and as such he has little credibility even he himself admits that he lies and uses trick. .

Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery!2 Corinthians 12:16

Lol, this bit made me laugh for a few moments as usual, let us review 2 Corinthians 12:16 in context.

First of all you quoted from the NIV translation
[i]Now I am ready to visit you for the third time, and I will not be a burden to you, because what I want is not your possessions but you. After all, children should not have to save up for their parents, but parents for their children.
So I will very gladly spend for you everything I have and expend myself as well. If I love you more, will you love me less?
Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery!
Did I exploit you through any of the men I sent you?
I urged Titus to go to you and I sent our brother with him. Titus did not exploit you, did he? Did we not act in the same spirit and follow the same course?[/i]2Corinthians 12:14-18

Notice what Paul is saying. That verse you quoted was in the context of defending his innocence and asking the Corinthians rhetorical questions to show he is guiltless and has done nothing against them. The part you quote mined is Paul quoting what the Corinthians said against him but you quote mined it to sound as if Paul was bragging about his trickster abilities.
How else would you explain Paul starting a sentence with "I was never a burden on you". . .yet I am a trickster. . .and then he continues with "Have I ever exploited you?"

The ESV translation paints for us a a much clearer picture

"But granting that I myself did not burden you, I was crafty, you say, and got the better of you by deceit. Did I take advantage of you through any of those whom I sent to you?" 2 Cor 12:16-17. ESV

You accusation against Paul is false.

First of all you personally do NOT know if Paul wrote any letters, church father like Polycarp, Ireneaus etc claimed the letters were written by Paul. No one knows Paul as a historical figure any where. . .No Roman document mentions him any where, ONLY the church fathers and their biased writings mention him and claimed he wrote those letters. . .Scholars use the style of writing and other things to determine if he actually wrote some of them himself or not. . .Some of the Pauline letters like many books in the bible have been shown by some scholars to be the wroks of more than one author based on the writing styles and many other factors. . .For example Polycarp ALONE in the second century said Paul wrote the book of Corinthians, He did not give any reason as to why he believed it was Paul he just said it was him and that was all. . .

Erhm....this was not what I required of you. I asked you to list for us which of Paul's letters you think were written by him and which ones you don't think he wrote. Please do this so that our discussion can progress. If you claim that not all the epistles were written by Paul, it should be easy for you to tell us which ones you think were and which ones weren't.


I'll pause here for now and will continue when you let us know which books of Paul's letters pass your mark of authorship authenticity

Logicboy03: It still remains murder and a despicable act. Your victim still lost a life and still suffered grievous bodily harm.

But no, a typical old testament psychopath like you would not see anything wrong in that

Facepalm!

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


This is not true. History is filled with so many people who fought for a cause and then abandoned their cause to start fighting for their enemies instead. Anyone can get disillusioned at any time.

What did Paul stand to gain?
Mazaje already answered that. Let me add to it
To understand what Paul stood to gain from Christianity, we have to try to look at his life before then. This is someone who was vigorously persecuting Christians. What did he gain by that? Power. Recognition. Respect. In a religious environment, he was trying to make a name as the most devout pharisee. The bible does not tell us much about his life then. So we dont actually know what made him change to Christianity. It could be that he wasnt getting the respect or recognition he desired. Or maybe he offended some fellow pharisees and they started getting jealous and plotting to kill him so he decided to join his victims who would be happy to have the murderer with them than against them. Or maybe he felt guilty for killing too many people and decided that helping Christianity spread will be an atonement for his sins. This is the same Paul who has about 3 different versions of his conversion story.

The part in green is pure wild speculation from you.

Your task:

Tell us the three different versions of Paul's conversion as you have claimed there are

striktlymi: ^^^

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

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

My brother, it is really not for Mazaje. We both know he is being dishonest. It is more for those who will probably read this thread in the future. So they don't fall into the trap of malicious bible twisters.

mazaje: Paul claims he was attacking christians. . .Paul's entire campaign as depicted in acts has been dismissed as unlikely by many historians, for it is supposed that he would have no authority to arrest people and certainly no power to pull people out of Damascus. Some scholars like Rabbi Boteach say the Sanhedrin did not have this kind of power, and there is also a question as to whether Rome was in control of the city at that time or if the Nabeteans were. The two very contradictory accounts of how he became a christian are to be found in the book of acts, both stories can NOT be true but both accounts can be a lie. . .If Paul can lie about his conversion then he can lie about anything. . .Who is Paul? No body knows him anywhere, he wasn't a general in the Roman army or a prominent figure at all. Historically Christians were persecuted under Nero but the reason for their persecution was because Nero claimed they set fire on a building, No body knows Paul any where, his name does not appear any where outside the bible, to compare him to GEJ and BH is a complete joke, while every body knows GEJ no body knows Paul any where because he was just an ordinary man. He only claimed he was persecuting christians, no other documents supports that claim and the book of acts itself contradicts Paul own accounts in some places. . .

Here you have raised 4 objections

1. That it was highly unlikely for the Sahendrin to have the power to arrest people or take Christians out of Damascus. therefore the account of Paul persecuting Christians is false.
2. There is a dispute as to whether the Romans were in charge of Damascus at the time or whether it was the Nabateans.
3. There are two very contradictory accounts in the book of Acts about how Paul was converted
4. Paul was an unknown and therefore comparing him to GEJ vs Boko Haram is ridiculous.

My response:

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

Here is an excerpt from the Jewish Encyclopedia:

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

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

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

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


2. What difference will it make to the account of Paul's persecution of Christians whether the Romans or Nabateans were in charge of Damascus?

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

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



To be continued some more.....

Kay 17: The verse further proves Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son without any objection to human sacrifice! Though he believed God can resurrect Isaac, same goes to the Aztecs who believed human sacrifice was necessary and beneficial to all.

Erhm...the Aztecs were not killing their victims in the hope that they won't actually die. The intent of the Aztecs was really to end their lives.
If I know full well that if I shoot you in the head, you will rise up after 5 minutes, then the act of shooting you in the head is no longer murder on my part. Surely you know this.

mazaje: Yes he did. . .Paul has NEVER seen Jesus when he was alive but still taught that the gift of salvation through grace occurs APART FROM any behavioral requirement.Romans 3:28

While James who according to the bible was with Jesus says that
by WORKS a man is JUSTIFIED, and not by FAITH only.James 2:24

Jesus according to the bible always upheld the Law of Moses. In the Sermon on the Mount, he made it very clear in Matt. 5:18-19: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." ("jot or tittle" in modern translations is "not one iota nor one dot".) Have heaven and earth passed away? Have ALL the prophecies, including those of the last days, been fulfilled? While Jesus ADDS TO the Law of Moses, he never detracts from it or undermines it.

Even some of the occasions when Jesus seems to add to the Law or teach in new and different ways, he goes to great lengths to show that it is based on the Law. For example, when this rabbi asked by a "lawyer" (one versed in the Law of Moses) what was the greatest commandment in the Law, Jesus turns the question back to him and asks what is in the Law, and from that extrapolates his great commandments to Love God (from Deut 6:5) and Love Neighbor as Self (from Lev. 19:18) which was clearly the centerpiece of his ministry and his doctrine of ACTIVE love and compassion for all.

Paul, on the other hand, wants to throw out the Law of Moses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


To be continued....

Kay 17: If Abraham had disobeyed God's command to sacrifice his son, it would have beeen a sin! And Abraham would have been sent punished and sent to hell!

You don't know what you are talking about: Go read Hebrews 11:17-19

davidylan: The problem with Mike Huckabee and other "conservative" republicans is the disgusting hypocrisy.

Its funny that they are so quick to defend life yet unborn yet care nothing for that life once it is born. Yep Mike Huckabee claims to believe that "all people are created equal" but ONLY when they are still in the womb. The same Huckabee supports a party platform that:

1. Is presently debating cutting food assistance to the poor while gifting farmers and big companies tax subsidies.
2. Has recently cut funds to the head start program that is meant to assist children from low income families
3. Has voted 37 times to defund, repeal and kill a healthcare program geared towards providing affordable healthcare to the poor.
4. Voted to cut government funds to planned parenthood - the only place poor or minority women get affordable access to reproductive healthcare.
5. Opposed allowing health insurance pay for birth control pills so women dont end up pregnant when they can least afford it.

Sorry if i do not for one second believe anything Mike Huckabee says. True christians are not just those who whine about abortion...

Logicboy03: I was about to watch the video and comment but then,

You seriously quoted Mike Huckabee on a religious matter?

These comments are a classic example of what the ad hominem fallacy is.

You have both ignored the point of the argument which is that; Abortion is morally wrong. Instead you have proceeded to attack the person of Huckabee and other members of the Republican party. I'm afraid both of you have really made no point as regards the issue itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53tzMV9OmvY

I think at the heart of the pro-life movement is the idea that all people are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights starting with life. - Mike Huckabee

thehomer: This will be my final response to you on this thread because frankly the ignorance and duplicity that you're showing here simply cannot permit a serious discussion.

Lol, the awkward moment when a duplicitous and ignorant person describes someone else as duplicitous and ignorant

Yes it is physically possible for another galaxy other than the Milky Way to have a planet that permits life. We already know of one that does.

Really? And it wasn't physically possible until this planet was found? Your ignorance is really sad.

No it doesn't and I didn't say it did. This too is elementary physics.

Good, then you have just shown that the expansion of the universe is not conceptually different from the expansion of gas therefore you have admitted the possibility of the rate of expansion of the universe to be different. But of course you'll deny it and dance again.

What didn't you understand?

I didn't understand how it responds to my comment.

You should have read up on the big bang theory as I said. See this source for example.

I just read it. Would you like to prove you actually understand your link by explaining what it means in your own words? or are you just copypasting again?

It doesn't make sense to you because of your ignorance. Again, read up on the big bang theory.

Same way a first uncaused cause doesn't make sense to you because of your ignorance. Unfortunately for you there is you common sense is not in a book. You either have it or you don't. I really wish I could have helped you.

The term energy describes the capacity to produce certain changes within a system, without regard to limitations in transformation imposed by entropy.
You should really learn to picture entire concepts rather than trying to chain yourself to some definition.
Since you love definitions so much, please go on to define God.

Lol, so these things and systems are not necessarily spatial, timebound or material? Or wait energy is a concept not an actual thing? Your confuse yourself much?
As for your request for a God definition; Of what relevance is it to this thread of discussion or are sending out another of your red herrings again?

You're still quote-mining I see. I already told you on that paragraph that there were commas showing you the criteria I was considering but you happily ignored it as usual.

And I recall tackling all the criteria you gave one by one. Are you blind? or were you just blind then?

Define my terms? As if I use some strange concepts when I'm making my arguments unlike you. This is another reason why I say you don't know what you're doing.

As I said my experience with your dubious nature forces me to press you to give explanations. You should be concerned why you are so eager to maintain vagueness

No you didn't. You said there were relationships you didn't say what the relationships were supposed to be.

I clearly did read. Your selective blindness has kicked in again

No you didn't. You've now decided to start avoiding direct questions that expose your confusion.

Nonsense this is a question I've answered before and you know it. All you have to do is croll back and see my answers.

You don't understand what you're saying.

Nah, you don't understand what I'm saying

You asked for axioms, I provided them and now you're whining that I directly answered your questions?

I asked you to produce other laws that are axiomatic but are not the laws of logic. You produced rephrased versions of the laws of logic. You really did nothing there.

It is now silly expecting you to answer direct questions that show the absurdity of your position. Don't run away, the question still awaits you. Here it is.
Please answer this question at least for yourself.

Asked and answered

This just stupidly absurd. You said God was a person and was trying to show this by some argument. Now, you've shifted to God is God? This is why I say you're just not ready.

This is just you purposely trying to misunderstand again. How does God being God contradict God's person?

Do you know of any other person other than this God that was uncaused but used its will to create a universe?

And you don't think it follows that the first uncaused cause would have to be singular? This is what I mean when I say that you throw rationality out of the window

Go back and read my posts. This is just laziness on your part and another example of your unseriousness.

Lol, you asked if I would like you to post your premises. I said yes please. Then you ask me to go and search for them. Lololol...you are terribly confused and you wear it with arrogance. It seems you are now realizing that you really haven't made any sensible arguments

This is why you need to first rectify your ignorance on elementary physics.

Yet with all your physics knowledge, you have repeatedly failed to show me how one can actually do this.

This is another example of your unseriousness. You're denying the fact that the characters being spoken about were being spoken of as having bodies and working in time unlike your God-person.

How you could read this from what I said, I don't know.

Wow. This has to be one of the most ridiculous methods of demonstrating the resurrection that I've come across. Based on that reasoning, you may as well believe that Mohammed rode a flying horse to some place. Sheesh. And you're talking about red-herrings while introducing the claim of the resurrection as a red-herring. You really don't know what you're doing.

Lololol, first he tries to put words in my mouth. I point out to him that that's not what I was saying. Then next he scampers around and finds more words to put in my mouth. SMH.

More incoherence and quote-mining on display. Please learn to read what I actually write in order to address them. I said:
I really don't see how you can misconstrue what I've said to whatever the rubbish is that you're saying.
Just take the time to read what I've actually said because you're just addressing your own strawman.

And I have pointed out to you that a body is not a necessary component of person. A will is.

You never deduced a person. You said God is God. I asked you a simple question that shows you that your God is not a person in the way we use the word (should I ask for a definition) but you just avoided it. Here it is one more time.

Again I have already answered this question but you seem to be blind to it. God being a necessary being and the first uncaused cause of all things that exist cannot be the same sort of person a human being is. He is a person in the sense that He has a will but He is not a human being.
Anyway I can understand why this is difficult for you to grasp and it's be cause you don't understand what possibilities are because you think a thing is only possible if you have actually seen another instance of it. That's by far the silliest way I've ever seen anyone describe possibilities.

In summary, you've managed to actually show nothing.

1. You failed to present how you knew that there were different universes with different constants.

I never even claimed to know that there are different universes anywhere, I said it was possible. but of course you cannot tell the difference between a "could be" and an "it is"

2. You failed to show how decision making could occur without time to make decisions. Seriously, take a look at decision theory.

I never had this burden since we where talking about how time itself was specified

3. You were unable to counter the fact that mere alternatives doesn't imply conscious decision making.

And again I explained how this has no bearing on the beginning of a causal chain that starts up the whole system

4. You failed to show how exactly this God of yours was actually a person.

I did, and I pointed out to you that material bodies are not necessary components of persons

5. You failed to show how he actually created the universe beyond mere assertion.

I did repeatedly by logical deductions.

6. Your general ignorance of elementary physics of course prevented you from having the background knowledge to address anything I said.

Lololol...And interestingly your "great knowledge of physics couldn't explain anything other than shout "ignorance!". Calling someone ignorant is not a demonstration of knowledge you know

7. Your failure to understand what I even actually said in response to you was just the icing on the cake. When you started denying historical evidence I knew there was no more hope.

I never denied historical evidence, I just showed you that by your own arguments you were not justified in believing any history.

When you've actually learned something, you can look me up.

Lol, surely, there is nothing worse than an arrogant know-nothing who knows not that he knows nothing, refuses to learn yet recommends learning for everyone he meets.

So to recap
1. You have shown that you lack an understanding of what the word "possible" means.
2. You failed to show any understanding of the term "design"
3. You have shown a poor understanding of basic physics
4. You have shown a poor understanding of simple logical deduction
5. Finally you have shown an excellent ability to look a point in the eye and yet dubiously miss it.

For reasons of the above, I have been unable to have a rational discussion with you on this thread. Since the above was your last response, I will also make this my last. Goodnight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53tzMV9OmvY

I only have one question on this thread.

[size=14pt]Is abortion morally justified?[/size]

let us discuss.

thehomer: I wasn't quoting you, I was telling you something I knew that you happened to have said but just didn't and still don't comprehend.
I asked a question, you claimed it was incoherent so, you're to show it is incoherent.
Suddenly, you don't know what axiomatic means? Again, consult a dictionary.
Axiom: An axiom, or postulate, is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.
I see. You don't even understand what you're saying or what I've said. I've told you several times that logical possibilities don't indicate that something could have been some other way but you just persist in making statements without backing it up.
You've just said rubbish because if you said it was possible for you to be in Tokyo right now, I'll accept that it was possible both logically and physically.
These sorts of comments show that you don't actually understand the concepts of logical possibilities and physical possibilities because what I was showing you there was the logical possibility of this universe being in a multiverse (the actual idea under consideration). You can go through the thread and quote me saying either that the multiverse hypothesis was true or that the universe could physically have been some other way. Failing to do that would be you just quote-mining as usual.
On a side note, I enjoyed that thread but you still fail to understand now as you failed to understand then that the multiverse is a logical possibility. I don't know whether or not it is a physical possibility. Once you choose to have a discussion on it, it is presumed that you understand you're now discussing logical possibilities probably with some physical constraints.
No you cannot make that conclusion from my argument because e.g when the first car was invented, it was still physically possible to make it a two single seater, two seater or let it have any other configuration by just attaching a cab to it. You on the other hand still cannot tell the difference between physical possibilities and logical possibilities.
What I mean is that you'll have to show us a universe with different constants since the constants in this universe are constant.

I've lost my interest in this babble. You have just shown that it is either you don't know the meaning of the so called physical possibilities you have been hammering on about or you are simply a dishonest fellow. Is it physically possible for another galaxy other than the Milky Way to have a planet that permits life? Or do I have to actually show you such a planet before it becomes possible?

The amount of energy has remained the same.

Lol, So does the amount of energy in a closed system of expanding gas due to heat increase. You have made no point

Why do you think it isn't isolated?

Please rephrase

But we have energy and that is enough to make the inference. In fact, that is what actual scientists did.

How did we infer this energy in the absence of matter?

Then you don't know what it means to make a decision. Please take the time to look up decision theory and let me know if anything it says makes sense without time.

Neither does it make sense for time to have a beginning. Yet here you are.

That is exactly what I've not said. Energy is not nothing.

Then what is energy? Please define it in the absence of space time and matter.

You were already being irrational when you were comparing the slum to yourself.

You were the one saying that a thing was designed because it had a boundary so it was perfectly reasonable to ask you if you were designed because you fit into your skin. You can't eat your cake and have it you know.

This comes from the person who suddenly gets confused about what physical and axioms refer to.

For the same reason, because I don't trust you to stick to rational arguments that's why I ask you define your terms. At least it puts you in check whenever you try hard to be deliberately vague

I did not say it was the reason, I said it was one of the criteria. You just picked up on that and ignored the fact that it was separated from other criteria by a comma. How should they be in relationship to each other to tell you that there is design?

I think I explained that when I talked about why Rubia is designed

Since you're the design expert, why don't you tell me if water, the moon, electrons, viruses and a mill-stone are designed.

Asked and answered

No you didn't. You just made an incoherent assertion of decision making and persons without time.

I'm sorry, I can only but speak, I can't force comprehension upon you.

A simple question that would demonstrate to you that once again, you're just lost. Other axioms include:

1. If equal numbers are added to equal numbers, then the wholes are equal.
2. If equal numbers are subtracted from equals numbers, then the remainders are equal.
There are many more available.

Basically all you've done is a long winded way of saying
1. if p then q, p therefore q
2. if p then q, ~q therefore ~p

Of course you're not amused when you get so flustered and confused.

Nah, I only lose my amusement when your already bad arguments drop below a certain threshold of silly.



Now you're just clutching at straws and asking questions that have already been addressed or that I would expect to have been addressed in elementary physics classes.

1. It isn't special pleading to say the singularity was actually a singularity. It is what it means to be a singularity.

It isn't special pleading either to say that God is actually God.

2. The point is that energy and matter can be converted into each other i.e you're made of matter from that energy. You cannot make that claim for God because it has no matter nor energy.

In the same way a first uncaused cause must exist for matter and energy to begin to exist (or for your mysterious eternal undetectable energy to become the first particle of matter). Therefore you know God exists because you exist.

3. I listed the premises before would you like me to repeat them?

Please do

4. As I said, we already observe the energy so your question is just confused.

As I said, we never observe energy devoid of matter. So your answer is ignorant.

Finally, you just don't understand what it means to talk about incoherence. I'll show it to you with your own claims.

I can't wait

This is just a false equivalence and you should know it. The God you're talking about never had a body and didn't work in time (just like the good old Grim Reaper) but the people I picked had bodies and worked in time. I demonstrated this using historical evidence but now you're denying that evidence.

And what exactly is historical evidence rather than stories told by ancient folks? I don't deny the stories I am only pointing to you that they do not prove they had bodies in any scientifically testable way.

Here, the very evidence you're denying is what you wish to use to support a Jesus God? That is incoherent. Showing you that you effectively killed your Jesus is a red herring when you introduced Jesus? That is your self confusion.

Another red herring. I never said anything about Jesus being God in this thread. I only pointed out to you that if you believe Julius Ceasar's historical deeds you'll believe Jesus rose from the dead. The accounts are present in the stories about them.

This is another demonstration of you being incoherent. You began by saying you're not denying historical evidence that those people existed. But with the evidence you're asking for, it would amount to denying historical evidence that they existed.

Reading out of context again are we? I pointed out to you that I have no problem with historical evidence but since you claim that you can only deduce person if there is the presence of a body, I will have to demand that you provide physical bodies for anyone you think is a person or else you are not justified to think they are. That is not incoherent.

Where did I make such a demand? All I've asked you for is that you demonstrate your claims to knowledge. You on the other hand are requesting that I demonstrate my claims using what you've admitted as being an irrational demand.
That is of course unreasonable.

I have explained to you how I deduced Person without necessarily observing a body. Once you have rejected that, you have locked yourself out of any deduction of person if you cannot provide proof of a body. . .and no, stories don't count as proof.
When you set irrational criteria by claiming that material bodies are necessary for a person to exist, I think it is only fair then to make similarly irrational demands that you provide proof of material bodies of anything you consider to be a person.

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

mazaje: Fristly, the claims that the Paul had nothing to gain by coming up with a theology of his own is bogus, evidently he had so much to gain.

First of all he didn't come up with his own doctrine. Christianity was already existing and he was persecuting it.

He was a leader within the christian community and with that comes status. He was well respected and according to the bible people gave him monetary rewards. . .

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

So the claim that he had nothing to benefit from is false. . .The early disciples were highly respected within the christian community, and the had enough motive. . .

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

The knowledge that many people will subscribe to their own theology and live their lives according to what they are putting forward is enough reason to begin a new religion. . .

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

All people that create of form religions want people to follow their ideas, philosopy and conceptions. . .That is what all of them do. . .That is enough reason for them to start a new religion. . .

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

Some of the letters attributed to Paul were NOT written by him and even those that were said to be written by him were claimed by others to be written by him , people like Polycarp, Ireanues etc. . .

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

Secondly the claim that the the disciples of Jesus all suffered violent death is also very bogus, because the stories of their martyrdom came long after they died and were written by the early church fathers, church father that have never meet them or knew them. . .Those stories were just written to strengthen the belief of the early christians. . . If the founders of the religion suffered why won't you suffer with them. . .

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

The claim that NO one will die for what he believes to be a lie is also not true since we have so many people dying for what they invented, things they know to be lies. .Joseph Smith, Jim Jones just to mention a few. . .

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

No one knows how PAul died, the church fathers that never knew him or meet him claimed he died for his faith. . .

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

The empty tomb assertion assertion is very bogus. . .The empty tomb of Jesus does NOT exist any where, it is only a claim propagated by christians and it is not found any where except in christian documents which are non historical. . .The bible is NOT a historical book but a book of theology. . .

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

The empty tomb assertion is just a claim, akin to the claim that Mohammed acended to heaven on a wing beast in Jerusalem. . .It remains a bogus claim. . .

How many people saw Mohammed do this?

The ressurection hypothesis remains a bogus claim. . .Mohammed also resurrected from the dead and ascneded to heaven on the back of a wing beast. . .

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

According to Josephus Emperor Vespasian also ascended into heaven. . .The story of resurrections were so common in the first century. . .

Please quote Josephus saying this.

When Justin Martyr(one of the earliest christian apologist) was presented with stories similar to that of Jesus that predated that of Jesus his only reply was that it was the devil that made people to invent stories similar to that of Jesus earlier so as to confuse them and lead them astray. . .

I am not Justin

thehomer: Is that the difference or isn't it the difference? If you've said this before, then it just shows that you didn't understand what you were saying.

Lol, it just shows you don't know what you have been talking about when you accuse me of ignorance only to quote me in the end. You are such a funny chap.

This is why I wonder if you've been paying any attention at all. I demonstrated to you using the example of a coin changing into a rock to show you that the fact that something isn't necessary doesn't make it physically possible to be some other way. You didn't show how my question was incoherent. You don't even seem to understand what it means for an idea to be incoherent.

I also wonder if you have been paying attention too because you haven't shown how your question is coherent

Yet another demonstration of your ignorance. Physical laws aren't axiomatic, they're measurements or formalizations of measurements.

Lololol, let us see if you even know what you are talking about. What do you mean when you say that something is "axiomatic". Explain in your own words because you seem to be confusing yourself

More ignorant misunderstanding. The c represents neither of the options you've presented above. c is a constant while the speed of a photon can vary. You on the other hand seem to think that because the speed of a photon can vary, then the constant too can. That is an example of an incoherent idea. Just go and study some physics.

Lol, This is a gross and purposeful misunderstanding of my point. I did not say C can vary in this universe but that C could have been different therefore resulting in a possible different universe. Learn to comprehend.

Another example of your confusion. Do you know of any other universe where the constant known as the speed of light is different? If you don't, then you're not justified in saying it just happens to be that way because it is logically possible for it to be otherwise.

Hahahahaha. Now I know what your real problem is, you don't understand the meaning of possibility. So if I told you it is possible for Anony to be in Tokyo right now, you'll ask me whether I know of any other Anony in Tokyo and therefore it is not possible for Anony to be in Tokyo. Your thinking is warped my friend.

That is Mr anony's problem because for some reason, he doesn't seem to realize that something not being necessary doesn't mean it is physically possible for it to be some other way. Something not being necessary means it is logically possible for it to be some other way but it may not be physically possible. This is why Mr anony would need to first grasp the concepts of logical and physical possibility.

Lolololol, I think Anony has grasped it and thehomer is only being purposely irrational just so he can hold out on the argument till it dies. In fact Anony remembers thehomer strongly arguing for the possibility that other universes exist in a multiverse once upon a time. But today he denies that possibility because it doesn't help his argument.
Here are a selection of thehomer's comments from that thread:

https://www.nairaland.com/1165701/laymans-question-multiverse-theory/1

thehomer: Think of it as a cosmos with multiple universes in it. Picture a bowl with some spheres in it. The bowl is the entire cosmos while the spheres are the universes. This analogy is to show the relationship not the actual structures being discussed.

No, the big bang is the explanation for the origin of our own space and time. What it means is that other universes would have their own space and time.

What I mean is that there is no matter between those universes in the cosmos i.e, between them is a void.

Those other universes aren't necessarily contracting either. They're just so far apart that they don't meet.

Yes I think they're compatible. A universe would be a subset of the universes within the proposed cosmos of the multiverse.

There is an idea of the multiverse in which gravitational effects are present between universes but still how does this then mean that the speed of light or the other factors that make up this universe must be the same? Secondly, they're not in the same location and are separated by a void without particles and all that.

I am quite sure he didn't think he was talking about physical impossibilities then because he went into a great deal of effort to explain the physics of why other universes are possible.

After understanding those concepts, then he should have realized that the way for him to demonstrate his point would be for him to have access to some other universe.

And this is what shows me that you have no idea what physical possibilities are. By your argument; at the time the first car was invented it was physically impossible to have another type of car to exist until another type of car was actually observed.
I can now see that you have thrown rationality and honesty out of the window in your desperate bid to persevere through the argument.

By the way I didn't fail to notice that you didn't even bother to tell us what you mean by the physical possibility of a law that defines physical possibilities to be different.

Still with the necessity when you have no idea of what you're talking about. Again, I said they're conceptually different do you know why I said so? Let me tell you. It is because space itself expanding is conceptually different from a balloon expanding. A balloon expands by having matter inserted into its membrane but space itself expands not by the injection of matter, but by the intrinsic increase in the distance between particles. Again, they're conceptually different.

Lol, but this is where you are simply wrong because the amount of matter in the universe has increased as it expanded since the big bang.

We can infer it again based on these simple premises.
1. There was always something.
2. Energy is neither created nor destroyed but changes from one form to another.

1. true, 2. Only true in a closed system. What you are describing isn't a closed system.

We can neither observe it nor measure it because we couldn't have been present when it happened. We can simply infer it.

This is simply nonsense because we have no matter, space or time with which to infer anything.

So how can you call what happened "making a decision" without time?

As I said time is not necessary to decisions, choices/alternatives are.

It makes sense based on the evidence we have before us. Look up the big bang cosmology. Though what you've proposed is even worse than magic.

Again, take a look at the big bang cosmology.

Lol, I think you really should look up big bang cosmology and explain how a universe magically popped up from nothing.

Criteria? Do you have schools built on your body? Or do you have a base station somewhere on your skin? You're just being ridiculous again.

Lol, this is just you messing around. so in thehomerverse criteria means same components? so if I say that my house and my television are designed, I must mean that my television is therefore made made of brick and cement? This just you being purposely irrational again.

What is so confusing to you? I'm not using some strange idea of "slum" and "city".

I wasn't confused really, I just don't trust you. Knowing you, you'll probably start pretending not to know the difference between city and slum very soon if you think it will help you escape. For now I'll say Kibera is the slum and Rubia is the city. If you disagree, correct me if not I'll just take that to be what you mean.

So according to you, Kibera isn't specifically complex despite the fact that it fits within its borders, doesn't encroach on roads and has amenities like schools found in other places where people live?

Fitting into borders is not the reason why a thing is specifically complex. Water is not specifically complex because it fits within a cup. That's why I said if you think that Kibera is designed because it fits within boundaries, then you must also hold that you are designed because you fit within your skin.
Secondly, having a school and other amenities does not make a city designed rather it is how those amenities are in relationship to each other that tells us if there is a design. It appears you don't even know what design is.

Have you forgotten how you deduce the presence of an active will? You deduce it from the presence of alternatives. And I showed you how that made no sense.

And I showed you how it did in fact make sense

Another classical case of special pleading that will be the undoing of your God. Other than God, do you know of any other person that did not begin to exist? Or do you think people have always existed?

This is really weird coming from you. Do you even know what special pleading is? I have made an argument to justify why God is a unique and necessary being yet you are shouting special pleading.
You may as well say that logical laws that lead us to things like 2+2=4 is special pleading because we don't know of any other universal and necessary body of laws. . . .yeah wait you'll probably say they are "axiomatic" of which I'll ask you to provide other axiomatic laws you know. Or better still you have been arguing for a mysterious energy that exists devoid of matter space and time. Is that also special pleading?
The quality of your argumentation so far has been falling steadily it is no longer as amusing as it used to be.

The energy I'm describing is isolated from any other source. Its neither being created nor destroyed is a physical law. I know energy exists because we exist. Again, it was inferred from simple premises. Mass, distance and time are formed or can be conceived when it expanded. Please take the time to read up on the big bang theory.

Lol, so the energy is isolated from any other source? (wouldn't this be special pleading according to you?) It is also now a physical law?(lol seriously you didn't say that). You know energy exists because you exist?(doesn't let you off the hook. If I had said I know God exists because I exist, you wouldn't have been satisfied). It was inferred from simple premises(like?). Mass, distance and time are formed when it expanded?(So the mysterious impossible to observe energy expands? Right) Dude, please take time to read up on the big bang theory what you have said so far is incoherent.

Please show me the accounts of the grim reaper that implied it had a body. Show me evidence of his relatives and companions. So you wish to deny historical evidence? Do that at your peril.

I'm not denying historical evidence only pointing out to you how irrational you are being. If you are going to say I am not justified to deduce a person because I don't have evidence of a material body, you have effectively thrown all historical characters under the bus because all they really are to us now are stories and stories of a body don't count as evidence of a body.

And you've successfully explained why Jesus isn't God. If he had a body worked in time and had relatives, then he couldn't be God who had didn't have a body, didn't work in time and had no relatives. Good job there.

Lololololol, very poor attempt at a red herring. The point you are trying hard to evade is that Jesus Christ has better historical evidence than Julius Ceasar. I won't chase your red herring for you. I've had breakfast this morning

Err I did that using historical evidence. I could refer you to articles on them if you want more detail. It looks to me like you just want to deny historical evidence just to keep your concept of a God that is not really different from the concept of the Grim Reaper. Since you're already denying historical evidence (which would also kick your Jesus to the curb), out of curiosity, what sort of evidence would show you that Julius Caesar and Napoleon were people? Or are you going for your own incoherence and confusion?

What sort of evidence will prove that Julius Ceasar and Napoleon were people? Ah that's very simple. You claim that a person must have a body. The physical bodies of Julius Ceasar and Napoleon would be sufficient. If they only exist in stories, then I have no reason to believe they are persons.

P/s: If you think the above is an irrational demand, you would be right because that's exactly the same kind of irrational demand you and yours make all the time. The point I'm making is the presence of a physical body is not necessary to deduce person if you still don't think so, feel free to provide the bodies I have demanded.

Here is even more of Peter ans Paul Conspiring to deceive us all


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbUxKURdjmE

Uyi Iredia: Mr Anony and Mr anony are different.

They are one and the same

Ihedinobi: Lol. Twin bro, I just butted into the discussion for want of something to do and I don't have much time on the Internet where I am, that's why the guns are silent...in a manner of speaking. You could actually pour out all the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation that speak to Who Jesus is as God and you would find these fine men breaking them all. When it's not the translators' fault it's our fault for understanding the Scriptures wrong.

If only I could draw, I would show you a very graphic image of the anger and hatred in their hearts against the Christ of God. Paul did not mince words in saying that it is impossible to affirm the Deity of the Lord Jesus without the Holy Spirit causing it. John was not shy in saying that the spirit of antichrist rejects that Deity took on flesh. The contention is always one of two things: either make Christ the same as any human being and thus trap God in our infirmity or make Him God alone and never man and keep the gulf between the two unbridged. Either serves the adversary quite well, my brother.

But thank the Lord that Jesus is both God and Man and thus fully qualified to mediate between the two. He being God has come to us and being Man has returned home for us. We are at peace in Him. Outside of Him is no peace but confusion of tongues and dismay of face.

On this Rock that He is God made Man, He has built His Church and no frosbel can prevail against it.

Lol, frosbel has already failed and he knows it. It saddens me how low he has fallen. When the devil blinds a man's heart, nothing you can do will make him see Christ unless the Holy Spirit breaks through to him.
The sad part is that these days, frosbel refuses to even consider the proposition. If you ask him any mildly peircing questions that should make him think, he'll simply ignore it and then open 5 or 6 new copy and paste threads to spout his false doctrine.


By the way is your youtube working? there's a video I want you to watch on this thread here:
https://www.nairaland.com/1327703/christianity-true-greatest-conspiracy-ever#16293978

Boomark: Do i need to explain the English for you to understand. It says,
1 we have one God, the Father and all things came from Him.
2 we have one Lord, Jesus and all things exist through him

If you are still confused about the issue of one Lord, you will also be confused about the issue of Jesus having all authority and power. Which to you will mean that the Father no longer have authority or that He is under Jesus authority. Mind you, it did not say they shared the power and authority. Read 1Cor 15:27-28 to help you understand it well.

Jesus was made Lord by the Father after his resurrection so Deut 6:4 you quoted is out of context.

Interesting. Permit me to come back to this later with a detailed reply.

Ihedinobi: Lol. My dear frosbel, the SON is YAHWEH. "Thy Throne, O God... etc" belongs in the language of worship, does it not, frosbel?

Lol, let me show you something sweet.

Isaiah 40:3 The voice of him who cries in the wilderness, Prepare the way of Jehovah, make straight a highway in the desert for our God. (MKJV)

Matthew 3:3 For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make His paths straight." (MKJV)

Let me show you something even sweeter:

And I, says Jehovah, will be to her a wall of fire all around, and will be the glory in her midst.
Ho! Ho! Flee then from the land of the north, says Jehovah. For I have scattered you as the four winds of the heavens, says Jehovah.
Ho! O Zion, escape, you who live with the daughter of Babylon.
For so says Jehovah of Hosts: He has sent me after glory, to the nations who stripped you; for he who touches you touches the pupil of His eye.
For behold, I will shake My hand over them, and they shall be a prize for their servants. And you shall know that Jehovah of Hosts has sent me.
Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion. For lo, I come, and I will dwell in your midst, says Jehovah.
And many nations shall be joined to Jehovah in that day, and shall be My people; and I will dwell in your midst, and you shall know that Jehovah of Hosts has sent me to you.
And Jehovah shall possess Judah, His portion in the holy land, and shall choose Jerusalem again.
Be silent, all flesh, before Jehovah; for He has risen out of His holy dwelling place.
Zecheriah 2:5-13 (Modern King James Version)

Keep reading it until you figure out which Jehovah is sending which Jehovah. . . .and they say there is no Trinity in the Old Testament.

fellis: Him and pleep can spin any tells they like, I'm not wasting any more time on them.

Oh c'mon fellis don't go now. come and tell us more about discrimination

Logicboy03: Fellis, does this guy love to lie or what?

oh dear, context is lost on someone

fellis: Lol, acting like you don't know that Chung's research has no impact on AAUW research?

How does Chung's research have no impact on the AAUW research? they are both investigating the same thing they only applied different controls.
The point is that you were quick to point out the shortcomings of Chung while happily turning a blind eye to the shortcomings of the AAUW all because you wanted to promote your "discrimination" agenda.

You are only accusing me of dishonesty because you are frustrated that your discrimination hypothesis isn't standing up to scrutiny.

I think we have successfully proven that gender inequality is not a 21st century issue. Except in a few countries (mostly islamic) Men and women of nowadays for the most part have equal opportunities available to them.

The funny thing is that in Islamic countries where gender inequality actually exists, you don't hear much noise. meanwhile in first world countries where men and women receive equal treatment; that is where you hear the loudest cries of "discimination! discrimination!"

Oh the Irony.

fellis: I can see that your plan is to pretend you don't understand what I have been saying and claim that I am blindly arguing.
That doesn't even bother me.
What annoys me is that I have wasted so much time on this thread only to find that you are actually as dishonest as you've been accused of being by those who have argued with you before.

Lol, really? Please dishonest where?