₦airaland Forum

mazaje: I don't know who created man but I know for sure that all gods are man made. . .

Interesting, and you know this for sure how?

Logicboy03: Ah, Anony, I was wrong......you are right.....


I agree with all your points.....they are 100% valid and true
-Obama is not a christian
-Secular christians in the West are not christians
-Secularism finds christianity oppressive




MTCHEW.

Good for you, at least you are learning something. Now let us continue your education...

Logicboy03: Your ignorance of human rights and international law are to blame here. There is a saying that;

"Your freedom to swing your hand ends at the tip of another person's nose".

The simple point of the bold is that any rights (eg freedom of religion) stops being a right the moment it encroaches on another person's freedom.

Good, then you will also agree that the right to hold a naturalist worldview equally stops being a right the moment it encroaches on another's convictions.

So if a muslim says that a non-muslim must fast because muslims fast- that is using religion to take away someone elses freedom.

True, but then muslims are not known to force non-muslims under their authority to observe ramadan. What do you say of a "secular government" that encroaches upon a muslim's right to marry multiple wives or the rights of a muslim woman to wear the burka?

So if a christian lawmaker wants to enforce "SU"/"deeper life" dress codes on citizens, that is wrong and taking away freedom of people.

True, but then the "Deeper life" dress code is not the same as Christian dress code. Secondly nothing in Christianity teaches that anyone has authority to enforce laws that dictate how one ought to dress. And even though we strongly disapprove of immoral practices, we do not have the right to force anyone into righteousness.
Salvation is and has always been God's gift to man. It is no longer a gift if it is forced upon the receiver now. Is it?
We cannot go foul of God's Word spoken to us in the bible.

Logicboy03: What point have you made with this epistle? Nothing. You are a great example of how to argue against yourself.

You threw three strawmen and argued against them. You are arguin with yourself. The strawmen are all in bold with your comment


1) Christianity is anti-freedom
2) Christianity is oppressive
3) Christian principles are not the best principles to live by.


You sir, are a complete dubious gasbag. Explain how these three points were gotten from my clear and innocent comment here;

Interesting. So I have argued strawmen by directly engaging with you? Do you even know what you are talking about? Let us see that your comment again.

Logicboy03:
A christian that accepts secularism. A christian that accepts that government and its laws should be devoid of religious influence. Separation of church and state. A christian that accepts that his religion stops at another persons freedom.

Please explain to me how the bold makes sense and why it need be said at all if you don't think that the christian's belief was impinging on another person's freedom in the first place.
If you don't think christianity by nature is anti-freedom other people's freedom, why the comment? what then is so special about a "secular christian" how is he/she different from a normal christian?

Furthermore,
-It is not compulsory that a christian must want a christian president. Given the choice between christian Hitler, Christian GEJ and Hindu Ghandi....the obvious choice would never be any of the two christians.

Did Hitler and GEJ lead based on Christian principles? If they do not lead based on Christian principles, can they be said to be Christian leaders?

-By religious influence, I mean all religions including christianity. I guess you didnt read the part where Jesus said "do unto others..."!! If you dont want to live under pagan/sharia law, please dont push for christian theocracy

But we are talking specifically about Christianity here. No Christian thinks his belief is on par with other beliefs. All Christians know that the Christian worldview is true and all other worldviews have got it wrong. A government that has no respect for God is simply a worse government by Christian standards.

-Governing a country has nothing to do with living out christian principles. So your point relating wanting secularism to negating christian principles is moot

Erhm it should have everything to do with living out Christian principles if it wants to be a good government. A christian government for instance will never legalize mass murder of babies in the name of abortion, it has a moral compass by which it's policies are guided. Any government that doesn't have any clear moral principle by which it is guided is in deep trouble i.e secularist governments

-There are many things in the christian doctrine that affect govt and politics. Please read your bible. Gay rights, abortion, blasphemy laws etc

Heterosexuals do not have any rights that homosexuals don't, abortion is murder and the early church never oppressed anyone for "blasphemy" rather they were know to go to their deaths praying for the forgiveness of sinners. Go and read the bible

-Most western European christians live under secular governments. Take England for example, are you saying that christians in England are not christians if they support their system of government?

I have answered this already

After completely destroying all your strawmen and silly points,

You did no such thing

I would like to leave you with a quote from a much smarter and more recognized christian than you;


[img]http://i.qkme.me/3qgeum.jpg[/img]

From what I know about Christ and what I know about Obama, I cannot say he is a Christian.

#Anony debunked

This phrase has become pretty meaningless now.

@ Logicboy

There is nothing in the Christian doctrine that involves government and politics. Secondly there is nothing in Christian doctrine that seeks to impose itself on anyone's freedom. People and governments are very free to reject it.

However the question now becomes:
Should a Christian want Christian leaders? Absolutely.
Should a Christian want leaders govern based on Christian principles? Absolutely.

Notice that the above doesn't mean that a Christian would revolt against non-Christian leaders if they win elections. Notice also that wanting the government to act in accordance to what you believe to be right does not amount to rejecting the separation of Church and State rather it is an exercise of an individual's right to make demands of his/her government.

Now let us look at what you said.

Logicboy03: A christian that accepts secularism. A christian that accepts that government and its laws should be devoid of religious influence.

If by religious influence, you mean Christian influence, then I am afraid that no Christian can possibly be secular because every Christian would naturally want his/her government to uphold the truest and noblest of principles which happen to be the principles of Christianity.
They will of course submit to a Government that disagrees with them but that doesn't mean that is what they believe the Government should be.

Separation of church and state. A christian that accepts that his religion stops at another persons freedom.

This assumes that Christianity is anti-freedom. It isn't. (I'm assuming that by religion you are referring to Christianity.)

Anyone who believes Christianity is oppressive or that Christian principles are not the best principles by which a man ought to live is simply not a Christian.
If being a "secular christian" would imply the above, then such a person cannot possibly be a Christian.

Logicboy03: How the Village atheists argues?
-The guy walks up to a christian and starts shouting on the street. A clear sign of madness. I would like to see the Nairaland equivalent of that.

What the guy argues?
-A christian should be put in a prison because of a sign board?
-All christians (God botherers) are war criminals?



Anony, keep lying for Jesus!

Yawn

Logicboy03: Secular christians are fake christians?

Your falsehoods and Anonyism knows no bounds. Why not ask me the meaning of a secular christian that I talk about rather than guess nonsense?

Ok then, What do you mean by the term "secular christian"?

Mr Troll: Imagine this scenario in a video. . .
A heavily built man is walking on the street and comes across two atheists discussing about the non-existence of god. He suddenly stops in front of them and starts screaming JESUS IS LORD! JESUS IS LORD!! JESUS IS LORD!!!
By now he's sweating, white shirt all soiled with his drooling spittle and sweat, face all contorted, fist waving, threatening both atheists with eternal damnation all the while spraying them with spit. He then concludes by shouting a bible quote at them: Psalm 14:1 and tells them, GOD IS REAL!!!


Now if i say all Christians argue like this man will i be wrong or right? Heck! You can just close your eyes and imagine that the man is not shouting and listen to his words only, afterall ALL christians would AGREE with ALL his statements. Abi?

Anony i hail o!

Let us see how reasonable you can be.

Notice I have based my arguments on two things. How he argues and What he argues.

I am not merely saying that nairaland atheists agree with him but that they argue like him. i.e they use profanity, insult and mock christians, and accuse Christianity of things that it has nothing to do with.

Compare that to your scenario....Assuming there was no video,

We notice that you have based your argument on the "what" and not the "how". What can we ascertain from typing?

1. will Christians proclaim Jesus is Lord? Yes they will
2. Will they quote the bible including Psalm 14:1? yes they will
3. Will they proclaim God is real? Yes they will.

To argue that your case, you must show that all Christians agree in method (as much as can be replicated in typing) as well as ideology.

I have argued that most nairaland atheists agree in method(profanity, insults and accusations) as well as ideology(atheism). . .unless you believe that the abusive method is a necessary part of atheistic ideology, you sir have only succeeded in presenting a false parallel.

I'll pretend to be you for a few by mimicing the kind of response and the kind of challenge you're been making. Here we go.

striktlymi: Hello Anony,
WRONG!!!

If I make the claim that most humans have two legs, it would be rather unreasonable for someone to challenge this position because this argument is based on facts.

interesting

FACT: majority of humans are born with two legs...

how do you know this "fact" have you been present at all births?

FACT: some humans (who are less than the majority) lose one or both legs before or during adulthood...

How do you know that amputees are less than the majority? Do you know all the amputees in the world?

FACT: majority of humans have two legs...

Again how do you know? Have you seen all the human beings in the world? You are committing the fallacy of hasty generalization.

We can easily ascertain the above through deductive reasoning, hence there is absolutely no need for the census you talked about because every statement there is based on facts.

I wonder what deductive reasoning you used in the above. You only made three blanket claims with absolutely no proof.

Your argument on the other hand is not based on FACTS but your opinion. It is factual to say that some nairaland Atheists can argue in that way (with your new goal post) but it moves away from the realm of fact when you say that a majority of nairaland Atheists argue in like manner based solely on the video.

Your argument also was based on opinion. Writing FACT in all caps does not make it factual. If you had said that some people have two legs, it would be fact but when you say majority of people have two legs, you are only stating your opinion.

I quite agree with this. The demand is rather ridiculous and that is why we are asked to avoid making blanket comments which boils down to the fallacy of hasty generalization; because committing this fallacy invites ridiculous demands.

You too have made blanket comments and invited ridiculous demands.

WRONG still!!!

If your argument was: "Most internet (nairaland) Atheists you have come across argue in that way" then the above method of validating your claim would have been fair but that is not your claim...

Your argument is clear: "Most internet (nairaland) Atheists argue in like manner" and this line of argument places a heavier burden of proof.

Similarly, you are WRONG. If your argument was that "majority of the people you have come across had two legs" then the above method of validating your claim would have been fair but that isn't your claim,
Your argument is clear "majority of people have two legs" and that places a heavier burden of proof on you.

---

I hope I have been able to show you by mimicking you how your responses are unreasonable.

I am sorry if I accused you unfairly...that means I might have interpreted the following comment wrongly:

I never said you accused me wrongly. I meant by that comment that I don't think it is fair to accuse someone of what he hasn't said i.e. If a particular atheist has not expressed any views relating to the video neither of us is free to assume that he/she agrees with or disagrees with our video guy as it will amount to putting words in his/her mouth.

Um...unless you show me from your OP where you mentioned "swearing among other things" and exclude the way the guy was shouting, then I maintain that the goal post was shifted.

Again you are being unreasonable. Perhaps I should make myself clearer with a list. When I say that most internet atheists here on nairaland argue like that guy, obviously it wouldn't necessarily include tone of voice and bodily mannerisms because you can't see those from typing however what things do they have in common that can be seen from typing.
1. They use profanity a lot
2. They insult and mock often
3. They think worshiping God is a morally evil i.e. is hateful, racist, homophobic and so on.
4. They think worshiping God is some sort of slavery
5. They blame Christianity for slavery, and all sorts of crimes
6. They assume theists are irrational even prior to engaging them in discourse.


The list above isn't exhaustive but I hope the list above helps you a bit to see what I am saying. Mind you, none of the items on the list has anything to do with the proof of God's existence which by the way was what the man with the sign offered to provide.

I still maintain that most nairaland atheist argue in similar fashion to our video chap and I'm willing to back it up with examples as long as you agree to argue within reason.

What you propose would imply that you shift your position to the lighter: "Most internet (nairaland) Atheists you have come across argue in that way"...if this is your new position then your challenge would be appropriate.

Shifting my position like you suggest is unnecessary because whenever a man says most things are such and such, he always speaks from within the scope of his knowledge. Even if I said that "everything that goes up falls down". I would still be speaking from my experience of reality. Yet it is unnecessary for me to say that "everything I have come across that went up came down". It will also be unreasonable to argue that I cannot make that claim until I have thrown every object on earth up. All you have to do to challenge that claim is if I can throw everything up and they come down and you can throw something up that never comes down. Get serious whenever you are ready sir.

Lol!!! of course most (if not all) would disagree...which Christian would want to be 'compared' to an Atheist?...will Obasanjo accept that he looks like a gorilla? Lol!!! No offence intended...Anyways, even some Atheists would disagree with a number of what the dude said.

Would most atheists honestly disagree with the six points I listed about how they argue?

@Bold: Sure you do!!!

No I don't

Lol!!!

I don't know o! Ask LB, he gave the tag.

Then why use it in your defense of him when you don't even know what he means by it? That to me is a shoddy way of saying I don't like Christians but I have no problem with the fake ones i.e. the ones who are not Christians. Translation: "I really don't like Christians.
It's kinda like saying I don't have a problem with non-islamic muslims (what does that even mean?).

I don't know about you but for me, when one is accused of "sitting on the fence" it shows a lack of courage to choose between two sides where there is enough evidence to show that either side may be right or wrong.

In this case, we do not have enough information to determine which side is right or wrong. It would be inappropriate to say one position is wrong while the other right when there is no evidence to show this.

If I should choose a "Yes" or "No" position based on the above constraint then I would be very partial. This is not sitting on the fence in my view.

Erhm.....we are not talking about right or wrong here, we are talking about whether the video was staged or not. What you have done is like watching a football match and saying you don't know if it was staged or not. Then you've proceeded to give reasons why you think it may have been staged yet when asked whether you think it was staged, you reply that you don't know whether you think it was staged or whether you don't. You are simply being ridiculously lukewarm. It is either you think was staged, say so. There is no harm in actually having an opinion.

striktlymi: The above seems more like Ad hominem...



WRONG!!!

If I saw an Ape and the thought of Obasanjo comes to mind, does this mean I am comparing Apples with Oranges? NO!!!

I saw the video twice and the way the guy went about his argument (if I would call what he did an argument) reminded me more of the way some Theists argue...

That is not an unfair comparison but what it reminded me of...some pointers would be:

1) The guy was not tolerant and really took some extreme positions. Bakare too was not tolerant and his position was also extreme.

2) The guy was guilty of some of the things he spoke about. Bakare forgot that he was a GO too and whether he likes it or not, he is wealthy.

3) The guy painted a deceitful picture about the Catholic church and Hitler. The Muslim dude did the same.

4) For a Christian to say that the old testament is filled with horror and habors war criminals is a direct attack on God himself. We cannot separate God from Christianity. An attack on God is an attack on Christianity. Which is no different from what the dude in the video demonstrated.

5) If you look at the video and the way the guy was breathing fire and brimstone, this reminds me of the attacks of some nairaland Christians who make comments and threats just because someone else holds a different opinion from theirs. I am sure you know that it is easier to have a conversation with some nairaland Atheists than some nairaland Christians.

I can go on but this would make the post a bit too long.

Well, I guess whatever came to your mind is what came to your mind

Desperate bid to defend? What reason do I have to defend Atheists, more so LB? If you were talking about a Catholic, maybe we would have understood that I may have some sentiments but LB?? Haba!!!

hmm...alrighty

Oh, now you ask!...Yes, the dude reminds me of the argument style of some Theists as against the argument style of most Atheists...and the last time I checked, there is no rule against backing one's position with some examples.

fair enough, if that's what came to your mind. I can't fault your mind for what comes to it first.

Oh, you think the task is unreasonable? I guess now you see why it would be unreasonable for me to accept your position that the dude argues like most nairaland Atheists...If you do not know how many constitute the majority of nairaland Atheists, how then do we safely conclude that most of them argue in the exact same manner? This is at best, the fallacy of hasty generalisation.

Now, the list you speak of will not serve any practical purpose because whether you can provide a longer list or not would still not tell us whether your list constitute a majority of nairaland Atheists...sorry to say but you took a position you cannot defend. If you don't know what the majority is, then you cannot say the dude argues like the majority.

Erhm this is just disingenious of you. I have not taken an unreasonable position rather you are the one trying to sneak away by making an unreasonable demand.
Assuming you made the claim that most human beings have two legs, it will unreasonable for me to argue that in order for you to prove that, you have to go round the world and count all the people with two legs and only when we have compared the number of two-legged people with the number of amputees can we uphold your claim. That's simply a ridiculous demand to make.
The easier and fairer way to go about would be to say "name as many amputees as you can while I name as many two legged people as I can. The longer list wins". This would be a reasonable demand within the scope of our resources and knowledge rather than attempting to send your opponent on a wild goose chase and then claiming his position has no merit because he won't chase your geese. C'mon striktlymi be serious.

I didn't fail to notice how you chipped in the 'silence does not mean consent or disapproval' card which makes your challenge unreasonable too.

No it doesn't make it unreasonable. I think it is only fair that we don't go about accusing people of things they never said. Wouldn't you agree?

Okay, since we are working with the new position of the goal post, in the light of the OP then I will say that some Atheists actually use profane language and accuse Christians of all sorts but I still do not agree that these constitute the majority, unless you can give me proof.

There is no new position of goal post. Most atheists on nairaland argue like the video guy and this includes swearing among other things). I have agreed to give you proof but I will do so within reason as I have proposed.....unless you are not interested in evidence but more interested in appealing to ignorance.

Now, I bet you that some Theists also accuse their fellow Theists of all sorts and use profane language too. If they do these to their brethren then what will they not say against Atheists?

Sure you will find some theists that cuss but they will still mostly disagree with our video dude

Like I mentioned before, the challenge will serve no practical purpose for the same reason I gave. What you have on your hands is to show that majority of nairaland Atheists are like that but I believe you can't show it for obvious reasons.

I don't have that task on my hands, just like I wouldn't have the task to take a census of the entire world in order to prove that majority of human beings are not amputees. That's simply irrational

I don't think LB would support the view that Christians should be put in prison. He has always maintained that he does not have any ish with secular Christians.

Lol, please what exactly is a "secular Christian"?

That is not sitting on the fence. I gave at least one reason why I can't commit to a "Yes" or "No" and there is the option of "I cannot say"...The information we have does not permit one to make an informed conclusion. The best anyone can do is base his conclusion on speculation.

What did you think sitting on the fence was before? If you cannot commit to a yes or no, you are sitting on the fence plain and simple. You have also given reasons for sitting on the fence.

Alfa Seltzer: Yes. I know. I looked for a "2 year old" meme but can only find the one I posted.

The good thing is that 2 year olds don't read these things or they would feel insulted that their brains are likened to yours.

You are trying way too hard to force an insult

Lol, I think I smell some dishonesty on your part my friend. Let's read your answer

striktlymi: I just took a look at the video again and the truth is...the dude reminds me more of some nairaland Theists and their argument style as against most Atheists and their argument style on nairaland.

Lets walkthrough some examples:

The dude said:

"...I will be a lot 'freer' if people like you are put in prison for the collective crime of racism...";

Pastor Bakare said all GO's and religious leaders should be locked up in prison...a speech some Christians here supported===>> https://www.nairaland.com/1101023/all-gos-religious-leaders-must#12937002

Comparing apples with oranges now are we? Is it Bakare's position that Christianity is racist? Absolutely not.

The dude said:

"...ALL you God bla bla are war criminals...";

A Christian likened the old testament as an X-rated horror story with war criminals...===>> https://www.nairaland.com/1354454/old-testament-bible-x-rated#16731550

Again, was the person from the thread you posted accusing Christians of being war criminals? Absolutely not.

The dude said: "...Hitler was a practicing catholic...";

Some time ago a nairaland muslim also made similar claims...===>> https://www.nairaland.com/376517/father-terrorist-adolf-hitler-catholic#5255394

...and the list goes on.

The question is in what sense is he saying Hitler is a catholic? The dude in the video is arguing that Hitler's "belief" in God made him commit mass murder. Interestingly, the muslim in question got his arguments from an atheist website.

So it's not just about the tone of voice but also about the claim that most internet Atheists have a similar argument style...

Lol, we have just seen you compare unrelated contexts in your desperate bid to defend the indefensible. Are you sure the dude actually reminded you of nairaland theists or did you purposely go on a search for nairaland theists to be "reminded" of

Now unless you can tell me how many Atheists we have on nairaland and how many argue in that way (which should be more than 50%) then I still do not agree with the assessment.

Hahahaha....now he gives me an unreasonable task. Why don't we do something more reasonable. Since we both don't know exactly how many atheists are on NL, why don't you give me a list of some nairaland atheists that do not hold the view that Christianity supports slavery, h[color=#000000]omo[/color]phobia and racism. And if I can give you a longer list of nairaland atheists who believe this, I will have justified my claim.

Mind you, silence does not mean for neither does it mean against.

The triggers include:

1) The caption on the video.
2) The video itself.
3) The OP only asked what the dude's problem is.
4) The OP did not exclude the dude's shouting as part of the assessment.

ok

@Bold: I think his argument defer from the argument style of a 'majority' of the Atheists I have interacted with or read their posts here on nairaland.

i don't think so, I'll say they are very similar they hold mostly the same views, use profane language, accuse Christians of all sorts of ills that Christ has no part in, claim that christians are not rational prior to even discussing with them.

Oh, okay...so are we still talking about most internet Atheists or some internet Atheists? Maybe some examples of their posts would help.

I'll provide the posts you need when you accept my challenge i.e. when we go toe to toe with each other providing those for and against the idea that Christianity is hateful, irrational, homophobic, racist and in support of oppressive slavery. For each example I provide, I will do so with evidence from their posts. I will require of you to do the same as well.

The exact same argument? The dude in the video said some things I believe LB would disagree with.

What parts do you think logicboy would disagree with?

Lol!!!

Fencing?

The bold is not the same as saying: "I believe the video is staged".

I can't say categorically that the video was staged and I can't also say that it wasn't but when you see a video of a guy who claims to be jogging but is without a pair of shoes, and there is no iota of sweat on his body then that gives room for suspicion.

The bold is exactly what i mean by sitting on the fence. If you think it is staged, say so, if not say so. I can't argue against a vacuum my friend.

striktlymi: Oh, now I get it!

I guess the 'Happy spot' thingy sent me on a 'wild moose* chase'.

Thanks!

That's alright bro

striktlymi: Was it meant to be sarcastic? Who or what is the object of his sarcasm? "Radical Islam"?


I still do not get it!

He is talking about radical islam and how we should be blunt and call it out for the cancer that it is instead of being politically correct and making excuses for it. I really can't believe you of all people missed all that.

striktlymi: As promised, let me see the video again before responding to the above.

ok

Deep Sight: Anony, the video seems to stop midway...@ 1.12 minutes. . .do you have a full version, or is this a problem from my end. . .

It plays fully for me o. I think the problem's probably from your end

striktlymi: Cool!

Not quite...

It's actually not about what someone said but what the caption on the video says...I agree that I omitted the 'internet' thingy but my comment is in response to the caption on that video...the comment can be modified thus:

"Anyways, I don't think that's the way most Internet Atheists argue, or at least the ones I have come across. There might be some who act the same way but I am yet to see that on nairaland at least."

Lol, what are you yet to see on Nairaland? The argument or the tone of voice?

I disagree with the above from the viewpoint of the video...

I agree that I can't tell what you had in mind but if we are to go by just the OP and the video therein then it can be inferred directly that the OP wasn't just referring to the argument style of the dude but also the manner of delivery, which include shouting and screaming.

I wonder exactly what triggered your inferences but that neither here nor there. Now I have been specific about exactly what I am referring to, do you think his arguments differ from typical internet atheist arguments?

Lol!!!...C'mon now Anony, Logicboy and ooman do not constitute the majority of nairaland Atheists...

I never said they did. I only named them as prominent examples.

Well, I will watch the video again but before I do and respond to the above, can you sincerely say that when you met logicboy in person his argument style was exactly what is depicted in the video?...at least then there was no barrier like the internet to get in the way.

As I said earlier, Logicboy may not shout and scream like the dude in the video, but Logicboy makes the same arguments.

Not quite still...

I don't think I have expressed what I believe about the status of the video i.e. whether it was staged or not...

But I do believe I only expressed some reservations about it...

C'mon now, you are fence sitting again. Here is what you said:

"I quite agree with some peeps that the video seem staged and I am of the opinion that if this was supposed to portray Atheism and Atheists in bad light, they really missed the mark by a mile..."

It is quite clear that you were telling us your opinion and not merely "expressing a reservation"

striktlymi: Hmmmm...

How does "radical Islam" fit into his definition of "happy spot"?

When the dude started I had the impression that he was referring to the need to nurture one's 'partial disbelief' and not root it out before it blooms into "full blown Atheism"...

But as the video progressed, I thought maybe he is talking about the need to accept people with a different mindset, culture, belief or disbelief system but became a bit suspicious when he implied that this 'cancer' will ultimately eliminate the individual if it is left to live.

I still am a bit foncused about the dude's angle....

Chai, the sarcasm was completely lost on you.

striktlymi: Morning Anony,

Lol!!!

Funny display indeed!

The guy has a lot of ish but the underlying ish for me is that he accuses everyone into religion of some things he is guilty of. For starters, he is not tolerant and he makes hasty generalizations.

Ok

Anyways, I don't think that's the way most Atheists argue, or at least the ones I have come across. There might be some who act the same way but I am yet to see that on nairaland at least.

First of all no one has said that that is the way most atheists argue in the sense of his shouting and screaming however in the sense of the actual argument he is making, that is exactly the way a majority of internet atheists argue.
If you doubt this, watch the video again listen to what he is saying - imagine he was not shouting but was typing his words on a computer - and I assure you that is exactly the way people like logicboy and ooman argue.

You can always prove me wrong by showing me by telling me how much of what he said you think our nairaland atheists would disagree with

I quite agree with some peeps that the video seem staged and I am of the opinion that if this was supposed to portray Atheism and Atheists in bad light, they really missed the mark by a mile...

Do you have any evidence for your belief that it was staged? Or it is just a hunch because you believe no one is actually that crazy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_dxhlEz27s

Logicboy03: Notice your own admission in bold?


Furthermore, please dont talk nonsense about me. Have you seen me on the street shouting at a stranger for atheism?
Tommorow, Anony will come and say Logicboy is abusive

Haahahaha................quote mining me doesn't help you. From the onset, no one ever said he represents all atheists. So you really have no points.

By the way, we both know that you totally agree with what he said. He is only a more colorful character. Feel free to be offended.

mazaje: LOL!. . .The guy is obviously a gay christian actor. . .

Evidence please?

Logicboy03: Anony is a dubious tool. Kalis first posted this video weeks ago.

The guy in the video is either a mentally unstable guy or a christian actor. I can find thousands of videos of christians behaving like trash with their full cognitive abilities. Anony found one dodgy video and he is happy!

There are numerous videos of atheists on youtube. Is this guy representative of atheists or atheists in videos? No


Trolling for christ

Isn't it interesting how you are fighting to distance yourself from your brother in unbelief?

Is the guy representative of all atheists? Not necessarily but as far as his atheism is concerned, it is the exact same as yours (Remember according to you, atheism has no laws all that is required is disbelief in God).

At least I am not lying like you always do when you claim that people who walk against the way of Christ are Christians.

Funny enough, the guy makes all the same arguments as you, He is only a little bit more colorful.

mazaje: The guy is clearly a christian actor. . .

........and your evidence is?

by the way, how did you make the jump from "he might be..." to "he clearly is..."?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmjLexVj3NU

Can anyone tell me what his problem is?

....continuation

From his second apology as a response to people who made the claim that other religious stories were similar to that of Jesus. . .

For I myself, when I discovered the wicked disguise which the evil spirits had thrown around the divine doctrines of the Christians, to turn aside others from joining them, laughed both at those who framed these falsehoods, and at the disguise itself and at popular opinion and I confess that I both boast and with all my strength strive to be found a Christian. (Chapter 13)

Erhm Mazaje, I think you have just quoted Justin Martyr completely out of context. Maybe you went to some website somewhere and lapped that up without even bothering to investigate it's source at all. The Second Apology of Justin Martyr was written to the Roman Senate to protest the persecution Christians were going through under Quintus Lollius Urbicus. It had nothing to do with responding to any such arguments as you claim.

Here is a link to the full document. Read it and tell us how your theory fits in
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0127.htm

Here also is the immediate surrounding context for the passage you presented. Please tell me again how it even remotely fits your thesis.

For I myself, too, when I was delighting in the doctrines of Plato, and heard the Christians slandered, and saw them fearless of death, and of all other-things which are counted fearful, perceived that it was impossible that they could be living in wickedness and pleasure. For what sensual or intemperate man, or who that counts it good to feast on human flesh, could welcome death that he might be deprived of his enjoyments, and would not rather continue always the present life, and attempt to escape the observation of the rulers; and much less would he denounce himself when the consequence would be death? This also the wicked demons have now caused to be done by evil men. For having put some to death on account of the accusations falsely brought against us, they also dragged to the torture our domestics, either children or weak women, and by dreadful torments forced them to admit those fabulous actions which they themselves openly perpetrate; about which we are the less concerned, because none of these actions are really ours, and we have the unbegotten and ineffable God as witness both of our thoughts and deeds. For why did we not even publicly profess that these were the things which we esteemed good, and prove that these are the divine philosophy, saying that the mysteries of Saturn are performed when we slay a man, and that when we drink our fill of blood, as it is said we do, we are doing what you do before that idol you honour, and on which you sprinkle the blood not only of irrational animals, but also of men, making a libation of the blood of the slain by the hand of the most illustrious and noble man among you? And imitating Jupiter and the other gods in sodomy and shameless intercourse with woman, might we not bring as our apology the writings of Epicurus and the poets? But because we persuade men to avoid such instruction, and all who practise them and imitate such examples, as now in this discourse we have striven to persuade you, we are assailed in every kind of way. But we are not concerned, since we know that God is a just observer of all. But would that even now some one would mount a lofty rostrum, and shout with a loud voice; "Be ashamed, be ashamed, you who charge the guiltless with those deeds which yourselves openly could commit, and ascribe things which apply to yourselves and to your gods to those who have not even the slightest sympathy with them. Be converted; become wise."

For I myself, when I discovered tile wicked disguise which the evil spirits had thrown around the divine doctrines of the Christians, to turn aside others from joining them, laughed both at those who framed these falsehoods, and at the disguise itself and at popular opinion and I confess that I both boast and with all my strength strive to be found a Christian; not because the teachings of Plato are different from those of Christ, but because they are not in all respects similar, as neither are those of the others, Stoics, and poets, and historians. For each man spoke well in proportion to the share he had of the spermatic word, seeing what was related to it. But they who contradict themselves on the more important points appear not to have possessed the heavenly wisdom, and the knowledge which cannot be spoken against. Whatever things were rightly said among all men, are the property of us Christians. For next to God, we worship and love the Word who is from the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also He became man for our sakes, that becoming a partaker of our sufferings, He might also bring us healing. For all the writers were able to see realities darkly through the sowing of the implanted word that was in them. For the seed and imitation impacted according to capacity is one thing, and quite another is the thing itself, of which there is the participation and imitation according to the grace which is from Him.

And we therefore pray you to publish this little book, appending what you think right, that our opinions may he known to others, and that these persons may have a fair chalice of being freed from erroneous notions and ignorance of good, who by their own fault have become subject to punishment; that so these things may be published to men, because it is in the nature of man to know good and evil; and by their condemning us, whom they do not understand, for actions which they say are wicked, and by delighting in the gods who did such things, and even now require similar actions from men, and by inflicting on us death or bonds or some other such punishment, as if we were guilty of these things, they condemn themselves, so that there is no need of other judges.

The writing of tacitus as compared to the 4 gospel accounts. . .

Be specific. Which writing of Tacitus in particular versus which gospel in particular? I want us to do a comparative analysis.

Great commission does not appear in the earliest gospels. . .Some bible versions clearly acknowledge that. . .

Erhm. . . .You are wrong sir. It appears in both the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus in Matthew, Luke, John and Acts. It only doesn't appear in Mark.

mazaje: I clearly said that Mark got the spelling(geography) wrongly and Matthew corrected it. . .

I hope you do realize that spelling error (if it can be called that, for it might just as well have been a different name for the same region) is not the same as a geographical error. For if one person says "I traveled to England to see the palace of queen Elizabeth" and another says "I traveled to Britain to see the palace of queen Elizabeth". This wouldn't show a geographic error on anyone's part especially if they describe the place. The only way one can show a geographical error is if one shows that England are Britain are two distinct and different places such that it will be a contradiction to claim that the Palace of queen Elizabeth was in both places. The same applies if one says Britain and another refers to the same place as Britannia.
To show a geographical error, you must prove that Gerasenes and Gadarenes are two distinct places in that sense. Failure to do this and you cannot make the claim you are making.

Not true, the earliest and complete new testement manuscript we have today dates to the 4th centuray and 95 percent of the complete copies of the early manuscipts of the new testament that we have today are from the 8th century. The ones from the 4th and 8th century differ from each other . . .Before then there is NO complete new testement book any where. . .We do not have the original copies of the new testament text any where. . .Even the parts listed in the letters of the early church father differ GREATLY from the new testament we have now. . .I said it is possible that Tacitus did not write the works attibuted to him. Ancient history is NOT realible as acknowledged by historians themselves. . .Most of the new testament that we have today are reconstructions. . .No one knows what the originals look like because they do not exist any where. . .

Lol, you are a funny guy, you have now shifted the goalposts. Of what use to us is the claim that the earliest surviving complete New Testament document is from the 4th century especially when you know that the New Testament is 27 individual books and were not exactly compiled together as one document (canon) until the 4th century. If the New testament was compiled (note I didn't say written) in the 4th Century, and the earliest surviving compilation we have is from the same 4th century it was compiled, then I really don't see the point you are trying to make. I wonder the kind of magic you are expecting. Do you seriously expect a compilation of the New Testament to show up before it was actually compiled?

Miracles as reported in the bible do NOT happen in reality, if it is true then you should be able to demonstrate it. . .After all Jesus PROMISED those of you that believe in him the ability to do greater things than he did. . .If the bible is true then miracles as stated in the bible should be replicated. . .the fact that NO body on earth can replicate any of the Major things Jesus did and promised his followers says its fiction and mythology. . .If you disagree then we can put that to test right now. . .Why don't you demonstrate the "divinity of Christ" by doing what he promised you would be able to do. Demonstrate the down payment of the holy spirit. If jesus is the same yesterday today and forever whats the big deal?

Oh miracles happen all the time. The question is do you accept them as miracles or do you just jump back to Naturalistic worldview and deny them without any attempt at investigation?

This is completely false, firstly first corithtians was written very long after Jesus died and it remains a claim. . I am talking about the gospels and when they were written. . .The were written very long after Jesus died by people who never meet him or knew him any where. . .

Lol, seriously, who told you that 1Corinthians was written long after Christ's death? (by long do you mean 5, 10, 20, 30, 50, 100, or 200 years? What exactly do you mean by "very long"
Secondly, you haven't still shown that the New testament was written "long" after Christs death by people who did not know Him. You just keep parroting the claim while I keep asking you to prove it and also tell us why you even think it is relevant.

I just gave you a quote from the ancient encyclopedia of history which states that ancient history is not reliable because of reasons it outlined and you are telling me too bad for me?. . .I also marvel at the extent you are willing to go to uphold your own belief. . .

It is the argument you are trying to make from the quote that makes me pity you. If you cannot trust history because of the nature of history itself, then you really have no case in this debate because that is exactly what we are arguing.

It is just like someone saying that the "field of science isn't fact but intelligent guesses on how the physical reality works therefore we cannot really trust it" Such a person has effectively lost any scientific case he wants to make thereafter because he has essentially thrown science under the bus and therefore cannot proceed to argue that any scientific statements he brings up are indeed true statements.

Nope, it wasn't mentioned and its very significant. . .

That's arguing from silence still. For instance if I told you that "in Logicboy's house yesterday, he told Deep Sight that thehomer likes blue shirts"
The information has been passed. The fact that I didn't start by saying that "I was in Logicboy's house and...." is not proof that I wasn't there. In fact without me saying anything about where I was, it can be naturally assumed that either I was there or I heard it from someone who was there.
To make an argument that I was not in Logicboy's house is simply arguing from silence (i.e making my silence mean whatever you want it to mean)

What am I to do with these piece of apologia?. . .Even the authour of the piece can be seen clearly being dishonest and making his own personal conclusions. . .For example he claims thatits "very plausible that Matthew focuses on the angel who spoke and “said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid’” while John focuses on how many angels the women saw; “and she saw two angels.” But the text is very clear, Matthew says she saw two men not angles, Marks said the ladies saw a man, Luke said they saw an angle and John said they saw two angles. . .It is NOT the same thing. . .The guy is clearly just making things up in order to explain absurdity away. . .He is such a shobby apologist. . .if this childish excuse is all you have then I really have to laugh at you. . .

Please read the verses again and read the article again too.

I said most of Matthew was copied from Mark and most scholars agree to that. . .Most of the words in Matthew appear verbatim in Mark. . .Word for word. . .

Point of correction, most scholars say that Matthew referenced Mark not copied Mark

Is this a joke or what?. . .Even you yourself have already acknowledged the point am making. . .Its very clear that it is an interpolation. . .In your case you are writing in the first person narrative, but it the case of John it is in the third person narrative. . .You analogy falls completely flat here. . .Its really laughable. . .PLEASE read what you wrote about me and compare it to what is written in the bible. . .They are completely diametrical. . .The one is John is very differnt. Any honest reader will know that it is an interpolation. . .Here it is once again. . ."This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down". We know that his testimony is true.

We know that his testimony is true?. . .This is VERY clear to any honest reader. . .It is an interpolation and was never written by the original author. . .

Lol, interesting sneak in the ad hominem "any honest reader who reads this can see...." Interpretation: "If you don't agree with my claim, you are dishonest."
My friend, I don't see the interpolation you are seeing. I only see an author switching from singular to plural in reference to the community he was writing to. What should he have written?

"This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. I know that his testimony is true??"

Even if I granted (though I am not) that it was an interpolation added by some mischievous chap and so we removed the problematic later part of that verse. Isn't "This is the disciple who testifies these things and who wrote them down." enough evidence of eyewitness testimony for you? Remember he was writing to a community he is familiar with who would know it was him writing by the things he said of himself. Similar to how one of my friends could choose not to write his name in a letter but refer to himself as "the guy that trashes you in chess". Or do you want him to say "I, Okeke Okafor solemnly swear..." Na court document im dey write? I keep showing you how irrational you are being.

We are going by the scholarly concensus and they date the gospel of John to about 100AD. . .Its possible that they are wrong. Josephus writtings were written in the first century but the surviving copies we have date to 700 years later, which is same with the NT. . .The earliest complete book we have of any of the NT dates from over 400 years later. . .All the earlier copies are just frangments and they differ from those that came later. . .

Lol, he has done it again, please what are we arguing? the date when the works were written or the date of the earliest surviving copies. Please don't confuse the two.

The first 3 gospels are called synopics. . .That alone explains it. . .

What exactly does that explain? How does it show that John presented a different Christ??

Luke was writing mythology about the Jesus character. . .Just as the writers of the hadith wrote mythology about Mohammed who was a real person in history. . .

Luke is fiction just as the hadiths about the Prophet Mohammed are and other god life humans in ancient history. . .

Please cite the hadiths and Luke and let's do a comparative analysis. Don't just drop words about.

Straw man, eh?. . .I have told you many times that his claims too should not be believed if he wrote about people resurrecting from the dead or flying in the air. . .Josephus possibly wrote so many things that are ot true. .Ancient history is NOT reliable. . .Historians themselves have said that because of the oral tradition they use. . .

Hahaha, Just come out and say it already. The reason you don't believe in the historicity of the NT is only because you don't believe in the resurrection simple. Because the New testament passes your tests in flying colors. You only reject it based on your Naturalistic bias nothing more.

The ancient Romans spoke Latin NOT Greek. . .Greek was NOT a language of influence at that time because the ancient Romans that dominated the area spoke Latin. . .The gospels were written in Greek in distant lands. . .Thats where the earliest copies we know were seen. . .

Wrong.
Koine Greek (Greek Ελληνιστική Κοινή, "common Greek", or κοινή διάλεκτος "the common dialect" is the popular form of Greek which emerged in post-Classical antiquity (c.300 BC – AD 300). Other names are Alexandrian, Hellenistic, Patristic, Common, Biblical or New Testament Greek. Original names were koine, Hellenic, Alexandrian and Macedonian (Macedonic);[1][2] all on the contrast to Attic dialect. Koine was the first common supra-regional dialect in Greece and came to serve as a lingua franca for the eastern Mediterranean and ancient Near East throughout the Roman period. It was also the original language of the New Testament of the Christian Bible and of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament).[3] Koine is the main ancestor of modern Greek.
http://wiki.phantis.com/index.php/Koine_Greek

I'll concede this point. . .But i still maintain that the gospels were not written by people who knew Jesus or meet him any where. .

Scores you no points. Plus the writer of John's gospel was an eyewitness.

Not true. . .The quotation of the gospels from the early church fathers is all over the place and differs in many ways from the gospels we have. . .We have their quotations from the second century and its all over the map. .In every instance that you have them copying the NT its very different from the text that came to us in the manuscript. . .Example is the quote from Clement of Alexandria, his quotation is very different from even the Alexandrain manuscript that came later on. . .

Where is the quote you are talking about?

The quoatations are all over the place and different from the manustcipts that came down to us. . .Pls cite and example and lets look at it and you will see the diference yourself. . .

Here's an example for you.

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." "the only begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father ..."(Iraneaus quoting John 1:18 in Against Heresies III:11:6),

You are all over the place, I am not saying Jesus never existed, stories written about him are what are not true and fictitious, Mohammed existed but that doesn't mean he once divided the moon into two halves. . .

I never said that you said that Christ didn't exist. I have also asked you to present the hadiths for comparison

They alone know why the chose the Jesus character. . .

And with this you have shown that you don't know what you are talking about. If you accuse the Church Fathers of conspiracy and deception, you have implied that you know they had malicious motives for their actions. To now turn around and deny knowledge of their motives, you immediately debunk your own theory.

Just like Mohammed ascended into heaven on the back of a winged beast and his followers went about preaching about him as well. . .

Once again, cite the sources and let us compare

The early church fathers do actually meet from time to time to form creeds and shape the theology of the early church. . .And they also had acess to the writings of each other. . .They were always in correspondance. . .

But in order for them to meet, they must already have a binding purpose which is Christ. This would mean that the gospel of Christ was already known to them beforehand. Do you think people living thousands of miles away from one another simply wake up one morning and decide to form creeds? Your conspiracy theory is failing badly sir.



.........to be continued

Deep Sight: Anony, Please what verse is your last post treating?

Is the verse being treated Luke 10:1?

Because you seem to have discussed generally many verses, and not a specific verse as we have been proceeding?

I remember asking your permission to treat the subject of the Lordship of Christ with A2 because I was going to treat something which I touched on earlier. The aim of this post was to show you that where "the Lord" is used in reference to Christ it is almost always pointing to His deity in much the same way "the Lord" does in the Old Testament. It isn't necessarily to look at a verse in particular but to provide a background explanation for what is meant when Christ is referred to as Lord.

Luke 10:1 is an example such usage and I placed it there in the hope that after you have read my post and you read the verse again, you would see it in a whole new light.

I would still suggest that we treat my post in the same manner of Post - Rebuttal - Response to Rebuttal - Response to Response as we have been doing all along. I hope I have not gone foul of the rules.

mazaje: Gospel of Matthew was copied from Mark as such many of the words and sentences are reported verbatim. Both were written for different audiences, while Mark was written for a Gentile audience Matthew according to scholars was written mostly for a hellinized Jewish audience. . .Mark's Gospel is noted for its geographical errors, some of which the author of Matthew corrected. In Mark, Jesus went across the Sea of Galilee to the land of the Gerasenes*, a town far away from the Sea and across a river, and healed the demon-possessed man. This location was changed in Matthew to 'Gadarenes'. (* Note: the KJV Bible has changed the text in Mark to 'Gadarenes' in conformance with Matthew, but some other English translations, such as the New American Bible (NAB), have kept the original text.)

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

Examples. . .Josephus wrote about Emperor Vespasian, Tacitus wrote about Nero. . .

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

We must not believe anything any modern day historian writes about people raising up from the dead, human beings growing wings and flying all because he/she claimed the event happened in 1743. . .Why believe anything based on hear say?. . .Even historian clearly admit that ancient history is very difficult to verify because at that time there was nothing between fact and fiction. . .Now we know what fiction is and if the story of Jesus were to be written now it will be considered as fiction, the story of Jesus as reported in the bible is pure fiction. . .

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

I was just trying to show you that the gospels were not even written by people who knew Jesus or ever meet him. . .The gospels were written very long after he died by greek speaking christians, no of which ever identified himself. . .

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

Sure, I have stated that even historians have said that ancient history is very hard to trust. . .Even the ancient encyclopedia of history begins in its early pages by stating that most evidence are limited when it comes to ancient history and it admits that many ancient stories are reconstructions or intelligent guesses. . .It also says that a lot are biased accounts as well. . .

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

Doesn't say he was going to the mount of olives. . .

Shifting goal posts now are we?

From the map you can see that they are two cities far from each other, they can not be visited at once, the listing of the cities together is what scholars say is the problem because they are far away from each other. . .

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

Apparently it doesn't say that any of them was present when Jesus was with Pilate. . .It does not even mention John any where. . .

Arguing from silence now are we?

From one man in the first gospel to two angles in the last isn't an embellishment, eh?. . .If Mark says its a man and John says its two angles then its obvious that they are not saying the same thing. . .Both of them were writing a story and the guy that wrote last many years after the first decided to add to what the first writer wrote down. . .Its not as if both of them were eye witness to the events they wrote. . .

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

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

The writer of John does NOT claim any where to be an eye witness. . If you can read which I believe you can then the verse is very clear. . .The claim is NOT from the author. . .Here it is once again. . ."This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down". We know that his testimony is true.

We [/b]know that [b]his testimony is true?. . .Who are the we?. . . Obviously NOT the writer, its just some one making a claim saying that this are the testimony of the writer and him/they know its true. . .No where does the writer himself claim that he was an eye witness. . .It does not say that I am John a disciple of Jesus and I witness these things. . .Show me where the writer made such a claim in the book or i'll just accept that you have gone down the road of being a deceptive apologist. . .The gospel of John was written very late to be of any value. . .Most of its stories are different from the others and it paints Jesus in a different light from the others. . .No where does the author himself claim to know Jesus or has ever meet him. . .Show me if you disagree. . .

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

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

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

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

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

The writing of Luke alone is NOT the historical source for Pontious Pilate for example, Josephus and others also wrote about him. . .The fact that Abraham Lincoln was mentioned in the novel titled "Gone with the wind" does not mean that gone with the wind is a historical book. . .Even wikipedia says that scholars are in disagreement over the portrayal of Pilate in the gospel accounts. . .It says. . ."Pilate's reluctance to execute Jesus in the gospels has been seen as reflecting the authors' agenda.[30][31] It has thus been argued that gospel accounts place the blame on the Jews, not on Rome, in line with the authors' alleged goal of making peace with the Roman Empire and vilifying the Jews."

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

Most of Luke's story are pure fiction. . . .He wrote about things that can never happen in reality as such his stories have non basis to be trusted as true. . .His stories are NOT authentic because he talks about things that only happen in the pages of fictitious story books. . .As such his writings lack credibility. . .Why believe in anonymous stories without an author in the first place?. . .

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

As for Josephus your statement about him writing for Jews about Jewish history is false. . .From wikipedia it says. . .The Jews were thought to lack great historical figures and a credible history of their people. They were also accused of harboring hostility toward non-Jews, and were thought to be generally lacking in loyalty, respect for authority, and charity.[4] With these harsh accusations against the Jews fluttering about the Roman empire, Josephus, formerly Joseph ben Matthias, set out to provide a Hellenized version of the Jewish history. Such a work is often called an "apologia," as it pleads the case of a group of people or set of beliefs to a larger audience.

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

Clearly he wasn't writing for any Jewish audience. . .The writers of the NT gospels were NOT writing to any Jewish audience because they were NOT Jews, they were Greek speaking gentiles who wrote their stories in Greek to various Greek speaking audience. . .Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic not Greek. . .

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

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

It is very possible that Plato did not write the republic at all. . .I told you that even historians admit that many ancient writings are reconstructions. . .The tradition through which we get most ancient history are not reliable. . .Stories are mostly transmitted though the oral tradition which is very unreliable. . .Christians do not have any record or documents that date to the first century CE in support of their New Testament. Most of the documents that make up the New Testament are traced back to either the mid second century or later(many are later) e.g. Chester Beaty Papyrus 1(P45)[3rd Century], Chester Beaty Papyrus II(P46)[A.D.200], Chester Beaty Papyrus III(late 3rd century), Bodmer Papyrus II(P66)[A.D.200] and Bodmer Papyrus XIV-XV(P75)[early 3rd century). Christians claim that the gospels were written several decades after Jesus. As a matter of fact, today we know that the OLDEST text we have is dated more than 100 years after Jesus(125 to 150 CE to be more precise). It is not even a complete text. It is nothing more than a horribly worn out fragment labelled p52. “Th oldest fragment(P52), found in a mummy cartonage, contains a small portion of John 18 and is dated ca. 125.” [2]

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

I have given you proof of interpolation and embellishments already, you have not shown them to be false all you have stated is that you do not like the examples I have shown and that is not at all. . .The part in the gospel of John is clearly some one else talking and the story of the man that changed into two angles at the tomb is an embellishment of the first story by the last writer. .

I have addressed this above.

The early church father to me are the real founders of christianity, not Jesus or Paul. . . I believe they were the ones that even wrote the gospels themselves so why won't they claim to be disciples of some of the disciples of Jesus Just to give themselves legitimacy?. . .Papias for example talks about some logia written in Hebrew by Matthew. . .All we know about the new testement and the writings themselves we got from them, they are the reason why we have 4 gospels and the number of books in the NT. . .As a afore mentioned. .Christians do not have any record or documents that date to the first century CE in support of their New Testament. Most of the documents that make up the New Testament are traced back to either the mid second century or later(many are later) e.g. Chester Beaty Papyrus 1(P45)[3rd Century], Chester Beaty Papyrus II(P46)[A.D.200], Chester Beaty Papyrus III(late 3rd century), Bodmer Papyrus II(P66)[A.D.200] and Bodmer Papyrus XIV-XV(P75)[early 3rd century)

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

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

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

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

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

Historically true does not mean actual truth or truth in reality. . . Ancient history is not reliable and that remains a fact. . .The new testament are pure work of fiction because they report things that do not happen in reality only in the pages of ancient story books. . .The story of god men or men who claim to be the Messiah were so common at that time. At that time where was so many stories similar to that of Jesus that when one of the early church fathers(Justin Martyr) was asked about it, his only reply was that Satan invented the stories and made them come before the Jesus story just to confuse people about the real story of Jesus. . .Nothing new in the Jesus story. . .Many people were said to have died and resurrected claiming to be the son of god long before the Jesus story was ever written. . .But one fact about them all is that they are all work of ancient fiction. . .

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

Historical truth of historical fiction?. . .I repeat stories existed about figure claiming to be son of god who lived, died and resurrected long before the stories about Jesus. . .Even the early church fathers like Justin Martyr acknowledge that. . .I bet those other stories were also divinely inspired as well. . .

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

by worse, i mean no authorship. . .contradictory accounts etc. . .

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

How does it destroy my claim?According the the stories he was always addressing the Jews. . .Can you show me where Jesus himself claimed that he came to save all of humanity in the gospels?. . .

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

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

Please my friend bring up reasonable objections worth discussing.

DrummaBoy: Anony, with the above, U don' win... Deep, offa to U!

Lol!!!

Brother, it is not about winning or losing, it is about learning. So far, I have already learnt a lot. Because of this discourse, I have had to study so much more about Christ.

My prayer is that by the end of this exercise both I and DeepSight as well as everyone else on the thread would have increased in knowledge.

A2 - The Lordship of Christ.

After these things the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two by two before His face into every city and place where He Himself was about to go. - Luke 10:1

I'll argue that "the Lord" as used here in reference to Jesus Christ and as used in many instances in the New Testament is not merely used the way one would the title to show respect for a person of higher authority such as how one would call a judge "my lord".

All over the Old Testament, We see "the Lord" being used to describe God and in the same way, we see that it is used in reference to Christ in the New testament.

A few examples
NT
1. Matthew_28:6 He is not here, for He has risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
2. John_21:12 Jesus said to them, Come, break fast. And none of the disciples dared to ask Him, Who are You? knowing that it was the Lord.
3. 1Thessalonians_1:6 And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit,

OT
1. Exodus_13:9 And it shall be a sign to you upon your hand, and for a memorial between your eyes, that Jehovah's Law may be in your mouth. For the Lord has brought you out of Egypt with a strong hand.
2. Psalm_77:7 Will the Lord cast off forever? And will He be favorable no more?
3. Amos_7:7 He made me see this: And behold, the Lord was standing by the plumbline-wall, and a plumbline in His hand.

Now upon normal reading, without knowing the story of the bible, one might immediately assume that "the Lord" in the old testament is used in the same way as in the new testament. . . .and such a person would be right.

Yes the title refers to different persons but still, the title refers to one God. By calling Jesus Christ "the Lord", the New Testament writers accorded Him maximum authority as can be seen in the old testament.

---

A Little Background Information
First of all, before we jump into looking at it, I'd like to point out that in the original language of the old testament the name of God is usually written with only consonants and no vowels so expressed in English it comes out as the tetragrammaton YHWH (what we pronounce Yahweh, Jehovah, Yehova). It is said that to the jews, the name of God was so hallowed that they were not permitted to mention it so easily so when they wrote, they wrote only the consonants. Also when the Greeks translated the OT, they translated YHWH as Kurios(Lord). In most English bibles today, you can recognize when YHWH has been used because you would see LORD(written in all caps). Some translations like the MKJV use the word Jehovah. Some translations also like the HRB (Hebraic Roots Bible) even go as far as pointing out the name Yahweh where it is used in the New testament.

What I will try to show you with this post is that the title "Lord" used for Christ in the New Testament is precisely the same as is accorded to the Father in the old testament. Basically I'll prove that Jesus Christ is YHWH. (note: I am not saying that the Son is the Father, I am saying that the Son is God)

---

Jesus Christ is YAHWEH
I'll present to you the following reasons:

1. I will show that Jesus Christ is worshipped with the same titles as the Father.
2. I will show that the New Testament writers believed Jesus to be Yahweh by citing some of their quotations of the OT

By the time I'm done presenting these, I hope to have convinced you that the Lord Jesus Christ is much much more than a mere title.

---

1. Jesus is Worshipped.

First of all let us compare some passages

Mat 14:33 And those in the boat came and worshiped Him, saying, Truly You are the Son of God.
This was after Jesus had walked on the water with Peter and gotten into the boat. All those in the boat came and worshipped Him as the Son of God. I hope you do realize that these were Jews who knew fully well that none other deserved worship than God Himself not even angels but isn't it curious that somehow, they knew that the Son of God was equal to God and hence deserving of worship?

compare with Peter when he went to visit Cornelius and Cornelius came and worshiped him. Peter vehemently rejected this worship.
Act 10:25-26 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up! I also am a man myself.

Notice that even Angels do not accept worship, yet Christ did on numerous occasions.

The second question is how was Christ worshiped? Was it as unto God or merely like the way homage is paid to a human king?

We can find this out by looking at the names Christ is called.
1. Christ is not merely Lord but the Lord of Lords
Compare:

Revelations_17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

to:

1Timothy 6:13-16 I charge you before God (who makes all things alive) and in the sight of Christ Jesus (who witnessed the good confession to Pontius Pilate), that you keep the commandment without spot and without blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. For He in His own time will reveal who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, dwelling in light which cannot be approached, whom no one of men have seen, nor can see; to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen.

Compare also to:

Deuteronomy_10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe.

Psalm 136:3 Oh give thanks to the Lord of lords; for His mercy endures forever.

Another thing I would like you to consider is "the day of the Lord". I won't go into it in depth because it will make this post really long (if you are really interested, I could) but I'll ask you to read about the day of the Lord when the kingdom of God is meant to come on earth. From the Old testament, it reads like Yahweh is going to come but in the New testament, it reads like Christ is the one coming. You can compare Obadaiah 1:15 to Revelation 22:12. You mght also want to take note of how Christ talks about "the kingdom of God is at hand" and by that he means the time He (Christ will return like a thief in the night)

Also notice how the kingdom of Christ is often equated to the kingdom of God in the Nt (see 2Peter 2:11, 2Timothy 4:1, Ephesians 5:5, Colossians 1:13)

Even more, Christ promises to personally answer prayers in His name (See John 14:14). Any and every first century Jew knows that only God is to be prayed to.

So we have evidence from the New testament that Christ is to be worshiped and prayed to. This should tell us that He is definitely not called Lord in the same sense as one would call a mere man such as a magistrate "my lord" rather He is called God in the same sense that God is Lord.

I'll give you one last piece of evidence for this point and it is from the writings of Pliny the Younger(112 AD). He was commenting on the practices of Christians in the Roman empire at the time and he had this to say:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/primary/pliny.html

The above tells us that even to the observation of outsiders, the Christians rendered deity worship to Christ.

2. References from the Old Testament in the New Testament

Here I will present to you a few instances where New Testament writers quote the Old Testament referring to Jesus Christ and we'll look up the Old Testament reference and find out who the original passage refers to

Let us begin by looking at

a. 1Corinthians 10:7-12 (emphasis on verse 9)
And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer. Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.
What Paul is talking about in verse 9 refers to Numbers 21:4-9 where the Israelites in the desert sinned against God and He sent serpents to attack them. How come Paul says that they tempted Christ?

I'll show you another passage:

b. But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore He says:
“When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”
(Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)
And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,
Ephesians 4:7-11 (emphasis on verse

Notice that here Paul quotes the Hebrew scripture in reference to Jesus Christ, let's see where he quoted from

Psalm 68:17-19

The chariots of God are twenty thousand,
Even thousands of thousands;
The Lord is among them as in Sinai, in the Holy Place.
You have ascended on high,
You have led captivity captive;
You have received gifts among men,
Even from the rebellious,
That the Lord God might dwell there.
Blessed be the Lord,
Who daily loads us with benefits,
The God of our salvation!

Notice that from the Psalm, David sings to God the Father yet in the New Testament, we see it directly applied to the Son.

I'll show you one more instance of this

c. John 12:39-41
Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:
“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,
Lest they should see with their eyes,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.”
These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him.

Now John quotes from Isaiah 6:10. Isaiah said these things when he saw the Glory of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now let us examine Isaiah 6 and discover whose glory Isaiah saw

1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. 2Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3And one cried to another and said:
“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts;
The whole earth is full of His glory!”
4And the posts of the door were shaken by the voice of him who cried out, and the house was filled with smoke.
5So I said:
“Woe is me, for I am undone!
Because I am a man of unclean lips,
And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips;
For my eyes have seen the King,
The Lord of hosts.”
6Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a live coal which he had taken with the tongs from the altar. 7And he touched my mouth with it, and said:
“Behold, this has touched your lips;
Your iniquity is taken away,
And your sin purged.”
8Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying:
“Whom shall I send,
And who will go for Us?”
Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.”
9And He said, “Go, and tell this people:
‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
10 “Make the heart of this people dull,
And their ears heavy,
And shut their eyes;
Lest they see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart,
And return and be healed."
11Then I said, “Lord, how long?”
And He answered:
“Until the cities are laid waste and without inhabitant,
The houses are without a man,
The land is utterly desolate,
12The Lord has removed men far away,
And the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land

This concludes my case for now. I hope I have been able to show you that Jesus Christ is the LORD indeed.



Once again please accept my apologies for the slow pace at which I am moving.

Sorry Deep Sight but time really hasn't been my friend these past few weeks. I'll get back to posting over the weekend. Cheers

[quote author=ozo_emeka]You really need to stop drinking from those lead Cups.. LMAO[/quote]Lol...shut your pie hole, fisherman.