₦airaland Forum

Emmanystone:
That guy can argue for all Africans even when the answers are stiring him in the face.
He wants to win an arguement by all means.
I no get that time.

If winning means and matters so much to him, then I concede.

hopefulLandlord:
Absolutely not!
or it'll be wrong for them to say that
(if you're being pedantic with "can"

Pendantic?
Puuulllease....

hopefulLandlord:
Its the priests' as soon as they asked him what he wanted them to do with the money and he said they can do whatever they want with it

Just get time, to properly read the culled article, as you've thought you should do

hopefulLandlord:
Even if you disagree with that, it still doesn't solve it as it simply means Judas didn't buy the land and killed himself on it or he had another 30Pcs of silver he used to purchase the land.
Either way its either the chief priests used the 30Pcs to buy the land OR Judas used the 30Pcs to buy the Land!!!

You'll definitely change tune after properly going through that culled article, you correctly thought that maybe you should re-read.
Some dead people, do buy things or pay for things, you know.

hopefulLandlord:
I don't see how this is pertinent to this discussion, maybe I'll read it again when I'm less busy and get what its saying but it seems to be pedantry on first read

Good advice
and I agree along with you that, you do just that.

hopefulLandlord:
All 3 bought the milk

1. The man gave instructions on what type of things they should use the money for while Judas doesn't give a sheet about the money as all he's interested in is getting the money off his hands

2. The woman took the money and instructed her son to go buy the milk, this still tallies with the instructions from the man

3. The son bought the milk from the grocer but the man is still responsible for it too as long as whatever the money was used for aligns with the Man's instructions which was absent in Judas case

your point is?

Thank you for your honesty.

Now I have a confession to make, there is a mis-type, the man in the scenario didn't specify what the money is for. He just gave his missus the money
Now the point is, whether actively or passively, whether directly or indirectly, that burial place for Judas was bought with his money

budaatum:
Though, in all honesty, I posed it first.

The thing is, your belief in the guy you write to in New York is pertinent to you,
and would only become a question for me if I consider writing to him.
Otherwise there is absolutely no consequence whether I believe you or not.
And its the same with Gods.
If I know my god exist, why do I have to prove it to anyone?
If you don't accept that I get what I get from my god in New York, that's your problem
and I don't have to prove it to you!

budaatum:
My people in Orolu would not do anything to harm their child even if that child sticks two fingers up at their gods. Though, they brought their child up to be sufficiently respectful to others, or they might have bashed the bastards head in at birth - we do take regard for others seriously where I come from, and not believing in what others believe in does not give one reason to be disrespectful to them, is my point here.

Do read my post to awesomeJ, and remember that woman in church?
Just as much as awesomeJ does not need to prove anything to me about his guy in New York, so too do I not have to prove to you that gods are not real.
Unless I am asking you to be like I am. And I am not asking you to be like me.

Read Bel and the Dragon. While Daniel's God is not given twelve bushels of choice flour and forty sheep and six measures of wine, some give their gods a tenth of their earnings, and it still ends up where Bel's ends up. You wouldn't find this story in mosts Bible though, least they read it and business spoils.

Ogun and Obatala are gods. Owala is actually a river, but we believe it has a spirit, and that spirit is a god, and my people worship them. They are just not real (as gods, that is), like all gods aren't.
For all gods are idols made with human minds

It is accepted and known that gods exist, so no one is asked to prove whether or not their god exists
In view of accepted fact, that, god(s) exist, so, does exist, God.
Whatever you got, whether from the New York god or not, what was gotten, is from being allowed by God
God determines where, what or who the buck, stops with

hopefulLandlord:

You left my post at page one and replied to it at page 6 or so

There's a wide time between both and its hours!

Please, stop defeating your own point with inanities, the question is WHO bought the land,

You lots are concentrating only on the money while I'm asking WHO used the money to buy the land!

It seems you've been lost in this since and you can go back to when I laid out the question


What in seven FSM hell is this? is this sarcasm or what? when exactly did he tell them to buy something for him?

look in the mirror to see the confused person


This is simply wrong (edited)

it seems you don't read your own bible (like most Christians I know)
If you read the account of the priests buying the land you'll see that they took the money, then DELIBERATED amongst THEMSELVES what to do with it as they don't want to add it to the treasury, THEN settled on BUYING the land

Judas was not there FOR the deliberation and the eventual decision so its absolute nonsense to say what you just sad

meanwhile, the other account said he bought the land and killed himself on it!

The question here is WHO bought the land and obviously the contradiction on WHO is obvious
Look into the mirror to see the 4 yo

you're shooting yourself in the foot, again, as usual

I'm 100% sure if you throw the goods at him after rejecting the goods he sold to you and he asks you "What do you want me to do with this good(s)?" and you say "You can do whatever the hell you want with it" and you leave, you CAN'T come back to claim the good(s) again

If he sells the same goods you returned to another person, he CAN'T say YOU sold it to that person

My stance still makes as much sense as ever due to the conversation that ensued AFTER he rejected the money which you're, apparently, not conversant with

Whether they took it WITH appreciation or not is inconsequential, they took the money and asked him what he wanted them to do with it and he said they can do whatever the hell they want to do with it. The conversation changes a lot and afterwards (when Judas had left) the priests deliberated on what to do with the Money and THEY used the money to buy a land!

You're, as always
WHO, is my question, not WHAT!

again, you seem not to understand that,
IF they bought something with the money, whatever they bought, they bought with it,
they can't buy something with it and say the criminal bought the it!

Oh yes, they can

hopefulLandlord:
personality is the question NOT the what so your analogy still favours me and does you the opposite

You're concentrating on the wrong part here
answer this question
IF they took the money and bought bags of foodstuffs with it, can they tell the police that the criminal bought those bags of foodstuffs?
then THE POLICE used the money to bury the criminal!
its the WHO I'm asking here
actually the more you respond the more certain I am you didn't even understand the question
This isn't pertinent at all
WHO, not WHAT!

Whose money bought it?
Whose nau? Who is the owner of the money that bought it?
Is the money the priests', or is it Judas'?

hopefulLandlord:
Still shows you don't understand the question at all

Its you who doesnt at all, understand each correct answers given you
Read the coming below on what's the meaning of the phrase "Bought the farm"
Dont weep but please try to learn after from reading it

hopefulLandlord:
My talking about the money was just to show the clear contradiction between the two accounts.
One said he rejected the money and hanged himself and the CHIEF PRIESTS used the money to buy the land while another said JUDAS used the money to buy a land and hanged himself on it
Edit: The part about "babe" was a slip cuz I was talking to another girl on BBM, my brain multitasked in a bizarre manner and I didn't mean to flirt with you, I don't flirt on Nairaland

What's the meaning of the phrase 'Bought the farm'?

The New York Times Magazine, March 1954, had a related phrase, in a glossary of jet pilots' slang:
"Bought a plot, had a fatal crash."

That clearly refers to a burial plot.
The 'bought' in that case probably doesn't suggest any actual or potential purchase, but to an earlier use of 'bought', that is, being killed.
This dates back to at least the early 20th century.

This example from 1943 isn't the earliest, but it does make the meaning explicit.
It's from Cyril Ward-Jackson's It's a piece of cake; or, R.A.F. slang made easy:
"He's bought it, he is dead - that is, he has paid with his life."

Specific references to 'the farm' come a little later.
There are reports of the phrase being in use in the US military from 1955 onward.
Here's a citation from 1963, in Ed Miller's Exile to the Stars:
"The police dispatcher says a plane just bought the farm."

There are a few suggested derivations for the phrase.
One, put forward in a 1955 edition of American Speech,
is the idea that when a jet crashes on a farm the farmer may sue the government for compensation.
That would generate a large enough amount of money to pay off the farm's mortgage.
Hence, the pilot paid for the farm with his life.

Another suggestion is the idea that, if a serviceman was killed in action,
his family would receive a payout from the insurance that service personnel were issued with.
This would be sufficient to pay off the family mortgage.
Culled from https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/72850.html

Lastly, a scenario:
Man, before going to work to earn money to pay for everything needed in the house,
gave some money to missus to buy groceries for the family.
Missus, gives part of money to one of her sons, asking him, to go buy a pint of milk for her from the shops
Son, skips to shop and returns back with a carton of milk
Depending on your perspective, Man, missus and son, each and all bought the milk, you do accept. Right?

OkCornel:
old
The Serpent told Eve a half-truth...

The best form of deceit is inserting a few lies into a truthful and factual statement...

If you eat of the fruit you shall not die - this is a lie, because man was disconnected from the source of eternal life and became like non rechargeable batteries with a temporary shelf life...the inevitable result was death (Spiritual first then Physical later)

If you eat of this fruit, you shall be like God - this is true, as it was confirmed in the subsequent chapter "man is now like us"

The serpent told a half truth...

hopefulLandlord:
CC: PastorAIO

hopefulLandlord why?
Why the cc:ing?
You're so just a rabble-rouser. Ah!

hopefulLandlord:
Lmao! so you're saying Olaadegbu is serving the father of lies?

What does MuttleyLaff, Emmanystone and co have to say about this? I'm sure there's some hermeneutics that would be pulled

butterflyl1on, Emmanystone and OkCornel, I know you all can see the gaping holes in there in PastorAIO's.
It's got more holes in it than a Swiss cheese.
SMH. I don't think it's worth commenting on
The church mouse will easily do an exegesis on this whilst doing press ups

OkCornel:
Thanks for your patience bro...
I understand the original words and meaning for the Good and Evil part

Please I'm still asking if the Tree of Life has an original word for it...or its original word remains Tree of Life as well...

Thanks once more

No brother, I never for once was impatient

Oh I get you now.
The phrase the Tree of Life remains as it is with the original wording

OkCornel:
Very good...

Just to confirm... the "Tree of Life" does not differ from its original word unlike that of Tree of good and evil which stands for beauty and adversity per your research?

After this, let's allow the thread revert back to its status quo...

I am happy to grant you your wish,
I am not making up what the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil means.
By the way, it's Beautiful, not Beauty.
Beautiful, as in everything dandy and good
Adversity, as in every hardship, bad and ugly thing that possibly can happen.

So far, and all a long, this is valuable information we've been sharing with each other

OkCornel:
Very good, this explains a lot. If this is what is called merism... then of course any Bible reader should identify these contrasts...

It's just that not many people (myself inclusive) would label such contrasts with the word "merism"

Day and Night; Light & darkness; Flesh & Spirit...these should rank as merisms as well...right?


Please, is there an original word for "Tree of Life"? That's my question...

They are called Hebrew merisms.
It's part of a biblical Jewish culture and manner of speaking
It's the concept, context and construct behind the phrase development and the pairs that makes phrases that makes it merisms

The figure of speech "It's raining cats and dogs " though has a pair is not a merism but is a metaphor

The Tree of Life, is a metaphor or symbolism as it were

BushWickBill:
I watched it on Sunday morning. I commented on it on the other thread. And I still stand by my position. Tithing, it's principles and others as contained in the Law are of no effect as far as it was nailed to the Cross of Calvary.

He says the principle "EXPIRED". Meaning it stopped to exist. So how then can something that stopped existing be so strong as to have its own principle? All within the same phrase?

I get your position as per law of gravity/aerodynamics. But to say a principle is "Expired" is a different thing.
The law of gravity will still exist on its own as long as aerodynamics is not in place. It doesn't kill of gravity to the point of it being "expired". Hence my confusion.

The death and Resurrection of Christ as rightly put by the author of the piece has killed off the works of the law, tithing inclusive, and hence it NO LONGER EXISTS and should not have any life in Christ. It was nailed to the Cross such that our belief in His resurrection justifies us,instead of carrying out the works of the Law.

I scored him 7 out 10 though wanted to give him 5 or 6, I think him sticking his head above the parapet earned him the extra 1 or 2 points.
If you were to score him, how would he fare out of 10 marks, on your score sheet?

OkCornel:
Is there another word for merism anyone on this thread can easily relate to?

On a side note, I deal with patterns and not details to establish fact(s)

Yes, call it a figure of speech that has a combination of two contrasting words to refer to an entirety and all parts within each of them

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is a merism
"Good evening ladies and gentlemen" is a merism

OkCornel:
1) Does my question offend you? Or do you think I am here to make jest of you or to learn?

2) Can you explain the way I am acting? And what exactly am I posting funnily? Or does it seem I am here to amuse you?

If you are not sure of my motives at least you can ask...

3) So is the tree of life something to be taken literally with no meaning attached to it?

No brother, I don't get easily offended.
I rarely take offence.
I just thought you were acting up from way back a couple of posts up there.

The bible is littered with many merisms apart from that of the Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, actually there is at least one mentioned before talking of the The of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

How you don't know about merisms in the bible baffles me

BushWickBill:
This Adeyemi sef.

Something has expired and yet it still has a principle.

How vacuous and vague can you get?
How hypocritical is this?
Isn't it double standards?

It's like saying Boyle's Law doesn't exist anymore, yet you ask for it in WAEC Physics.

If he has the guts, let him tackle this topic full steam ahead instead of half-stepping it and stopping short of offending Bishops and GOs and co

All these cowardly pastors who can't be brave enough to tell a simple truth.

So you watched the entire video too.
When did you watch it?
Was it on Sunday too, the morning live stream one or the 3:00pm time one?

I understand that a principle can still be in existence
but not explaining, that tithing, and that's, if at all it really was a principle, like any other principle in the presence of a superior, stronger and better principle can be, is, rendered inoperative and useless

We all know that, the law of gravity is rendered useless, inoperative, nullified and made looked as if it never exists, when it comes into contact with the law of aerodynamics

OkCornel:
Once upon a time...everything created was good (perfect, right, stable, beautiful, in order e.t.c.), but a wrong decision to take of the wrong tree brought good and evil (unpredictability, adversity & beautiful, instability between two extremes, right & wrong e.t.c.)

The headache that comes with labels is finding the synonyms to associate with the subject matter on ground...
By the way, from your research...
what is the merism for the Tree of Life?

OkCornel to be honest I don't know why you are acting this way.
A phrase needs, pairs, to be classed or called a merism
The Tree of Life phrase is not a merism
You don't need researches, stop posting funnily.
What you need is an epiphany.

SpoiltVirgin:
what I like about this writeup is that he sent his msg without insulting christianity as a whole, I hope daddy freeze can learn from the way he presented his argument

Both should learn, all that could be learned from each other
and change their respective ways, manners, styles, understandings, positions, stances, leanings etcetera where needed

"To o ba nidi, obirin kin je Kumolu"
loosely means
"there's no smoke without fire"

VBCampaign:
I hope the admins will consider this for front page

Not another sucking up to heavens of Nairaland.
If the thread is worthy and/or destined to hit the front page, nothing will stop it or be in its way.

OkCornel:
I can't find the right words to explain the context to you...neither do I want to get lost in the sea of labels trying to explain it...

Good and Evil are two extremes...

You can bypass all that stress that comes with using logic to differentiate what is right or wrong...and rely on intuition (a higher form of intelligence in terms of speed and accuracy) in making the right decisions...

Check out Adam, He was what Jesus was before he fell...

How was Jesus always making the right and perfect decisions? Because He and the Father were constantly communicating ... and Jesus was obeying those instructions even when they seem to defy logic...

For example Jesus' logic pushed Him to ask for the cup to pass over Him while praying at Gethsemane...but later obliged to the Father's will...even if it defied logic...

The original word used in that verse instead of Good in the original text was "Beautiful"
and the original word used in that verse and elsewhere it's used in the original text was "Adversity"

You will experience and begin to judge between beautiful and adversity.
Good times, bad times, what's pretty what's ugly.
Essentially the whole shebang spectrum will unfold into your world.

You're going on a tangent now, we aren't discussing Adam before or after eating the fruit. Nor comparing him with the last Adam.

Labels aren't required to explain what is evident

OkCornel:
Oh... I thought I answered already...

Good and evil is right and wrong na & also the ability and innate consciousness to define what right and wrong is...
that's what I see it as in this context...

Or is there anything more to it?

No didn't already answer
and I thought you had something correctly to share about it

No ooo, the good and evil in the context, isn't right and wrong.
Are you familiar with merisms?

Well, the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil is a merism.

Good, in that context, is translated from a word, that means and typifies Beautiful
Evil, in that context, is translated from a word, that means and typifies Adversity.

Eating off the tree, will open the eater to experience several of parts of all that's Beautiful and all that's Adversity
It is as it were like a Pandora Box of some sort.

OkCornel:
Exactly...

After they ate of the fruit, their eyes open and they became like God...knowing and defining what good and evil is...

Even this was confirmed in the subsequent chapter where it was written "man is now like us"

Then the LORD God said,
"Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.”
- Genesis 3:22

I have completed what God said and how exactly God said
Now, reiterating, knowledge is tantamount to consciousness and vice versa
but what is good and what is evil, in this context.
You still haven't and didn't say what these two are.
Do I have grovel before you do ni?

OkCornel:
Eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil brought about the consciousness and knowledge of good and evil...
Instead of God calling the shots on what is right or wrong... Man eyes became "opened" and the burden/consciousness of good and evil fell on man...

Prior to that Adam was deeply rooted in God, and whatever he did was right.
He did not have to be conscious of good and evil to do what is right...
What is your answer to my question per the last post...

I completely concur with the emboldened above
He didn't need to have the knowledge of Good and Evil except he wanted to be god.
The irony is, this they became though after eating

OkCornel:
Eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil brought about the consciousness and knowledge of good and evil...

Instead of God calling the shots on what is right or wrong... Man eyes became "opened" and the burden/consciousness of good and evil fell on man...

Prior to that Adam was deeply rooted in God, and whatever he did was right. He did not have to be conscious of good and evil to do what is right...


What is your answer to my question per the last post...

I will answer you, hold on please, let's get round these first before getting to answering your question.

I get you, as knowledge is consciousness and vice versa
but what is the good and what is the evil, in this context.
You didn't say what these two are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v6XC8j_wLQ
I am so pleased you opened this thread because I actually had composed my assessment after watching that broadcast but scratched it.

I remember I scored him 7 out of 10.
The guy is slightly still bigoted.
He still clings on to the flay of tithing, under a guise of ecclesiastical monitised tithe giving being a principle.
He posited that Jesus paid tithes
He was biased in the broadcast as he minded whose ox he gored
The writing was on the wall that the broadcast wasn't to every ones liking, as after the morning broadcast, the usual 3pm live streaming was sabotaged, as this as it usually is done wasn't allowed to go live.

The admins shut down the chatroom in where, everyone was asking, what's the matter, why isn't the broadcast not being shown etcetera.

The normal, after broadcast video, that is usually uploaded is now non existent

More if necessary to be Continued

OkCornel:
Back to the Adam and Eve scenario;

Before they ate of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil...they were both naykid and were not ashamed of one another

After they ate the fruit...they saw each others naykidness and became ashamed...

Do you know why?

This question has multiple answers, and some of them I won't delve into
I say, you didn't respond to what is knowledge of good and what is knowledge of evil in the symbolism the tree of Good and Evil though?

OkCornel:
The answer to your question is in Adam and Eve's reaction shortly after they ate the fruit...

What is knowledge of good and what is knowledge of evil in the symbolism the tree of Good and Evil?

OkCornel:
Per the bolded, the consciousness of good and evil came when Adam and Eve ate of that tree...

The Law was just a codified form (with specific instructions) of that consciousness of good and evil...

By the way, the tree of life is the same thing as the bread of life and water of life...

Hold on, hold on, hold on OkCornel
Lets get some clarifications here first
What is the connection of the consciousness of good and evil with the Tree of the[b] knowledge[/b] of good and evil
What is knowledge of about, what is the good and evil about?
Did Adam and Eve have knowledge of good and/or evil before eating off the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

Emmanystone:
I didn't realize i short changed myself. How did i do that? Pls let me so that i won't do it again.

You confess your destination, not a seemingly situation, it's just like doing the Shunammite woman's "it is well" thing

LordVoldermort:
Man was made from dust... so was every Animal in this world are you comparing flesh with dust?

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living being.
- Genesis 2:7

By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken;
for dust you are and to dust you will return."
- Genesis 3:19

Adam, the first man, was made from the dust of the earth,
while Christ, the second man, came from heaven.
- 1 Corinthians 15:47

LordVoldermor, give it a rest, as I think you're out of your league on this one

LordVoldermort:
And the LORD God said unto the serpent,
Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field;
upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Genesis 3:14

How many snakes eat dust?

butterflyl1on:
And I asked you that when we engage in races those days and we say to each other "I will make you eat my dust" or "eat my dust" does that literarily mean we ate dust as in chewed it and swallowed?

You are not thinking at all commonerVoldermort.

LordVoldermort:
And I'm asking if that verse was metaphorical or literal?

It's so true about this line, paraphrasing one of budaatum's posits:
The things that you're liable to read and thought you've understood in the bible - it ain't necessarily so
So LordVoldermort, its not what you thought Genesis 3:14, is about.

Chief, first and foremost, the verse, Genesis 3:14, isnt about a snake, but is, a serpent, become it became a snake
That kind of animal, is
That verse is literal.
It is literal
because the Serpent, the principality behind the serpent, the principality that influenced the snake, when it formerly was a serpent,
true to the words of that verse to date, prowls around like a roaring lion, looking for someone to devour (i.e. looking for someone to eat)
You do accept that Adam was made from dust, dont you?

Emmanystone:
That kind woman dey?

Yes, such woman dey,
and dem boku dey

Emmanystone:
I no near

Please, even if and/or when you're doing banter, never again short change yourself
but then I know, you only were fishing for compliment(s) sha, that confirms what and who God says you really are

Emmanystone:
I have removed it.

You're a darling.
Proverbs 31:10-31 personified.

Mujtahida:
In the first place in real terms, I didn't challenge you. Not at all.

My response was I accept
This is no challenge to you. So I think you got it wrong from the get go. And that influenced your mind in putting my moniker on the thread title. In context it was more like you opening a thread where I point out Bible lies and contradictions and you treat them.

So your title thread should read: Debate: Lies, contradictions and absurdities in the Bible and a Christian's appropriate responses to them.

When you do this or something in this vein, then you make an introductory remarks that I said that the Bible is full of contradictions and lies. This thread is an open debate where I (mujtahida) presents the lies and contradictions and absurdities and you treat them. And like you have already done, invite others. We'd discuss in an atmosphere free of acrimony and insults.

This was my expectation. I commend you for being courteous cos you have maintained a line of conversation with me that I personally find endearing. Cos any hint of disrespect is to open the door for insults and bad words to start flowing. I don't want that cos I can be acidic dishing out insults. I notice an idiot on this thread( whom I had long suspected to be an idiot but confirmed it today) and I will treat him with the scorn and contempt he deserves.

Sister, I think I have just seen the reason why Mujtahida wants his moniker removed from the thread's title.
It looks like everytime the thread is replied to, he gets spammed a mention, this because his user ID is in the thread title
cc Emmanystone, butterflyl1on

budaatum:
"People like Doom pastor need to be mentally evaluated. A normal person cannot spray Doom on other human beings.” says Judge‎. Yet, his congregation are saying, ‎
"Do not touch my anointed one"!

I think they are the ones who need mental evaluation!‎
‎

You don't use the same brush to paint everyone