₦airaland Forum

SIRTee15:
Produce the evidence the author of John gospel copied mark.

I'm not here to argue the authors of the gospel books.

Produce evidence of this so called Christians who were pagans.

Paul was already known as a Christian in acts 11. He stood before Herod Agrippa preaching the gospel and Jesus Christ. Herod Agrippa now asked him if he hope he could make him a Christian.

This was Paul's response

Acts 26
27 king Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do.”

28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”

29 Paul replied, “Short time or long—I pray to God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains.”

So how this conversation connotes paganism is beyond me. Atheist will do anything to win an argument.

The author of john is anonymous, he copied mark and other gospel to write his work.
Do you think the unknown authors of john or mark were alive when jesus supposedly lived?
Mark is the first gospel to be written, other gospels used mark work to write their book, this is easy to understand if not for indoctrination.
John was written much later, mark was the earliest to be written after gospel of thomas.
None of the unknown authors of the gospels was alive when Iesus chrestus was said to live.
You are basing your life on Roman Propaganda.

Please look up on who are the followers of serapis.
This is what i said about paganism, read slowly, “There were people who are called christians that are pagan, agrippa ll was calling “paul” Christian as an INSULT.“

You don’t know what “Christian” means, paul was known as a nazarene according to acts 24:5
We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect

You forgot to quote mark 11:26

And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they aassembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called CHRISTIANS first in cAntioch.
The disciples were first called Christian in antioch it doesn’t mean they were the first to be called “Christians”.

Theist will do anything to defend their deity.

SIRTee15:
Despite all his claim about thousands of new manuscript contraindications, he finally admitted that the core gospel message in all new testament manuscripts he has studied remain the same- they remain unchanged.

Send me link where he admitted.

Maynman:
The author of john is anonymous, he copied mark and other gospel to write his work.
Do you think the unknown authors of john or mark were alive when jesus supposedly lived?
Mark is the first gospel to be written, other gospels used mark work to write their book, this is easy to understand if not for indoctrination.

Please look up on who are the followers of serapis.
This is what i said about paganism, read slowly, “There were people who are called christians that are pagan, agrippa ll was calling “paul” Christian as an INSULT.“

You don’t know what “Christian” means, paul was known as a nazarene according to acts 24:5
We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect

You forgot to quote mark 11:26

And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they aassembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called CHRISTIANS first in cAntioch.

Theist will do anything to defend their deity.

I won't argue with u anymore. It's either u produce evidence or your claim is rejected.
You failed to bring any evidence John copied mark, thus your claim is rejected.

Who are these people who are called Christians that are pagans. Christians came from the word Christ-like and were first called such in Antioch acts 11.
Produce the evidence of any Christian sect called pagans in the 1st century AD.

Serapis... Seriously, undo t want to go there.....

I never argued about Nazarene or whether paul wasnt called Nazarene. This is a red herring

The question is who were called Christians when Herod Agrippa mentioned the word Christian in acts 26.
Answer the question?

SIRTee15:
I won't argue with u anymore. It's either u produce evidence or your claim is rejected.
You failed to bring any evidence John copied mark, thus your claim is rejected.

Who are these people who are called Christians that are pagans. Christians came from the word Christ-like and were first called such in Antioch acts 11.
Produce the evidence of any Christian sect called pagans in the 1st century AD.

Serapis... Seriously, undo t want to go there.....

I never argued about Nazarene or whether paul wasnt called Nazarene. This is a red herring

The question is who were called Christians when Herod Agrippa mentioned the word Christian in acts 26.
Answer the question?

Think na.
Mark is the earliest gospel to be written, john was written Much much later, all the authors of gospels are UNKNOWN, other gospels used the earliest gospel, mark to write their books.
Which evidences again
None of the authors were eyewitnesses yet they knew even private conversations, divinely inspired abi

Christians from christ, what does “christ” mean?
“Christian” even goes beyond first century 1AD.

Look up on the followers of serapsis.

You said paul was known as a Christian in Act, no he wasn’t, he was known as a nazarene and their group leader, that’s what i said, never said you argued.

You are basing your life on Roman Propaganda worshipping Iesus chrestus that’s why jews reject this greek messiah

SIRTee15:
Despite all his claim about thousands of new manuscript contraindications, he finally admitted that the core gospel message in all new testament manuscripts he has studied remain the same- they remain unchanged.

“ I won't argue with u anymore. It's either u produce evidence or your claim is rejected.
You failed to bring any evidence Bart admitted anything, thus your claim is rejected.”

Maynman:
“ I won't argue with u anymore. It's either u produce evidence or your claim is rejected.
You failed to bring any evidence Bart admitted anything, thus your claim is rejected.”

I already gave u the evidence, check previous post.
U said something like it's vague or something....

SIRTee15:
I already gave u the evidence, check previous post.
U said something like it's vague or something....

No you didn’t.
Send me a link to where he finally admitted, did you send a link or which evidence are you talking about ?

Maynman:
Think na.
Mark is the earliest gospel to be written, john was written Much much later, all the authors of gospels are UNKNOWN, other gospels used the earliest gospel, mark to write their books.
Which evidences again
None of the authors were eyewitnesses yet they knew even private conversations, divinely inspired abi

Christians from christ, what does “christ” mean?
“Christian” even goes beyond first century 1AD.

Look up on the followers of serapsis.

You said paul was known as a Christian in Act, no he wasn’t, he was known as a nazarene and their group leader, that’s what i said, never said you argued.

You are basing your life on Roman Propaganda worshipping Iesus chrestus that’s why jews reject this greek messiah

Paul was called a Christian. Acts 11
25 Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.


This is from the the Wikipedia u selectively quoted.

In 68 AD, a mob of pagans is said to have formed at the Serapis Temple in Alexandria, who then descended on the Christians who were celebrating Easter at Baucalis. There, they sized St. Mark, dragging him through the streets, before throwing him in prison. Clearly those worshippers of Serapis and Christ were aware of each other and the differences within their religions, though perhaps at a later date, some amongst the worshippers of either may have chosen to cover all of their options.

On the other hand, some have pointed out that Chrestus (Christus) was another name for the Egyptian god, Serapis. Chrestus may be translated as "Messiah", though the term need not apply to any specific Messiah, such as Jesus. It therefore could have simply been applied to "Lord Serapis", so that in fact, there was never any connection at all between the early Christians and the worshippers of Serapis

My questions

1. Mention any Christian sect referred to as pagans in the 1st century. Produce evidence- pls note 1st century.

2. When Herod mentioned the word Christian, who was he referring to? Pagans or followers of Jesus. If it's the former, produce evidence.

SIRTee15:
Paul was called a Christian. Acts 11
25 Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.


This is from the the Wikipedia u selectively quoted.

In 68 AD, a mob of pagans is said to have formed at the Serapis Temple in Alexandria, who then descended on the Christians who were celebrating Easter at Baucalis. There, they sized St. Mark, dragging him through the streets, before throwing him in prison. Clearly those worshippers of Serapis and Christ were aware of each other and the differences within their religions, though perhaps at a later date, some amongst the worshippers of either may have chosen to cover all of their options.

On the other hand, some have pointed out that Chrestus (Christus) was another name for the Egyptian god, Serapis. Chrestus may be translated as "Messiah", though the term need not apply to any specific Messiah, such as Jesus. It therefore could have simply been applied to "Lord Serapis", so that in fact, there was never any connection at all between the early Christians and the worshippers of Serapis

My questions

1. Mention any Christian sect referred to as pagans in the 1st century. Produce evidence- pls note 1st century.

2. When Herod mentioned the word Christian, who was he referring to? Pagans or followers of Jesus. If it's the former, produce evidence.

They were first called a christian in antioch, why didn’t they call themselves “Christians” among themselves?
They had to wait for an outsider to call them?
paul was known as a nazarene according to acts 24:5
We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect


Early Christians were known as Nazarene.
Like you posted in 68AD, what century were they called “Christian” in antioch.

Maynman:
They were first called a christian in antioch, why didn’t they call themselves “Christians” among themselves?
They had to wait for an outsider to call them?
paul was known as a nazarene according to acts 24:5
We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect


Early Christians were known as Nazarene.
Like you posted in 68AD, what century were they called “Christian” in antioch.

U've lost it. I don't know why u bringing up a strawman argument. Did I ever debate Paul being called Nazarene or not.
They were called Christians in the 1st century AD. 1st century is 1AD to 99AD. You getting confused and disoriented for u to be struggling with times and calender. Abi what century is 68AD, what century did Paul and the disciples existed.
GO AND SLEEP B4 YOU MISQUOTE SOMEBODY ELSE.

SIRTee15:
U've lost it. I don't know why u bringing up a strawman argument. Did I ever debate Paul being called Nazarene or not.
They were called Christians in taantioch, century AD. 1st century is 1AD to 99AD. You getting confused and disoriented for u to be struggling with times and calender. Abi what century is 68AD, what century did Paul and the disciples existed.
GO AND SLEEP B4 YOU MISQUOTE SOMEBODY ELSE.

Do you really know what strawmann argument means, and how does it relate to our discussion.
Jesus early followers were called Nazarene, Paul was their leader. How is that debate lol
Nazarene is a sect, a gnostic sect.

You are the confused one, this is what said "Like you posted in 68AD, what century were they called “Christian” in antioch, how does it relate to the jargons you just said?
What exact time between 1-99AD were they called Christian in antioch

Maynman:
Do you really know what strawmann argument means, and how does it relate to our discussion.
Jesus early followers were called Nazarene, Paul was their leader. How is that debate lol
Nazarene is a sect, a gnostic sect.

You are the confused one, this is what said "Like you posted in 68AD, what century were they called “Christian” in antioch, how does it relate to the jargons you just said?

This is the definition of strawman argument
A straw man fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction
My issue with u is all about the word Christians. U raised Nazarene and I was hoping u will let it be since I never debated it with u, but u kept bringing it up again and again.
I'm not interested in Nazarene, I'm interested in Christians. Don't debate Nazarene with me.

1. Mention any Christian sect referred to as pagans in the 1st century. Produce evidence- pls note 1st century.

2. When Herod mentioned the word Christian, who was he referring to? Pagans or followers of Jesus. If it's the former, produce evidence.

3. When did Jesus followers start bearing Christians and was their any sect or group of pagans bearing the name before them?


U wrote this
Like you posted in 68AD, what century were they called “Christian” in antioch.
The way u constructed the sentence made it look like a question.

SIRTee15:
This is the definition of strawman argument
A straw man fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction
My issue with u is all about the word Christians. U raised Nazarene and I was hoping u will let it be since I never debated it with u, but u kept bringing it up again and again.
I'm not interested in Nazarene, I'm interested in Christians. Don't debate Nazarene with me.

1. Mention any Christian sect referred to as pagans in the 1st century. Produce evidence- pls note 1st century.

2. When Herod mentioned the word Christian, who was he referring to? Pagans or followers of Jesus. If it's the former, produce evidence.

3. When did Jesus followers start bearing Christians and was their any sect or group of pagans bearing the name before them?


U wrote this
Like you posted in 68AD, what century were they called “Christian” in antioch.
The way u constructed the sentence made it look like a question.

So how does this strawmann argument relate to out discussion?
You don’t know what “Christian” means?
What’s there to debate about “nazarene”
This is basic to understand, before jesus followers were called christian at Antioch they called themselves NAZARENES.
So if you want to talk about early jesus followers you start from NAZARENE.

Followers of serapis were called christian before 1st century.
Agrippa ll was the one that referred to NAZARENE as christians first in antioch.

Jewish people can’t call themselves from a greek name.
Christian comes from greek term, and not to forget all the gospel were written decades after jesus died.

SIRTee15:
Despite all his claim about thousands of new manuscript contraindications, he finally admitted that the core gospel message in all new testament manuscripts he has studied remain the same- they remain unchanged.

Send me a link to when bart finally admitted, still waiting.

Maynman:
You are been delusional.
I get it, it’s hard, you’ve indoctrinated from birth to believe in Iesus chrestus.

It's a shame that the best military as at that time did not know how and when the body was supposedly stolen and the body couldn't not be recovered. It means that the untrained disciples of Jesus were smarter and more intelligent than the best military at that time to have cleverly stolen the body of Christ. Please use your head.

Ken4Christ:
It's a shame that the best military as at that time did not know how and when the body was supposedly stolen and the body couldn't not be recovered. It means that the untrained disciples of Jesus were smarter and more intelligent than the best military at that time to have cleverly stolen the body of Christ. Please use your head.

Best military where guarding a dead man?
Was it only jesus “best military” guards?
Or all criminals

jaephoenix:
So does the Flying Spaghetti Monster, bro. Praise His Noodly Name

Two of you will fly into hell. And another flying demon will torment you. I really pity your end.

Maynman:
So how does this strawmann argument relate to out discussion?
You don’t know what “Christian” means?
What’s there to debate about “nazarene”
This is basic to understand, before jesus followers were called christian at Antioch they called themselves NAZARENES.
So if you want to talk about early jesus followers you start from NAZARENE.

Followers of serapis were called christian before 1st century.
Agrippa ll was the one that referred to NAZARENE as christians first in antioch.

Jewish people can’t call themselves from a greek name.
Christian comes from greek term, and not to forget all the gospel were written decades after jesus died.

Followers of serapis were called christian before 1st century.
Produce evidence.

Agrippa ll was the one that referred to NAZARENE as christians first in antioch.
If I ask u for evidence for this now, u will still fail. But I won't bother myself because u gave answer to something I never asked u. U keep making claims u can't defend, digging yourself into deeper pit.
Herod is king of which region? Antioch is in which region? So Agrippa will leave his seat in Caesarea Judea and be looking for who to call Christians in far away turkey. U see why it doesn't make sense

Pls go and look for the person arguing Nazarene with u. It's definitely not me. You must be confusing me with someone else.

SIRTee15:
Followers of serapis were called christian before 1st century.
Produce evidence.

Agrippa ll was the one that referred to NAZARENE as christians first in antioch.
If I ask u for evidence for this now, u will still fail. But I won't bother myself because u gave answer to something I never asked u. U keep making claims u can't defend, digging yourself into deeper pit.
Herod is king of which region? Antioch is in which region? So Agrippa will leave his seat in Caesarea Judea and be looking for who to call Christians in far away turkey. U see why it doesn't make sense

Pls go and look for the person arguing Nazarene with u. It's definitely not me. You must be confusing me with someone else.

I already gave you the evidence. Who is serapis, start from there.

Antioch Now known as present day turkey.

Argue Nazarene about what?
What exactly is the arguement on nazarene?
You are the confused one.

SIRTee15:
I already told u start with Bart Erhman, he's a new testament bible critic.
Despite all his claim about thousands of new manuscript contraindications, he finally admitted that the core gospel message in all new testament manuscripts he has studied remain the same- they remain unchanged.

Send a link to where he finally admitted or did you lie to defend your Israelite creator?

Maynman:
Send me a link to when bart finally admitted, still waiting.

While Ehrman has highlighted the existence of variations in the New Testament manuscripts, he has also acknowledged that the core message of the gospel remains consistent across the vast majority of manuscripts. In his book "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture," Ehrman writes that "the message of the New Testament is virtually the same today as it was when it was first written" (p. Eight).

Ehrman has also noted that the overwhelming majority of textual variants are relatively minor, and do not substantially affect the meaning or message of the text. In an interview with the website Patheos, Ehrman stated that "most of the changes are completely insignificant, immaterial, they don’t matter for anything" and that "the vast majority of the New Testament is not in doubt because of the textual variants" (source: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/09/a-conversation-with-bart-ehrman-part-1-the-text-of-the-new-testament

SIRTee15:
While Ehrman has highlighted the existence of variations in the New Testament manuscripts, he has also acknowledged that the core message of the gospel remains consistent across the vast majority of manuscripts. In his book "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture," Ehrman writes that "the message of the New Testament is virtually the same today as it was when it was first written" (p. Eight).

Ehrman has also noted that the overwhelming majority of textual variants are relatively minor, and do not substantially affect the meaning or message of the text. In an interview with the website Patheos, Ehrman stated that "most of the changes are completely insignificant, immaterial, they don’t matter for anything" and that "the vast majority of the New Testament is not in doubt because of the textual variants" (source: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/09/a-conversation-with-bart-ehrman-part-1-the-text-of-the-new-testament

Send a link to where he finally admitted.

The Bible Stands

OLAADEGBU:
The Bible Stands

It’s a pity waiting for a jewish man to come save you and take you to heaven.

TenQ:
The story of creation is known by all the ancients who kept a history of their genealogy. Over time, every culture distorted or even sometimes completely lost the original story. The version of Moses was that as passed through his lineage who was still faithfully committed to the Creator through Abraham. Many ancient cultures still had the story of the flood of Noah with characters changed, storyline changed and purpose changed.

So, other than creation, I've even given you that of the great flood.

Lemme break this down. Maybe you're still punch drunk
NOBODY WAS AROUND WHEN YAHWEH CREATED THE WORLD, AND IN FACT, WRITING WASNT IN EXISTENCE THEN. SO WHO FIRST WROTE DOWN THE STORY OF CREATION? WHO GAVE THAT PERSON THE HISTORY?

TenQ:
I don't drink, you're wrong again.

Are you still dazed?

You're so daft you don't even know what punch drunk is? I thought u said you're a former boxer? Was that a lie too, like the other ones?

OLAADEGBU:
You forgot to post the link you copied these supposed contradictions from. Here is a link that takes you out of your misery:

I know you have reading disability. I said it here up to 3 times that I copied it, and some were my personal research, especially later ones. And my source wasn't from one place, moronnn. And whats more, that wasn't where I copied it

SIRTee15:
Produce the evidence the author of John gospel copied mark.

I'm not here to argue the authors of the gospel books.

Produce evidence of this so called Christians who were pagans.

Paul was already known as a Christian in acts 11. He stood before Herod Agrippa preaching the gospel and Jesus Christ. Herod Agrippa now asked him if he hope he could make him a Christian.

This was Paul's response

Acts 26
27 king Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do.”

28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”

29 Paul replied, “Short time or long—I pray to God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains.”

So how this conversation connotes paganism is beyond me. Atheist will do anything to win an argument.

Just like you ran away from our argument when you've been caught out

Ken4Christ:
It's a shame that the best military as at that time did not know how and when the body was supposedly stolen and the body couldn't not be recovered. It means that the untrained disciples of Jesus were smarter and more intelligent than the best military at that time to have cleverly stolen the body of Christ. Please use your head.

Lol. You're indeed slow. Did you see the body of my Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Ken4Christ:
Two of you will fly into hell. And another flying demon will torment you. I really pity your end.

The Noodly Limbs of my Lord God the Flying Spaghetti Monster would grip and squeeze you before frying you in hell

jaephoenix:
Just like you ran away from our argument when you've been caught out

I will make it easy for u. Apologise to TenQ for calling him a liar. That was a mistake, u shouldn't have a problem apologising to him. Mention him and apologize.
But that we will continue that conversation without apology is a BIG NO.
Tag me when u done with the apology. My holiday is over, so can't keep up like b4.

Maynman:
Send a link to where he finally admitted.

Bart Erhman didn't finally admit, he was consistent in his writings that the core message was the same in all manuscripts.
Note, he didn't say it was accurate or true but that the core gospel message was stable in all manuscripts over the years. These has been the central theme in all his works. Get his books,
misquoting jesus,
Jesus interrupted,
triumph of Christianity.
Not sure if there are free pdf.

This is an except from misquoting Jesus, conclusion chapter.

To be sure, of all the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among our manuscripts, most of them are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance for anything other than showing that scribes could not spell or keep focused any better than the rest of us'
Bert Erhman.

In Jesus interrupted, chapter 2 of the book, titled "The Historical Jesus: What We Can Know and How We Know It," Ehrman writes:

"At the heart of Jesus' message was an announcement that God's kingdom was soon to arrive on earth. This was a time of cosmic crisis, when God was going to intervene in history to overthrow the forces of evil and establish a new order of righteousness and justice. In order to prepare for this coming of God's kingdom, people needed to repent of their sins, turn to God, and live a life of holiness and devotion."