₦airaland Forum

FreeIgboho:
Remember we have consistently qualified the discussion with:
"If the universe were all that exists "

Well I dont believe it is all that exists. I believe it is a merely physical construct in a larger reality which also harbors near infinite dimensions and planes of existence.

FreeIgboho -

Food for thought.

CC: LordReed


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEcZtMhj4Jw

DeepSight:
Well I dont believe it is all that exists. I believe it is a merely physical construct in a larger reality which also harbors near infinite dimensions and planes of existence.

What if the universe itself is infinite? See below

FreeIgboho:
What if the universe itself is infinite? See below

It tires me when cosmologists invent implausible incongruous illogical lies to jump over gaps they can't explain. See that line there that an infinite universe doesn't have to be expanding into something else but could be expanding into itself? Nothing could be more absurd. It defeats the very meaning of the word "expand."

Nothing "expands" into itself.
That is the definition of contraction not expansion.

DeepSight:
FreeIgboho -

Food for thought.

CC: LordReed

https://www.youtbe.com/watch?v=EEcZtMhj4Jw

Atheists will just love the video but the truth is that it is DECEPTIVE. It is looking at Jesus from the perspective of his status today.
Durring his walk on earth Jesus had no money, no status, no connections, no position, no wife, no kids, no church, no house, etc, and was totally finished at death, with his closest friends denying they knew him!
Plus his disciples DID write about him and are the source of most things we know of him today!
Above everything peiple constantly testify he is actually alive and active in people's lives today, and is one name totally feared by demons!

FreeIgboho:
Atheists will just love the video but the truth is that it is DECEPTIVE. It is looking at Jesus from the perspective of his status today.
Durring his walk on earth Jesus had no money, no status, no connections, no position, no wife, no kids, etc, and was totally finished at death, with his closest friends denying they knew him!
Plus his disciples DID write about him and are the source of most things we know of him today!
Above everything peiple constantly testify he is actually alive and active in people's lives today!

Did you listen to it through to the end?

DeepSight:
Did you listen to it through to the end?

Yes I did. The flaw is that they don't claim Paul was also not a real person. The problem with claiming Jesus never existed is the existence of people like Paul!
Maxindhouse and Janosky will like it. Lordreed will love it. tctrills, Dtruthspeaker, what you think of it?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEcZtMhj4Jw

Everyday247:
What do you mean by incoherent?

Improbability?

How's that different from atheism?

I've told him that "reality" itself is incoherent not only God

AntiChristian:
You still need to review your definition of God?

I missed this. How do you mean?

Ruke1990:
This issue has been discussed and concluded here on nairaland last month. Why bringing it up again? Nairaland needs to work toward preventing redundancy.

You still think so?

FreeIgboho:
Yes I did. The flaw is that they don't claim Paul was also not a real person. The problem with claiming Jesus never existed is the existence of people like Paul!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEcZtMhj4Jw
I've told him that "reality" itself is incoherent not only God

Jesus was a real person or at least based on a real person.

FreeIgboho:
Yes I did. The flaw is that they don't claim Paul was also not a real person. The problem with claiming Jesus never existed is the existence of people like Paul!
Maxindhouse and Janosky will like it. Lordreed will love it. tctrills what you think of it?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEcZtMhj4Jw



I've told him that "reality" itself is incoherent not only God



I missed this. How do you mean?



You still think so?

The creator of this video began with a lie. I guess he forgot the Gospels of Matthew and John

tctrills:
The creator of this video began with a lie. I guess he forgot the Gospels of Matthew and John

They were not written by Matthew or John.

LordReed:
They were not written by Matthew or John.

According to LordReed.

tctrills:
According to LordReed.

Nope, according to the facts on ground.

LordReed:
Nope, according to the facts on ground.

Oya, highlight your facts

tctrills:
The creator of this video began with a lie. I guess he forgot the Gospels of Matthew and John

The video is saying, and historians generally agree with Lordreed, that those were NOT written by the apostles Mathew and John.
The problem is Paul and Acts. Unless they're saying those also never happened, then they're talking nonsense

Everyday247:
Jesus was a real person or at least based on a real person.

Of course he was. Very much so. And despite everything and all the obfuscation, his essence comes through intact!

FreeIgboho:
The video is saying, and historians generally agree with Lordreed, that those were NOT written by the apostles Mathew and John.
The problem is Paul and Acts. Unless they're saying those also never happened, then they're talking nonsense

Then my question would be, who wrote the books of Matthew, the Gospel of John, Peter, the 3 books of John and Revelations?

Again what are the historic evidence that show that the gospels of Matthew and John were written by some other person's?

tctrills:
Then my question would be, who wrote the books of Matthew, the Gospel of John, Peter, the 3 books of John and Revelations?

Again what are the historic evidence that show that the gospels of Matthew and John were written by some other person's?

I believe the letters of Paul were written by him because he had a lot of time durring long imprisonments and because he had to write to budding churches. Also Acts written by Luke and Revelation by John while imprisoned at Patmos - which John exactly though?
Common sense would seem to suggest that books not addressed to anyone were likely not written by the original apostles as they wouldn't have had the time or leisure and there was no compelling reason to write them

FreeIgboho:
Yes I did. The flaw is that they don't claim Paul was also not a real person. The problem with claiming Jesus never existed is the existence of people like Paul!
Maxindhouse and Janosky will like it. Lordreed will love it. tctrills, Everyday247, Dtruthspeaker, what you think of it?

https://www.youtue.com/watch?v=EEcZtMhj4Jw

Reed, plaetton, DeepSight, will not like this one.
Last words of famous atheists. It is only one minute long.
Max and Jano, note what they say about the hell that you don't believe exists

https://youtube.com/shorts/SIiJ6yy0Er8?si=ajtYdiXVHYMubEKH

tctrills:
Oya, highlight your facts

1. It was written between 75 to 100CE. Matthew is said to have died in 68CE. If the timelines are correct then there's no way he wrote it.
2. It incorporates material from Mark, Luke and a possible source Q. Which means this person was a either quite learned or a scribe. None of the disciples were said to scribes or learned.
3. Another issue with the scribal nature of this book is it was written in Greek. The common people at that had no formal education in reading or writing. So how did a first century Jew who was not a scribe write a book in Greek?
4. It no where in the book mentions the name of the author ie it nowhere says this book was written by Matthew.

FreeIgboho:
I believe the letters of Paul were written by him because he had a lot of time durring long imprisonments and because he had to write to budding churches. Also Acts written by Luke and Revelation by John while imprisoned at Patmos - which John exactly though?
Common sense would seem to suggest that books not addressed to anyone were likely not written by the original apostles as they wouldn't have had the time or leisure and there was no compelling reason to write them

Your last statement is more of guesswork than the work of historians or scholars.

Now this will help.
Proving that the Gospel of John was written by John the Apostle

1. Early Church Testimony (External Evidence)
Several early Christian writers affirm that John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee and one of Jesus' original twelve disciples, wrote the Gospel:

Irenaeus (c. 180 AD), a disciple of Polycarp (who was taught by John), explicitly states:

“John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”
(Against Heresies 3.1.1)

Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen also attributed the fourth Gospel to John.

The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170 AD), one of the earliest lists of New Testament books, mentions John as the author.

These sources, written within 100–150 years of the Gospel, are consistent and widespread geographically.


2. Internal Evidence (Within the Gospel)
The Gospel refers repeatedly to “the disciple whom Jesus loved” as an eyewitness (e.g., John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21:24).

John 21:24 says:

“This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and who wrote them down. And we know that his testimony is true.”
This implies eyewitness authorship and links the unnamed “beloved disciple” to the Gospel’s content.

The author clearly had intimate knowledge of Jewish customs, Jerusalem geography, and private events, indicating he was a close disciple of Jesus.

Of the 12 apostles, John is the most likely candidate:

He was part of Jesus’ inner circle (Peter, James, and John).

He was present at key events (e.g., crucifixion) described in the Gospel.

The Gospel never mentions John by name, which fits with modesty or anonymity if he were the author.

3. Style and Theological Themes
The Gospel’s distinct theological depth (e.g., "In the beginning was the Word…" aligns with what early Christians believed John emphasized in his later years.

Similar style and themes are found in 1 John, often attributed to the same author due to language like “light,” “truth,” “love,” and “eternal life.

FreeIgboho:
Reed, plaetton, DeepSight, will not like this one.
Last words of famous atheists. It is only one minute long.
Max and Jano, note what they say about the hell that you don't believe exists

https://youtube.com/shorts/SIiJ6yy0Er8?si=ajtYdiXVHYMubEKH

Emotional BS borne of fear of the unknown.
Also mostly unverified/ unverifiable.

FreeIgboho:
Reed, plaetton, DeepSight, will not like this one.
Last words of famous atheists. It is only one minute long.
Max and Jano, note what they say about the hell that you don't believe exists

https://youtube.com/shorts/SIiJ6yy0Er8?si=ajtYdiXVHYMubEKH

Right from the get go this already a failure. Cesare Borgia was not an atheist. In fact he was an Archbishop. This how believers easily gravitate to and believe nonsense.

tctrills:
Your last statement is more of guesswork than the work of historians or scholars.

Now this will help.
Proving that the Gospel of John was written by John the Apostle

1. Early Church Testimony (External Evidence)
Several early Christian writers affirm that John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee and one of Jesus' original twelve disciples, wrote the Gospel:

Irenaeus (c. 180 AD), a disciple of Polycarp (who was taught by John), explicitly states:

“John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”
(Against Heresies 3.1.1)

Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen also attributed the fourth Gospel to John.

The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170 AD), one of the earliest lists of New Testament books, mentions John as the author.

These sources, written within 100–150 years of the Gospel, are consistent and widespread geographically.


2. Internal Evidence (Within the Gospel)
The Gospel refers repeatedly to “the disciple whom Jesus loved” as an eyewitness (e.g., John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21:24).

John 21:24 says:

“This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and who wrote them down. And we know that his testimony is true.”
This implies eyewitness authorship and links the unnamed “beloved disciple” to the Gospel’s content.

The author clearly had intimate knowledge of Jewish customs, Jerusalem geography, and private events, indicating he was a close disciple of Jesus.

Of the 12 apostles, John is the most likely candidate:

He was part of Jesus’ inner circle (Peter, James, and John).

He was present at key events (e.g., crucifixion) described in the Gospel.

The Gospel never mentions John by name, which fits with modesty or anonymity if he were the author.

3. Style and Theological Themes
The Gospel’s distinct theological depth (e.g., "In the beginning was the Word…" aligns with what early Christians believed John emphasized in his later years.

Similar style and themes are found in 1 John, often attributed to the same author due to language like “light,” “truth,” “love,” and “eternal life.

If written by eyewitnesses why are their recollections of things like the resurrection so totally different? These were things they participated in

LordReed:
Right from the get go this already a failure. Cesare Borgia was not an atheist. In fact he was an Archbishop. This how believers easily gravitate to and believe nonsense.

A cardinal, I believe.
Albeit along with his father the Pope a most corrupt one.

LordReed:
1. It was written between 75 to 100CE. Matthew is said to have died in 68CE. If the timelines are correct then there's no way he wrote it.
2. It incorporates material from Mark, Luke and a possible source Q. Which means this person was a either quite learned or a scribe. None of the disciples were said to scribes or learned.
3. Another issue with the scribal nature of this book is it was written in Greek. The common people at that had no formal education in reading or writing. So how did a first century Jew who was not a scribe write a book in Greek?
4. It no where in the book mentions the name of the author ie it nowhere says this book was written by Matthew.

Objection 1: "Matthew died in 68 CE, but the Gospel was written between 75–100 CE."
Response:
The date range of 75–100 CE is based on modern scholarly estimates, many of which assume Matthew borrowed from Mark and that Mark was written around 70 CE. However, early church tradition — including Papias, Irenaeus, and others — suggest Matthew’s Gospel was written earlier, possibly in the 50s or 60s CE.
Also, dating ancient texts isn’t exact science. If Matthew wrote his Gospel in the 60s CE, before his death (possibly around 68), that fits both his lifespan and the content’s context — especially since Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 CE is never mentioned as a past event, which you'd expect if it were written after.

Objection 2: "It uses content from Mark, Luke, and Q. That implies a learned scribe, not a fisherman or tax collector."
Response:
First, Matthew wasn't a fisherman — he was a tax collector, a job requiring literacy, numeracy, and record-keeping. He would have been more educated than most of the apostles and perfectly capable of writing or compiling a structured document.
Second, using other sources doesn’t disqualify authorship. If Matthew used Mark and perhaps oral or written traditions (like Q), he may have done so to organize and supplement with his own eyewitness insights. Ancient writers often relied on sources — and it doesn’t mean they weren’t the true authors.

Objection 3: "It was written in Greek, and a first-century Jew wouldn’t write in Greek unless he was a scribe."
Response:
While many Jews in 1st-century Judea spoke Aramaic, Greek was the lingua franca of the Eastern Roman Empire, including Galilee. A tax collector like Matthew, who dealt with Roman officials and urban merchants, almost certainly knew Greek.
Moreover, even if Matthew wasn’t fully fluent in written Greek, he could have dictated his Gospel to a scribe or translator — a very common practice in the ancient world. That still preserves his authorship, even if he didn’t physically pen it.


Objection 4: "The Gospel never says it was written by Matthew."
Response:
That’s true — the Gospel of Matthew is anonymous, as are all four Gospels. None of them directly say, “I, John” or “I, Mark.”
However, the early church universally attributed this Gospel to Matthew — and there’s no competing ancient claim for another author. The name “Matthew” is attached to this Gospel as early as the 2nd century, long before modern debates.
Also, the Gospel includes unique details about Matthew’s own calling (Matthew 9:9), and unlike in Mark and Luke, he refers to himself as “Matthew the tax collector” — a humble detail that suggests firsthand authorship.


So while your objections raise good scholarly questions, they don’t disprove Matthew’s authorship. When you weigh:

Early and unanimous church tradition,

Matthew’s background as an educated tax collector,

Common practices like using scribes and sources,

And internal clues in the Gospel itself,

…it’s entirely reasonable — even likely — that Matthew the apostle wrote (or dictated) the Gospel that bears his name.

LordReed:
Right from the get go this already a failure. Cesare Borgia was not an atheist. In fact he was an Archbishop. This how believers easily gravitate to and believe nonsense.

DeepSight:
A cardinal, I believe.
Albeit along with his father the Pope a most corrupt one.

He did not explicitly renounce his faith but is considered an atheist because he renounced his religious calling and because of his subsequent actions. He is included among atheists for a reason

FreeIgboho:
Reed, plaetton, DeepSight, will not like this one.
Last words of famous atheists. It is only one minute long.
Max and Jano, note what they say about the hell that you don't believe exists

https://youtube.com/shorts/SIiJ6yy0Er8?si=ajtYdiXVHYMubEKH

Which of the Sir Thomas Scotts? The preacher? the multiple MPs? the cricketer? the army general? The painter? Which one is he referring to? Why do believers never look into some of these things before sharing as if they are true?

FreeIgboho:
If written by eyewitnesses why are their recollections of things like the resurrection so totally different? These were things they participated in

Trust me, if you and 3 of your friends in secondary school wrote a record of your class from SSS1 to SSS3, we would be reading 3 different records. That the 4 gospels agree more than 80% of the time actually proves the authenticity of the records and writers.

LordReed:
Which of the Sir Thomas Scotts? The preacher? the multiple MPs? the cricketer? the army general? The painter? Which one is he referring to? Why do believers never look into some of these things before sharing as if they are true?

That compilation is a waste of time, it's only as good as the many false quotes credited to Mugabe.

FreeIgboho:
He did not explicitly renounce his faith but is considered an atheist because he renounced his religious calling and because of his subsequent actions

LMAO! Are you joking? So because he left the church for a military career it means he was an atheist? Why are you like this? Na wa o.

tctrills:
Trust me, if you and 3 of your friends in secondary school wrote a record of your class from SSS1 to SSS3, we would be reading 3 different records. That the 4 gospels agree more than 80% of the time actually proves the authenticity of the records and writers.

No, it proves that three of them copied from once source which is well known as Q.

DeepSight:
That compilation is a waste of time, it's only as good as the many false quotes credited to Mugabe.

Seriously. They swallow rubbish so readily it is disgusting.