₦airaland Forum

Brahamimo:
I don't share in your religious ideologies please. Keep them to yourself and members . Thank you

Ọmọ i don't care what you share or not i am talking to someone else but used your comment to show him why it is necessary to IDENTIFY the one and only true Christian organization.
So this has nothing to do with you!

MaxInDHouse:
Ọmọ i don't care what you share or not i am talking to someone else but used your comment to show him why it is necessary to IDENTIFY the one and only true Christian organization.
So this has nothing to do with you!

Then don't ever mention me or refer to me as far as religion is concerned. You're always trying to force people to see things the way u see it from your Jehovah witness lenses

Brahamimo:
Then don't ever mention me or refer to me as far as religion is concerned. You're always trying to force people to see things the way u see it from your Jehovah witness lenses

Guy please let the person i'm discussing with respond nah!
If you're not interested in knowing true Christianity that doesn't mean others will not be interested so chill and go get a cold beer.

MaxInDHouse:
Guy please let the person i'm discussing with respond nah!
If you're not interested in knowing true Christianity that doesn't mean others will not be interested so chill and go get a cold beer.

Your members consume beer like they are drinking water

Brahamimo:
Majority of people know the bible, yet very mean and unempathetic towards fellow humans.

Haha!
I think the picture is now getting brighter and clearer.
You just registered this account yesterday and you are complaining about Bible people being mean and unempathetic.
Now i know who is behind this moniker.

Don't worry you can get what you want from others if Bible carriers refuse to give you!

Brahamimo:
Your members consume beer like they are drinking water.

My favorite is stout either Guinness or Legend and sometimes i take Baron hope you don't have any problem with that because if you do that's your own cup of coffee my own God never said it's evil o!

MaxInDHouse:
I thought you want to know the truth!
The name "Jehovah's Witnesses" is what God kept for thousands of years away from false religionist so they continue to pick different group names just to gather people but after the International Bible Students Association met the requirements of pure worship in the year 1931 God revealed that name to them! Isaiah 65:15

Borrow a leaf from this comment:



False religionists are carrying the Bible but don't understand what Jesus taught because if they go preaching from house to house knocking on people's door uninvited which Jesus commanded how can they be mean or unempathetic towards those they must talk to? Mark 12:29-31


Wow! Well that's the more reason why i became one of Jehovah's Witnesses!
Jesus said his true disciples will be hated by all religionists {John 15:18} because they are no part of the world empire of false religion! John 17:14-16

Jesus never agree that he's worshiping the same God with religionists who refused to have the same line of thought with him so don't expect anything less from his real followers! Matthew 10:24-25

Jehovah's witness and the rest are all based on the same thing- falsehood. Jesus never existed!

Having said that, the only group of Christians that should be considered real (if any) should be Roman Catholics because at least they started Christianity before you all, and it was from them that you all branched away from. So, Jehovah's witness has no chance of being the real Christians. And if you knew the history of Christianity you won't say that

musicwriter:
Jehovah's witness and the rest are all based on the same thing- falsehood. Jesus never existed!

Having said that, the only group of Christians that should be considered real (if any) should be Roman Catholics because at least they started Christianity before you all, and it was from them that you all branched away from. So, Jehovah's witness has no chance of being the real Christians. And if you knew the history of Christianity you won't say that

Sir your understanding of christian history is not correct. The Roman Catholic church is the oldest existing church but it was not the first Church.
Christ established his church through is Apostles in Jerusalem notin Rome.
The Roman Catholic church came much later. It became the strongest and most prominent after it secured the backing of the Roman empire. Other early churches slowly faded away.
Till today, the Greek catholic church claims to be older.
The church came to the Greek world (Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople) before getting to Rome.

PythonPro001:
What I believe is that whatever happens to elephants, lions, monkeys and all the other animals when they die, is precisely what happens to humans after death. The general belief about life after death is just mere superstition and wishful thinking, and that is why there are so many versions of what happens after death!

you are so ignorant

Brahamimo:
Why can't God allow any of the dead one to return to life and explain to us what happens after death?
It's really very strange to me why the none of the dead ones has done this.
In the early 2000s, some overzealous christians came out and made a tape claiming that they resurrected from death after three days because God gave them a second chance to return to the world and warn sinners to desist from sin. These people even went as far as saying that God told them that the coming of Christ was imminent and that the world was coming to an end in the new millennium in the year 2000. A claim that never came to pass. I was only five years then and I still remember how my neighbors sold almost all their properties ahead of the coming of Christ.

Nlfpmod Seun

There are basically two destinations your soul goes to after death; heaven or hell.

Countless hundreds have died, gone to hell and returned to tell us their stories. Search YouTube or Google for their testimonies. But, don't believe all the testimonies. Judge them by the word of God.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus also unveils what hell is like.

Don't wait to experience. Accept Jesus now as your Lord and Saviour before you die and end up in hell.

tctrills:
Sir your understanding of christian history is not correct. The Roman Catholic church is the oldest existing church but it was not the first Church.
Christ established his church through is Apostles in Jerusalem notin Rome.
The Roman Catholic church came much later. It became the strongest and most prominent after it secured the backing of the Roman empire. Other early churches slowly faded away.
Till today, the Greek catholic church claims to be older.
The church came to the Greek world (Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople) before getting to Rome.

One of the problems of Christianity is the way it gives you people such audacity to boldly spread falsehood unknowingly.

HISTORICALLY, the first Christians you alluded to did not even believe the same Jesus you believe today. For them Jesus was neither man nor woman. He was a kind of magico-mysthical Christ, he appears and disappears, had no place like a house where you can meet him.

Those early Christians were not called Christians. History refers to them as the Gnostics and they just met at any "gathering place" not a church.

You said the Greeks call it "Catholic" , so that answers your question. The full name is Roman Catholic.

Yes, they evolved and later only began to be called Christians in Turkey. Today, they're mostly called MUSLIMS.

Rome was the first to actually organize it as a body, the same way the ancient Egyptians did..... but that's a different story

Ebenezer2021:
you are so ignorant

Telling someone they're ignorant without making any points, providing a counterargument or attempting to even state your own position is a very dumb and senseless thing to do. Why did you quote me when you have nothing of substance to say ?

musicwriter:
One of the problems of Christianity is the way it gives you people such audacity to boldly spread falsehood unknowingly.

HISTORICALLY, the first Christians you alluded to did not even believe the same Jesus you believe today. For them Jesus was neither man nor woman. He was a kind of magico-mysthical Christ, he appears and disappears, had no place like a house where you can meet him.

Those early Christians were not called Christians. History refers to them as the Gnostics and they just met at any "gathering place" not a church.

You said the Greeks call it "Catholic" , so that answers your question. The full name is Roman Catholic.

Yes, they evolved and later only began to be called Christians in Turkey. Today, they're mostly called MUSLIMS.

Rome was the first to actually organize it as a body, the same way the ancient Egyptians did..... but that's a different story

Again, you are so wrong. We have the records of the first Christians. It is called the New Testament. The first Christians believed what I believed and luckily enough, the wrote down their beliefs.
It's not fair or wise to make unfounded statements.
You are wrong again in believing that Rome was the first to organize the church. The writings of the Apostles educate us enough on the history of the early church.
We have the works of John, Paul and the rest.
Put yourself in my shoes, who do I believe, you an unknown entity on Nairaland or the Apostles of Jesus Christ?
No reasonable person should believe anything you wrote. Hope you understand that you have zero credibility in the matter.
The early Apostles have a lived experience unlike you who woke up one morning and decided to create your alternate history.

tctrills:
Again, you are so wrong. We have the records of the first Christians. It is called the New Testament. The first Christians believed what I believed and luckily enough, the wrote down their beliefs.
It's not fair or wise to make unfounded statements.
You are wrong again in believing that Rome was the first to organize the church. The writings of the Apostles educate us enough on the history of the early church.
We have the works of John, Paul and the rest.
Put yourself in my shoes, who do I believe, you an unknown entity on Nairaland or the Apostles of Jesus Christ?
No reasonable person should believe anything you wrote. Hope you understand that you have zero credibility in the matter.
The early Apostles have a lived experience unlike you who woke up one morning and decided to create your alternate history.

The real problem is that you don't know that the things you believe are not based on HISTORY. What a pity!! You don't know that they're Roman constructs!

My advice to you is to pick up history books. I can help with books on history of Christianity, and if interested, my contact is on my blog

musicwriter:
The real problem is that you don't know that the things you believe are not based on HISTORY. What a pity!! You don't know that they're Roman constructs!

My advice to you is to pick up history books. I can help with books on history of Christianity, and if interested, my contact is on my blog

Lol
It's easy and foolish to say someone doesn't know his believes just because your initial argument was dead on arrival.
Again there are hundreds of historians that support my argument.
But then no historian can give a better record of the first century church than the first century christians themselves.
Would you rather believe the account of some historian about Peter, Paul and John than the works of Peter, Paul and John themselves? We are allowed to use our brains bro.

Ken4Christ:
There are basically two destinations your soul goes to after death; heaven or hell.

Countless hundreds have died, gone to hell and returned to tell us their stories. Search YouTube or Google for their testimonies. But, don't believe all the testimonies. Judge them by the word of God.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus also unveils what hell is like.

Don't wait to experience. Accept Jesus now as your Lord and Saviour before you die and end up in hell.

Ok. Thanks

tctrills:
Lol
It's easy and foolish to say someone doesn't know his believes just because your initial argument was dead on arrival.
Again there are hundreds of historians that support my argument.
But then no historian can give a better record of the first century church than the first century christians themselves.
Would you rather believe the account of some historian about Peter, Paul and John than the works of Peter, Paul and John themselves? We are allowed to use our brains bro.

Again, you are not aware that history is different from what's in your Bible.

The first century Christians believed something different than you believe today. The findings are in the Nag Hamadi and Kumran papers found in Egypt and Palestine in about 1950's or thereabout.

Pick up history books.

musicwriter:
Again, you are not aware that history is different from what's in your Bible.

The first century Christians believed something different than you believe today. The findings are in the Nag Hamadi papers found in Egypt in about 1950's or thereabout.

Pick up history books.

Keep fooling yourself. Is your Nag Hamadi paper older than the new testament? Was it written by the first century Apostles?
Any idiot can write anything but then again, the best place to learn about the first century church is from their most recognized record called the New Testament.

The New Testament was written by eyewitnesses (e.g., Matthew, John, Peter) or their close associates (e.g., Luke, Mark, Paul).

Gnostic texts were written later (2nd–3rd century), anonymously, and were rejected by early Christians as heretical.

So which would an intelligent person believe.

tctrills:
Keep fooling yourself. Is your Nag Hamadi paper older than the new testament? Was it written by the first century Apostles?
Any idiot can write anything but then again, the best place to learn about the first century church is from their most recognized record called the New Testament.

So, you don't know the new testament writings have a precedent? And you're using ignorance in the same sentence?

musicwriter:
So, you don't know the new testament writings have a precedent? And you're using ignorance in the same sentence?

As I said,
The New Testament was written by eyewitnesses (e.g., Matthew, John, Peter) or their close associates (e.g., Luke, Mark, Paul).

Gnostic texts were written later (2nd–3rd century), anonymously, and were rejected by early Christians as heretical.

Which would an intelligent person believe?
Please give your reasons why you would believe these funny writing over the New Testament. Your most intelligent reasons please

tctrills:
As I said,
The New Testament was written by eyewitnesses (e.g., Matthew, John, Peter) or their close associates (e.g., Luke, Mark, Paul).

Gnostic texts were written later (2nd–3rd century), anonymously, and were rejected by early Christians as heretical.

Which would an intelligent person believe?
Please give your reasons why you would believe these funny writing over the New Testament. Your most intelligent reasons please

Christianity predate Gnosticism?

That's the reason you need to pick up history books because Gnosticism predate Christianity. But it was flipped by Rome in order to say that the Gnostics didn't believe those things before Christianity!

Again, your problem is the problem many face. You're thinking that church history is history! But history is saying something different

musicwriter:
Christianity predate Gnosticism?

That's the reason you need to pick up history books because Gnosticism predate Christianity. But it was flipped by Rome in order to say that the Gnostics didn't believe those things before Christianity!

Again, your problem is the problem many face. You're thinking that church history is history! But history is saying something different

This is your most intelligent answer?
Wow.
The Gnostic texts were written later 2nd–3rd century while the new testament was mostly written in the first century
Please point to your sources that show it is the other way round?
But it will be wrong for me to demand your sources without presenting mine.
Here is a link showing the timeline according to historians of the Pauline epistles.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles
Oga show yours

tctrills:
This is your most intelligent answer?
Wow.
The Gnostic texts were written later 2nd–3rd century while the new testament was mostly written in the first century
Please point to your sources that show it is the other way round?
But it will be wrong for me to demand your sources without presenting mine.
Here is a link showing the timeline according to historians of the Pauline epistles.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles
Oga show yours

Most of those things you read on Wikipedia are based on church history just like you're spewing, but not history.

If you really want to help yourself, go and read about the "Nag Hamadi Gnostic documents" and the "Kumran Gnostic documents"

There you'll find Gnostic precedents for what you believe today as Christians. That's what you should really do if you're sincere about knowing

musicwriter:
Most of those things you read on Wikipedia are based on church history just like you're spewing, but not history.

If you really want to help yourself, go and read about the "Nag Hamadi Gnostic documents" and the "Kumran Gnostic documents"

There you'll find Gnostic precedents for what you believe today as Christians. That's what you should really do if you're sincere about knowing

Now you are making a very unintelligent argument. You discredit Wikipedia because it doesn't support your argument.
I am sure you know that people use Wikipedia articles as source for even PHD thesis. So if the academic world is Comfortable with wiki and you an unknown person has a problem with it, I can't help you.
Secondly, let's assume Wikipedia is wrong, please provide your own historic timeline to show when the new testament was written and when your Gnostic texts were written.
I am waiting.
I need you to show why the Gnostic text are more credible christian text than the new testament.
Please write down something intelligent. I want to see all your sources.

tctrills:
Now you are making a very unintelligent argument. You discredit Wikipedia because it doesn't support your argument.
I am sure you know that people use Wikipedia articles as source for even PHD thesis. So if the academic world is Comfortable with wiki and you an unknown person has a problem with it, I can't help you.
Secondly, let's assume Wikipedia is wrong, please provide your own historic timeline to show when the new testament was written and when your Gnostic texts were written.
I am waiting.
I need you to show why the Gnostic text are more credible christian text than the new testament.
Please write down something intelligent. I want to see all your sources.

Don't get me wrong! I don't mean that Wikipedia is all based on falsehood.

It's ONLY when it comes to RELIGION that people write out of emotion instead of fact just like you're doing now, so even the Wikipedia source won't be factual as long as it was written by believers like you. That's why I avoid it in discussions like this.

I've told you what to research if you're serious, but of course, you won't do that for fear of what you'll discover

musicwriter:
Don't get me wrong! I don't mean that Wikipedia is all based on falsehood.

It's ONLY when it comes to RELIGION that people write out of emotion instead of fact just like you're doing now, so even the Wikipedia source won't be factual as long as it was written by believers like you. That's why I avoid it in discussions like this.

I've told you what to research if you're serious, but of course, you won't do that for fear of what you'll discover

Again you are not being serious. Wikipedia has footnotes and is very transparent with it's sources.
And I promise to read the entire Gnostic text today but all I need you to do is link me to your historians that claim it is older than the new testament.
I hope you understand that it would be a complete waste of time reading it if it is not older than the books in the new testament.

I am not asking for much. I just want you to prove that your text is credible then I will make out time to read it.

tctrills:
Again you are not being serious. Wikipedia has footnotes and is very transparent with it's sources.
And I promise to read the entire Gnostic text today but all I need you to do is link me to your historians that claim it is older than the new testament.
I hope you understand that it would be a complete waste of time reading it if it is not older than the books in the new testament.

I am not asking for much. I just want you to prove that your text is credible then I will make out time to read it.

My brother, even the sources in Wikipedia cannot be trusted when it comes to religion. The whole history began to be doctored and was stained as soon as the Roman empire adopted Christianity. They also forged the sources to back up the lies. That's how deep it goes, and it will take you 2-3 years of research to unentangle the lies from the facts.

The truth about Christianity lies before the Roman empire adopted the religion, in fact, the message of the real Christians barely survived in the Bible.

In addition to what I told you to research earlier, if you want to know that you've been lied to, research the history of religion. How did humanity come about the concept of God?

Should you be interested, I have lots of books to share on history; including history of religions, and I'll send them to you for free if you you want

musicwriter:
My brother, even the sources in Wikipedia cannot be trusted when it comes to religion. The whole history began to be doctored and was stained as soon as the Roman empire adopted Christianity. They also forged the sources to back up the lies. That's how deep it goes, and it will take you 2-3 years of research to unentangle the lies from the facts.

The truth about Christianity lies before the Roman empire adopted the religion, in fact, the message of the real Christians barely survived in the Bible.

In addition to what I told you to research earlier, if you want to know that you've been lied to, research the history of religion. How did humanity come about the concept of God?

Should you be interested, I have lots of books to share on history; including history of religions, and I'll send them to you for free if you you want

Do you listen to yourself? I should not trust Wikipedia, but I should completely trust you, an unknown stranger, and your sources. Again, I ask, can you present your sources? Since you claim I am being lied to, can you link me to your historian and their evidence?

Why is it too hard for you to show a single source that claims the Gnostic text is older than the New Testament?