₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
Those are descriptions of religious beliefs not of historical events.

It's like googling about Juju or voodoo and sending me what you find about such practices and beliefs and then saying that such are actual events in history.

Let me help you. You need help..

So what you need to do is find a Historical Text which has been academically produced by Historians which says something like this -

"In the year 43 BCE, Julius Caesar was murdered by voodoo which was activated through the telepathy of Marcus Brutus, and so ended his Dictatorship, leading to the civil wars resulting in the emergence of the Empire."

That is what such being recorded as historical events would look like.

I hope you understand.

Why not find one that says

In the year 43 BCE, Julius Caesar was murdered by gravity which was activated through the science of Marcus Brutus, and so ended his Dictatorship, leading to the civil wars resulting in the emergence of the Empire."

FreeIgboho:
Why not find one that says

In the year 43 BCE, Julius Caesar was murdered by gravity which was activated through the science of Marcus Brutus, and so ended his Dictatorship, leading to the civil wars resulting in the emergence of the Empire."

You will find many historical events which record the activity of gravity and scientific work. That is the point. You will not find a record referring to magic as a historical event. You cannot for example, find a historical record saying that "On the 4th day of June 1914, the PM of Great Britain sent a declaration of war by telepathy to Germany, and thus started the second world war."

You are not in a primary school. I am really being patient here.

DeepSight:
You will find many historical events which record the activity of gravity and scientific work. That is the point. You will not find a record referring to magic as a historical event. You cannot for example, find a historical record saying that "On the 4th day of June 1914, the PM of Great Britain sent a declaration of war by telepathy to Germany, and thus started the second world war."

You are not in a primary school. I am really being patient here.

But you can't provide a single one but you want me to produce telepathy. And when I do you shift the goal post! The first shot below is from CIA

FreeIgboho:
But you can't provide a single one but you want me to produce telepathy. And when I do you shift the goal post! The first shot below is from CIA

You want me to provide a historical record regarding gravity? You surely are kidding. Try jumping off your roof tomorrow, it will be on record.

As regards your attachment -

All of that is unproven experimentation which ranks with all sorts of psychic claims everywhere. You still will not find a historical report saying that on such and such a day a psychic message was delivered from X to Y and that led to Z. You will only find that in the realms of speculation and conspiracy theory.

I am trying to teach you here: understand - the fact that anyone can produce a report of someone practicing juju is not the way Historical texts are written. Juju is simply not acknowledged as real even if it can be reported that someone practices it, you will not find a report saying that an airplane was verified brought down on X day by juju.

That all this is in a bid to classify the mythical aspects of the bible such as talking snakes and donkeys as actual history is tiresome.

Do you know of Homer's Ilad and do you regard all the events therein as history?

Let me try to help u further. Does prayer exist as a practice in the history of the world? Of course it does. That is proper to say. So it can be historically recorded that people pray.

However in an academic historical record, you will never see a statement such as - "The British by prayer defeated the Germans in the second world war, their prayers having been heard by heaven, from where magical armies assisted."

That can be anyone's belief but that is no historical record.

DeepSight:
You want me to provide a historical record regarding gravity? You surely are kidding. Try jumping off your roof tomorrow, it will be on record.

As regards your attachment -

All of that is unproven experimentation which ranks with all sorts of psychic claims everywhere. You still will not find a historical report saying that on such and such a day a psychic message was delivered from X to Y and that led to Z. You will only find that in the realms of speculation and conspiracy theory.

I am trying to teach you here: understand - the fact that anyone can produce a report of someone practicing juju is not the way Historical texts are written. Juju is simply not acknowledged as real even if it can be reported that someone practices it, you will not find a report saying that an airplane was verified brought down on X day by juju.

That all this is in a bid to classify the mythical aspects of the bible such as talking snakes and donkeys as actual history is tiresome.

Do you know of Homer's Ilad and do you regard all the events therein as history?

Let me try to help u further. Does prayer exist as a practice in the history of the world? Of course it does. That is proper to say. So it can be historically recorded that people pray.

However in an academic historical record, you will never see a statement such as - "The British by prayer defeated the Germans in the second world war, their prayers having been heard by heaven, from where magical armies assisted."

That can be anyone's belief but that is no historical record.

So what do you call this below? By what power did Constantine triumph? And if this is not history, what is it?

Ken4Christ:
You can't truly obey God or follow Jesus unless you are born again first.

are you saying being born again can occur first without following Jesus?

FreeIgboho:
Thanks for your response. Free will means you're the one responsible for the processes within your brain that led to a decision.
Example: when Adam's brain decided to eat the fruit, could Adam have overridden it? If so, that thing he would have used to override it is the reservoir of freewill

Okay so I take it that you are saying that free will is the thinking process before a decision is made, meaning the person choose to do so. Now based on your earlier analogy where you pointed out constraints to a person's thinking process thereby predetermining their decisions, wherein you asked how or where does freewill fit into that analogy, right?!

Going with this two basis, let me answer this question of "if Adam could override his brain's decision to eat the fruit"

Simple answer, Yes, even if you think to do something wrong we usually decide against it (maybe because of what someone else said) or go along with it (because of our own desires). And the reason Adam could have override his own thoughts would have been if he paid attention to what God said and believed it to be true, God told him the consequences of eating that fruit giving Adam the choice not to eat it.

The moment a choice becomes available a person is given "the freedom" to choose

And so I agree with you when you call "it" the reservoir of free will, because only God can give us an alternate option or choice. Only God is our storage of freedom that liberates us from our limitations.

God's word creates opportunities and chances that are beyond our abilities and thought process. Peter could never have thought to walk on water all through his years as a fisherman but one day he saw an opportunity because he saw the word of God manifesting and that word, Jesus Christ gave him the opportunity to make a choice and walk on water, remove that encounter and Peter would never think nor choose to walk on water.

FreeIgboho:
1. Isaiah 53 abd Psalm 22 foretold this

2. God can't have a son because there is no mother. So son here is not son as we think. Son means an offshoot of God, a "manifestion" of God which is also God

3. See numbe 2. Jesus is part of God. God!

4. Jesus said if you see him you've seen God, accepted worship unlike anyone else in the Bible, was after souls not money, said he was Alpha and Omega, said he'd come into people's hearts, etc

5. God can't have son without mother. "Son of God" can only somehow be God himself

6. When Jesus said "destroy this temple and I'll raise it in 3 days" Who did he say would raise it?

7. You're making God out to be totally powerless

8. No other person in the history of the world has come close to being like Jesus

9. This is very powerful. Yahweh would NEVER allow anyone worshipped with him or in his place unless he approves

10. Testimonies of Jesus as active in people's lives abound

Be yet patient with me perhaps we may gain understanding from God

Isaiah 53 the arm of YHVH, the servant of God who grew up in His presence, rejected and despised of men, A MAN of sorrows whom they thought was punished by God but was carried our weaknesses and crushed for our sins, for YHVH put our sins upon him. God's righteous servant will justify many and God will honor him.

Isaiah called him A MAN and GOD'S SERVANT consistent with what was revealed by Jesus and the apostles.

Now Psalm 22 is a prayer of a man who because of being despised sees himself less than a man, even as a worm.

You can see I have told you the truth, and neither of these chapters you mentioned support your earlier claim.


2. Jesus had a mother and was born, because from the beginning God said so even to when Jesus was to be conceived. It is because you believe Jesus to be a god that you feel conflicted about him having a mother. God said, the seed of the woman, Isaiah prophecies and the Virgin shall have a child, Gabriel appeared and told Mary, the Holy Spirit and God's power will come upon you and you shall conceived without the aid of a man. Jesus is the son of God, the manifestation of God's word. For God spoke and it was and is and will be.

4. They understood what Jesus meant, as the Hebrews took seeing God's messengers as seeing God, Jacob said he had seen the face of God but in actuality he saw an angel, Abraham spoke to God but in reality it was an angel. None of them had seen God but they said they had, because they saw his representatives.

Please like James said ask God for wisdom, like Jesus said ask for the Holy Spirit who teaches us, and when you have done this, read the writings of scripture and gospel even to the "original" copies

Heb.1.6 And then, when he presented his honored Son to the world, God said, "Let all the angels of God worship him."

FreeIgboho:
I have not definitively said anythimg is false. You're the one saying things are false

You are one trying to claim reality is not real which makes whatever you say moot.

DeepSight:
You will find many historical events which record the activity of gravity and scientific work. That is the point. You will not find a record referring to magic as a historical event. You cannot for example, find a historical record saying that "On the 4th day of June 1914, the PM of Great Britain sent a declaration of war by telepathy to Germany, and thus started the second world war."

You are not in a primary school. I am really being patient here.

You really are. I have no patience for deliberately obtuse people.

DeepSight:
Isnt it obvious then that you didnt make those decisions?
Its absurd to say that the decisions of a free creature were known before it existed.

Deepsight you made those decisions, the difference is that a higher power foreknew those decisions before you existed.

What you will say is that the maker is the primary cause of your decisions, since he created you in a way you make them.

LordReed:
You are one trying to claim reality is not real which makes whatever you say moot.

I never said anything about reality. I only said you said a bunch of things you have no way of knowing for sure

FreeIgboho:
I never said anything about reality. I only said you said a bunch of things you have no way of knowing for sure

The same way you said things you have no way of knowing for sure which again destroys anything you are saying.

Either there is a way to know and we can verify or there isn't. Either way your argument is destroyed.

gohf:
Be yet patient with me perhaps we may gain understanding from God

Isaiah 53 the arm of YHVH, the servant of God who grew up in His presence, rejected and despised of men, A MAN of sorrows whom they thought was punished by God but was carried our weaknesses and crushed for our sins, for YHVH put our sins upon him. God's righteous servant will justify many and God will honor him.

Isaiah called him A MAN and GOD'S SERVANT consistent with what was revealed by Jesus and the apostles.

Now Psalm 22 is a prayer of a man who because of being despised sees himself less than a man, even as a worm.

You can see I have told you the truth, and neither of these chapters you mentioned support your earlier claim.


2. Jesus had a mother and was born, because from the beginning God said so even to when Jesus was to be conceived. It is because you believe Jesus to be a god that you feel conflicted about him having a mother. God said, the seed of the woman, Isaiah prophecies and the Virgin shall have a child, Gabriel appeared and told Mary, the Holy Spirit and God's power will come upon you and you shall conceived without the aid of a man. Jesus is the son of God, the manifestation of God's word. For God spoke and it was and is and will be.

4. They understood what Jesus meant, as the Hebrews took seeing God's messengers as seeing God, Jacob said he had seen the face of God but in actuality he saw an angel, Abraham spoke to God but in reality it was an angel. None of them had seen God but they said they had, because they saw his representatives.

Please like James said ask God for wisdom, like Jesus said ask for the Holy Spirit who teaches us, and when you have done this, read the writings of scripture and gospel even to the "original" copies

Heb.1.6 And then, when he presented his honored Son to the world, God said, "Let all the angels of God worship him."

In more than one place the Bible calls God a MAN. "MAN of war", for example. Jesus called himself "Son of MAN"

"God's servant" as his Son, NOT in the sense of prophets or angels!

Yes it supports my claim. This was someone who came to suffer and die for atonement of sins of the world. John 1:29 “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world"

2. Jesus of "Before Abraham I am" had Mary as mother! So Mary was God's wife, therefore before Jesus!

4. How do you reconcile this with all this below:
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
AND
John 14:9 “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
AND
Mathew 16
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
AND
John 20:28
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
AND
John 8
58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him... (for obviously claiming to be God)
AND
John 10:33,: "We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God,"
AND
Mark 14,: Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”
62 “I am,” said Jesus...
63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?”
(Here again Jesus uses the divine "I am"}

Heb 1:6 So let all the angels worship a servant!

LordReed:
The same way you said things you have no way of knowing for sure which again destroys anything you are saying.

Either there is a way to know and we can verify or there isn't. Either way your argument is destroyed.

I never said I knew them for sure, nor tried to use them against anyone

FreeIgboho:
I never said I knew them for sure, nor tried to use them against anyone

Then why did you list them in response to me?

Whatever you say, by trying to introduce uncertainty in any form you destroy your own argument.

gohf:
Okay so I take it that you are saying that free will is the thinking process before a decision is made, meaning the person choose to do so. Now based on your earlier analogy where you pointed out constraints to a person's thinking process thereby predetermining their decisions, wherein you asked how or where does freewill fit into that analogy, right?!

Going with this two basis, let me answer this question of "if Adam could override his brain's decision to eat the fruit"

Simple answer, Yes, even if you think to do something wrong we usually decide against it (maybe because of what someone else said) or go along with it (because of our own desires). And the reason Adam could have override his own thoughts would have been if he paid attention to what God said and believed it to be true, God told him the consequences of eating that fruit giving Adam the choice not to eat it.

The moment a choice becomes available a person is given "the freedom" to choose

And so I agree with you when you call "it" the reservoir of free will, because only God can give us an alternate option or choice. Only God is our storage of freedom that liberates us from our limitations.

God's word creates opportunities and chances that are beyond our abilities and thought process. Peter could never have thought to walk on water all through his years as a fisherman but one day he saw an opportunity because he saw the word of God manifesting and that word, Jesus Christ gave him the opportunity to make a choice and walk on water, remove that encounter and Peter would never think nor choose to walk on water.

You misunderstand. Adam couldn't have overridden his own brain and it's programming -which he had no hand in creating. Adam wasn't even aware of all the processes his brain went through to arrive at the decision, talkless of being able to influence them. In short there is no Adam that could have overridden his brain because there is no Adam without his brain.

In the case of Peter, that's a result of his life-long conditioning from birth that made him who he was. If he had different brain, genes, circumstances, and experiences (none of which he chose) he'd have been a totally different person all together - and ALL his choices would have stemmed from that, hence no space for freewill.

There's no reservoir of free will, because there's nothing you can use to override the brain except the brain itself, processes of which you don't control

LordReed:
You really are. I have no patience for deliberately obtuse people.

So what do you call this below? By what power did Constantine triumph? And if this is not history, what is it?

LordReed:
Then why did you list them in response to me?

Whatever you say, by trying to introduce uncertainty in any form you destroy your own argument.

I always say "circumstantial evidence", so I'm in no position to say anyone is definitively wrong - except I say it's from my own subjective perspective

FreeIgboho:
I always say "circumstantial evidence", so I'm in no position to say anyone is definitively wrong - except I say it's from my own subjective perspective

When you are presenting information that is clearly wrong your subjectivity won't save it.

FreeIgboho:
So what do you call this below? By what power did Constantine triumph? And if this is not history, what is it?

Please I have no time for obtuseness today. Continue that with DeepSight, he has the capacity I don't.

FreeIgboho:
So what do you call this below? By what power did Constantine triumph? And if this is not history, what is it?

History records what he said he saw as his vision. Same way it will record if you say you had a dream last time which led you to victory.
History will not, and historians cannot affirm the connection between your dream and your victory because it cannot be affirmed.

History is actually a discipline, an academic discipline in the sense we mean here. We refer to what a qualified Historian will put down, and not the fantasies and superstitions of anyone.

Pick up a proper encyclopedia, you can never see it recorded that Constantine won by virtue of a vision. They will state what he mentioned, that he said he saw a vision and asked his men to put the Chi-Ro on their shields, they will state the details of the battle. Nowhere will it be said as a historical fact that he won by a vision. And thats simply because no one knows that. He could have been saying what he said for any reason including to encourage his men.

I hope you understand that if you pursue this path of insisting that everything in scripture is history, you must surely accept that it is also history that Muhamad flew to Jerusalem on a winged horse. Do you accept that as history?

LordReed:
Please I have no time for obtuseness today. Continue that with DeepSight, he has the capacity I don't.

I began to feel there is a genuine learning difficulty here.
Because all these things may seem obtuse but he may actually be challenged.

DeepSight:
I began to feel there is a genuine learning difficulty here.
Because all these things may seem obtuse but he may actually be challenged.

Quite possibly. He may be masking it with verbosity.

LordReed:
When you are presenting information that is clearly wrong your subjectivity won't save it.

Clearly wrong how? Give example. You made definitive statements you not only had no way of knowing for sure but that can easily be shown doubtful. See below

LordReed:
Please I have no time for obtuseness today. Continue that with DeepSight, he has the capacity I don't.

My friend you're playing partiality. The man said to show him one instant where such was recorded in what he called "history". When I came up with historical records he still dismissed them. What other history does he want??!

FreeIgboho:
My friend you're playing partiality. The man said to show him one instant where such was recorded in what he called "history". When I came up with historical records he still dismissed them. What other history does he want??!

Do you agree that Muhammad flying on a winged horse to Jerusalem is history?

FreeIgboho:
Clearly wrong how? Give example. You made definitive statements you not only had no way of knowing for sure but that can easily be shown doubtful. See below

I gave statements that are definitive facts while you are giving me "traditions" that have been shown to be false or at the very least unknown. You have no argument.

FreeIgboho:
My friend you're playing partiality. The man said to show him one instant where such was recorded in what he called "history". When I came up with historical records he still dismissed them. What other history does he want??!

Ask him then.

DeepSight:
History records what he said he saw as his vision. Same way it will record if you say you had a dream last time which led you to victory.
History will not, and historians cannot affirm the connection between your dream and your victory because it cannot be affirmed.

History is actually a discipline, an academic discipline in the sense we mean here. We refer to what a qualified Historian will put down, and not the fantasies and superstitions of anyone.

Pick up a proper encyclopedia, you can never see it recorded that Constantine won by virtue of a vision. They will state what he mentioned, that he said he saw a vision and asked his men to put the Chi-Ro on their shields, they will state the details of the battle. Nowhere will it be said as a historical fact that he won by a vision. And thats simply because no one knows that. He could have been saying what he said for any reason including to encourage his men.

I hope you understand that if you pursue this path of insisting that everything in scripture is history, you must surely accept that it is also history that Muhamad flew to Jerusalem on a winged horse. Do you accept that as history?

History almost ALWAYS says what people said happened. 99.99999999% of recorded history are NOT eyewitness accounts.

I never insisted everything in the Bible is historical fact. You're the one who keeps saying that. I'm fully aware I'm in no position to know.
But we need some basic assumptions to be able to have this type of discussion. One of those assumptions is that most things in the Bible are generally true unless obviously untrue or highly unlikely - like Muhamad flying to Jerusalem on a winged horse!

DeepSight:
Do you agree that Muhammad flying on a winged horse to Jerusalem is history?

See my post above