₦airaland Forum

sonmvayina:
Josephus said nothing about the Jesus in the Bible. There are about 3 jesuses in his work, but none match the one in the Bible.

Everybody knows the so called TF is an extrapolation. Probably by Eusebius, he was the first to quote from it.

Please, mention one person that actually saw him. You can't tell me the "son of God" made an entrance and nobody noticed it. There must be somebody who actually saw him and wrote something down in the first person. Not a third person narratives like the gospel......
I
Please tell me.

The Messiah in Jewish theology is somebody who is anointed to the service of God, like a king or Priest. God can't be anointed to his own service. Does it make any sense. And messiah's are usually human, not divine in anyway. The Messiah God promised is coming to usher in an era of peace, no more oppression of any kind. No more wars. Isaiah actually says " Men will hammer their swords into ploghshares and learn of war no more....it has not happened....is it not better to continue to wait and hope rather than worship a pagan man- god?

I need proof that he existed. I will wait.

Are you scared of doing a research?

Very well said..

And to add to this, one wonders why -

1. The world and mankind remain the same after the coming and going of Jesus as you said, but particularly that which a man has to do - namely strive towards love and good - remains the same. Therefore what exactly did this Jesus then accomplish if as they say, it was his death that redeemed....

2. Crucially, this Jesus said that his second coming would happen within the lifetime of some alive at the time he spoke.

2000 years later, radio silence.

sonmvayina:
They don't want to accept the fact that they are wasting their lives believing a lie.

So within them, they just believe rather than doing a research to know for sure.

The most annoying aspect is they will then be pompous in their ignorance and try to gaslight you as being the one not researching, whereas they simply accept everything they were told hook line and sinker.

Gabrielshow24:
Doctor… we’ve got a loose patient over here. 😮‍💨 The ‘Hybrid Man’ strikes again.

First, he implies Christ a hybrid😂—as though we’re dealing with some mythological half-god, half-man figure out of Greek lore. The inconsistency is impressive. A hybrid, by definition, dilutes both sources. Yet the doctrine of the hypostatic union holds that Christ is fully God and fully man, not a composite or a compromise.

What you’re proposing isn’t a mystery—it’s a theological let down wrapped in sci-fi terminology. Please, keep going. The entertainment value is unmatched😂.

Who was crucified?

Who died ?

sonmvayina:
Josephus said nothing about the Jesus in the Bible. There are about 3 jesuses in his work, but none match the one in the Bible.

Everybody knows the so called TF is an extrapolation. Probably by Eusebius, he was the first to quote from it.

Please, mention one person that actually saw him. You can't tell me the "son of God" made an entrance and nobody noticed it. There must be somebody who actually saw him and wrote something down in the first person. Not a third person narratives like the gospel......
I
Please tell me.

The Messiah in Jewish theology is somebody who is anointed to the service of God, like a king or Priest. God can't be anointed to his own service. Does it make any sense. And messiah's are usually human, not divine in anyway. The Messiah God promised is coming to usher in an era of peace, no more oppression of any kind. No more wars. Isaiah actually says " Men will hammer their swords into ploghshares and learn of war no more....it has not happened....is it not better to continue to wait and hope rather than worship a pagan man- god?

I need proof that he existed. I will wait.

Are you scared of doing a research?

Why do like to tell lies? Josephus mentioned Jesus twice and Jesus' brother!
You need to do more research! The Jewish messiah is a king whose reign will reign forever🤨. Jesus, having the essence of God serves in the capacity has written by Paul— A Priestly King👑.

Also, You deny the gospels; you deny the historians that wrote about him. How then do you hope to confirm his existence? 😂 What will you use as a yardstick to comparatively deduce he existed🤨. Furthermore, lots of atheist before you have undertaken such study and they ended up with the conclusion he existed. Create your own methodology of proof if circumstantial evidence is not enough for you! —Good luck with that 🙃.

Gabrielshow24:
Indeed, I solely used extra biblical sources😮‍💨 which wrote about him. Also, the context fulfills the biblical Jesus.

No it doesn't.

So are you telling me that the son of God made an entrance into earth and nobody noticed to write it down. Even if they don't believe it?
Josephus write at length about mundane stuff, and only one line about the so called "son of God"? Common man.

He should be writing Epistles upon Epistles....but the silent is deafening ...

sonmvayina:
Who was crucified?

Who died ?

Little children coming in droves asking the same question 🤔and yet not one of them cares to employ wisdom.

Like I have told your colleagues above. He is a union of both sets—Divine and temporal! They do not mix👀 nor are composite. He encapsulates them. Hence when he wants to, he becomes whatsoever he intends to—essence of I am! If he wills to display his divine capacity he can and when he wants he can as well display his human attributes.

Gabrielshow24:
Why do like to tell lies? Josephus mentioned Jesus twice and Jesus' brother!
You need to do more research! The Jewish messiah is a king whose reign will reign forever🤨. Jesus, having the essence of God serves in the capacity has written by Paul— A Priestly King👑.

Also, You deny the gospels; you deny the historians that wrote about him. How then do you hope to confirm his existence? 😂 What will you use as a yardstick to comparatively deduce he existed🤨. Furthermore, lots of atheist before you have undertaken such study and they ended up with the conclusion he existed. Create your own methodology of proof if circumstantial evidence is not enough for you! —Good luck with that 🙃.

Mention "the son of God" only twice.
I want somebody who saw him and heard him speak and wrote about it. I don't want stories that popped up 300+ years later by people who never met him.
The gospels are all not admissible in this case. It has tonnes of contradictions. They were not even written by Jews at least they would have gotten the geography right and known that the sanhendrin don't meet at night or during the pass over and they also have the power to sentence somebody to death. ..
Nobody even knows who wrote them.
So try again

sonmvayina:
No it doesn't.

So are you telling me that the son of God made an entrance into earth and nobody noticed to write it down. Even if they don't believe it?
Josephus write at length about mundane stuff, and only one line about the so called "son of God"? Common man.

He should be writing Epistles upon Epistles....but the silent is deafening ...

it's a localized event that was dependent on transmission. People wrote what they heard or saw. he wrote based on what he saw. His disciples wrote about His divine side while Josephus attested to His "meek like" teachings preferring to classify him as a teacher based on his own understanding.

Boomark:
You are lucky you dodged my challenge. I would have emptied your 2000+ year Nicea portfolio.


https://www.nairaland.com/8486945/bible-challenge-trinity-boomark-image123/2#136345173


Well this is part of the Nicea portfolio that was dismantled. Their agreement which I disagreed with.

Gabrielshow24 will soon collect his own. Let him continue pretending he doesn't know how to read book again after seeing my challenge to him.

Aren't you embarrassed? You READ! How can you know better than people who were there physically and saw and heard everything. They concluded he was God the Son. Those are the people you are arguing with from 2000+ years removed from the events!

Gabrielshow24:
Little children coming in droves asking the same question 🤔and yet not one of them cares to employ wisdom.

Like I have told your colleagues above. He is a union of both sets—Divine and temporal! They do not mix👀 nor are composite. He encapsulates them. Hence when he wants to, he becomes whatsoever he intends to—essence of I am! If he wills to display his divine capacity he can and when he wants he can as well display his human attributes.

Hahahahaha, that was so funny, I actually forgot to laugh. What is the wisdom in believing a woman got pregnant without the input of a man? ,

sonmvayina:
Mention "the son of God" only twice.
I want somebody who saw him and heard him speak and wrote about it. I don't want stories that popped up 300+ years later by people who never met him.
The gospels are all not admissible in this case. It has tonnes of contradictions. They were not even written by Jews at least they would have gotten the geography right and known that the sanhendrin don't meet at night or during the pass over and they also have the power to sentence somebody to death. ..
Nobody even knows who wrote them.
So try again

The Sanhedrin case was a close trial. Also they were under Roman rule hence the aim was to find dirt on him to ensure his crucifixion!

sonmvayina:
Hahahahaha, that was so funny, I actually forgot to laugh. What is the wisdom in believing a woman got pregnant without the input of a man? ,

Madness, isnt it? And yet those who believe such fairytales will be carrying shoulder and feeling smart!

sonmvayina:
Hahahahaha, that was so funny, I actually forgot to laugh. What is the wisdom in believing a woman got pregnant without the input of a man? ,

Let me guess, your divine consciousness of a god impregnates female komodos without male input but you cross the line when such an attribute is applied on a lady🤨?

Anyways, the point is that the Son of God used an holy vessel. Every other thing is self explanatory.

Gabrielshow24:
Let me guess, your divine consciousness of a god impregnates female komodos without male input but you cross the line when such an attribute is applied on a lady🤨?

Anyways, the point is that the Son of God used an holy vessel. Every other thing is self explanatory.

Different creatures have different methods of reproduction. The form of reproduction whereby a ghost sleeps with a woman is unknown to homo sapiens.

Gabrielshow24:
Need I remind you that the universal set contains X and X' —Set X and its complement.

So what's the big deal?

The big deal is that even if X contains Y and Z contains W, you still CAN'T be perfect and imperfect at same time

DeepSight:
CanadaOrBust - You see am?

I now see what you must have been going through.
I commend you for not going off and calling him mental

CanadaOrBust:
I now see what you must have been going through.
I commend you for not going off and calling him mental

Sometimes I just shudder in my bed before going off to sleep when I wonder what is in these people's heads.

DeepSight:
Sometimes I just shudder in my bed before going off to sleep when I wonder what is in these people's heads.

If he were under me I think I'd have no choice but have him committed

CanadaOrBust:
The big deal is that even if X contains Y and Z contains W, you still CAN'T be perfect and imperfect at same time

Probably, you should think about the fact that if J contains both set X{perfect} and set Z{imperfect} then it can be perfect and imperfect at the same time—You're applying the Law of Non-Contradiction to a misrepresented model. Christ isn't simultaneously perfect and imperfect in the same nature. He’s perfect in His divinity(X) and limited in His humanity(Z). That’s not illogical—it’s layered ontology.

Think of it as a software system running two parallel threads: one in real-time mode (limited) and one in admin mode (unlimited). The same system, two natures, two sets of capabilities. It's not a contradiction unless the same thread violates its own rules.

These are simple things I expected your brother in arms to have understood even the self-acclaimed mathematician! But he failed miserably to fathom them. Set theory exemplifies this easily—the essence of the hypostatic union—without contradiction!

FreeIgboho:
The prophet Micah specifically prophesied that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). 
Several prophecies point to Jerusalem as the location of Jesus's future ministry and suffering. 
• Psalm 2:6 speaks of God anointing his king on Zion. 
• Psalm 110:4 refers to the priesthood of the Messiah, also associated with Jerusalem. 
• Zechariah 9:9 foretells the Messiah's arrival in Jerusalem on a donkey. 
• Zechariah 12:10 speaks of a time when people will mourn for him in Jerusalem. 
• Galilee:
Isaiah 9:1-2 prophesies that the ministry of Jesus would begin in Galilee. 
• Egypt:
Hosea 11:1 speaks of God calling his son out of Egypt, which is interpreted as a prophecy of Jesus's time in Egypt as a child. 
• Ramah:
Jeremiah 31:15 speaks of weeping in Ramah, which is connected to the Massacre of the Innocents in Matthew 2:17-18. 
• Other Locations:
Prophecies also mention other locations in relation to specific events, such as the potter's field (Zechariah 11:12-13) and places associated with his crucifixion. 

Do you want more?

i have real all the quote you provided in context, i did not see Jesus there?

why do you people like taking a text out of its proper context?

read the entire story, that is the only way to learn.

sonmvayina:
i have real all the quote you provided in context, i did not see Jesus there?

why do you people like taking a text out of its proper context?

read the entire story, that is the only way to learn.

So show how each is out of context. Rather easy to show, right?

Gabrielshow24:
Probably, you should think about the fact that if J contains both set X{perfect} and set Z{imperfect} then it can be perfect and imperfect at the same time—You're applying the Law of Non-Contradiction to a misrepresented model. Christ isn't simultaneously perfect and imperfect in the same nature. He’s perfect in His divinity(X) and limited in His humanity(Z). That’s not illogical—it’s layered ontology.

Think of it as a software system running two parallel threads: one in real-time mode (limited) and one in admin mode (unlimited). The same system, two natures, two sets of capabilities. It's not a contradiction unless the same thread violates its own rules.

.

My good brother I don't think this is the best way to go about this. We humans are given a very limited brain and also our senses perceive a tiny fraction of what is around us. There are things simply beyond our comprehension but which we know are true. Example, God listens to billions of prayers at once; another, God is localized in heaven yet same God is everywhere. You can't prove any of these with mathematics yet we know they are true.
Trinity (fullness of God in Jesus) is one such. It is a MYSTERY! It is unexplainable FROM HUMAM PERSPECTIVE, yet we KNOW it is true!
(DeepSight, sonmvayina, CanadaOrBust, what u say about this?)

Gabrielshow24:
Probably, you should think about the fact that if J contains both set X{perfect} and set Z{imperfect} then it can be perfect and imperfect at the same time—You're applying the Law of Non-Contradiction to a misrepresented model. Christ isn't simultaneously perfect and imperfect in the same nature. He’s perfect in His divinity(X) and limited in His humanity(Z). That’s not illogical—it’s layered ontology.

Think of it as a software system running two parallel threads: one in real-time mode (limited) and one in admin mode (unlimited). The same system, two natures, two sets of capabilities. It's not a contradiction unless the same thread violates its own rules.

Stop confusing yourself with your useless sets. Anything which contains an iota of imperfection can never be called perfect. These precepts are mutually exclusive. Especially when applied to a deity.

Layered ontology ko, layered ontology ni.
You must imagine you are a confidence artist addressing his targets.

DeepSight:
Stop confusing yourself with your useless sets. Anything which contains an iota of imperfection can never be called perfect. These precepts are mutually exclusive. Especially when applied to a deity.

Layered ontology ko, layered ontology ni.
You must imagine you are a confidence artist addressing his targets.

😅thanks, No one is doing any confusion. You are the one not familiar with basics. That's your fault not mine, even the second analogy I gave exemplified the same idea!

Probably, you should raise your own confidence—You are the one envisioning a mixture😅... You, not us! As I have said, there is no contradiction within each nature.

If you are that smart, kindly disprove it mathematically😂 at least that's what I expected you to have done. Pls, park one side. When you have a logical, coherent rebuttal let me know!

FreeIgboho:
.

My good brother I don't think this is the best way to go about this. We humans are given a very limited brain and also our senses perceive a tiny fraction of what is around us. There are things simply beyond our comprehension but which we know are true. Example, God listens to billions of prayers at once; another, God is localized in heaven yet same God is everywhere. You can't prove any of these with mathematics yet we know they are true.
Trinity (fullness of God in Jesus) is one such. It is a MYSTERY! It is unexplainable FROM HUMAM PERSPECTIVE, yet we KNOW it is true!
(DeepSight, sonmvayina, CanadaOrBust, what u say about this?)

I understand, that's the essence of the hypostatic union. We do not know the functionalities but the evidence warrants such!

It's just to present a coherent, logical approach to the hypostatic union suitably for the scientific mind. It's not meant to replace scripture nor theology. I don't know how God incorporated both aspects but I know he existed in both without contradiction. Even in flesh, he spoke about giving eternal Life! among other things.

The "how" is a mystery! Except you also want to find fault the council's exemplifications as a union! Even when I was a staunch antichrist on this platform, I independently arrived at such a conclusion—mathematically—before I ever dreamt of an encounter with God. That was the only logical reconciliation that the evidence affords, others lead to heresies—according to christian fundamentals!

Gabrielshow24:
😅thanks, No one is doing any confusion. You are the one not familiar with basics. That's your fault not mine, even the second analogy I gave exemplified the same idea!

Probably, you should raise your own confidence—You are the one envisioning a mixture😅... You, not us! As I have said, there is no contradiction within each nature.

If you are that smart, kindly disprove it mathematically😂 at least that's what I expected you to have done. Pls, park one side. When you have a logical, coherent rebuttal let me know!

There are a thousand easy rebuttals but you are not worth engaging with in terms of any serious expenditure of time and effort. Because you will frustrate the expenditure with incredible absurdities. Therefore simply know this:

1. Perfection is an absolute. It does not admit of an iota of imperfection. It is like purity. Or innocence. Once there is an iota of the reverse in any of these, they lose their essential nature. So please know this and know peace: a thing cannot be both perfect and imperfect, and no amount of grammatical or mathematical somersaults can change that.

2. On the example you gave about a system with limited and limited functionalities. You are speaking of one functionality being limited and another being unlimited. Neither functionality can be the other, and as for the whole system, it can never be described as limitless in all things since it is limited in some functionalities. What is key however, is that while God can have any number of manifestations (functionalities in this instance) one can still not describe God as limited for any reason.

3. Note, with regard to 2 above, that the framing of the question I gave you was how God could be both eternal and not eternal. This is a deeper question. It goes to the essential nature of God as self existent. You thus still need to reconcile this point. A self existent thing can never be contingent. Was the son begotten of the Father or not? Is the son self existent or not?

In summary, I am not given to wasting time with your absurdities. One has seen clearly how capable of utter time-wasting incongruities you are. And so the little I write here, once again, I do not write for you, for that would be a waste. I write for future passers by.

I pray you all wake up one day and realise how absurd it is to insist that your fellow man is the creator of the universe. That is the highest form of brain washing. That is utter enslavement.

DeepSight:
There are a thousand easy rebuttals but you are not worth engaging with in terms of any serious expenditure of time and effort. Because you will frustrate the expenditure with incredible absurdities. Therefore simply know this:

1. Perfection is an absolute. It does not admit of an iota of imperfection. It is like purity. Or innocence. Once there is an iota of the reverse in any of these, they lose their essential nature. So please know this and know peace: a thing cannot be both perfect and imperfect, and no amount of grammatical or mathematical somersaults can change that.

2. On the example you gave about a system with limited and limited functionalities. You are speaking of one functionality being limited and another being unlimited. Neither functionality can be the other, and as for the whole system, it can never be described as limitless in all things since it is limited in some functionalities. What is key however, is that while God can have any number of manifestations (functionalities in this instance) one can still not describe God as limited for any reason.

3. Note, with regard to 2 above, that the framing of the question I gave you was how God could be both eternal and not eternal. This is a deeper question. It goes to the essential nature of God as self existent. You thus still need to reconcile this point. A self existent thing can never be contingent. Was the son begotten of the Father or not? Is the son self existent or not?

In summary, I am not given to wasting time with your absurdities. One has seen clearly how capable of utter time-wasting incongruities you are. And so the little I write here, once again, I do not write for you, for that would be a waste. I write for future passers by.

I pray you all wake up one day and realise how absurd it is to insist that your fellow man is the creator of the universe. That is the highest form of brain washing. That is utter enslavement.

Thanks but you still failed miserably 😂. The hypostatic union doesn't mix natures! It's not a mixture 😅. It's two different natures present in one person!

Even your shabby response as 2.😂, Is futile as it doesn't address the matter at hand. My analogy depicts clearly that if God were taken as a system then it is sufficient for him to be both limited and unlimited! 😅

I do not write to you but to the sheeple out there. All the questions you asked are not deep they are shallow easily relegated by the hypostatic union!

Once more, if you have a better rebuttal let me know. All this circumlocution doesn't help you. Bye-bye 👋.

Gabrielshow24:
I understand, that's the essence of the hypostatic union. We do not know the functionalities but the evidence warrants such!

It's just to present a coherent, logical approach to the hypostatic union suitably for the scientific mind. It's not meant to replace scripture nor theology. I don't know how God incorporated both aspects but I know he existed in both without contradiction. Even in flesh, he spoke about giving eternal Life! among other things.

The "how" is a mystery! Except you also want to find fault the council's exemplifications as a union! Even when I was a staunch antichrist on this platform, I independently arrived at such a conclusion—mathematically along with contingencies—before I ever dreamt of an encounter with God. That was the only logical reconciliation that the evidence affords, others lead to heresies—according to christian fundamentals!

Wow!! You were once AntiChristianity then you had an encounter with God? There must be a serious story there. Care to regale us?

Well, freewill is not coherent either yet everything is based on it, all the way back to Adam eating the apple when Adam neither chose nor programmed his brain that made the choice - based mostly on inner permutations that Adam was mostly unaware of!

Gabrielshow24:
Thanks but you still failed miserably 😂. The hypostatic union doesn't mix natures! It's not a mixture 😅. It's two different natures present in one person!

Even your shabby response as 2.😂, Is futile as it doesn't address the matter at hand. My analogy depicts clearly that if God were taken as a system then it is sufficient for him to be both limited and unlimited! 😅

I do not write to you but to the sheeple out there. All the questions you asked are not deep they are shallow easily relegated by the hypostatic union!

Once more, if you have a better rebuttal let me know. All this circumlocution doesn't help you. Bye-bye 👋.

No thanks, I have nothing further in terms of you. And I have given my reasons already. Feel free to continue worshipping your fellow man. Good luck and good day.