₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
+
The word "Christos" existed in Greek, yes and simply meant "anointed one" and was commonly used, but the concept as a saving messiah did not exist, that concept came from the Jews.

Of course, that's the lie that Christendom has heaped on your head.

There's a book you can quickly read to set yourself free. It's called THE 16 CRUCIFIED SAVIOURS. All of them were called "Christ" before anybody heard about your God Jesus.

In fact, Ptolemy, the second in command to Alexander the great, called himself "Christ" about 300 BC. Soter means "Saviour, Redeemer, Deliverer." So, stop talking what you know nothing about

musicwriter:
Of course, that's the lie that Christendom has heaped on your head.

There's a book you can quickly read to set yourself free. It's called THE 16 CRUCIFIED SAVIOURS. All of them were called "Christ" before anybody heard about your God Jesus.

In fact, Ptolemy, the second in command to Alexander the great, called himself "Christ" about 300 BC. Soter means "Saviour, Redeemer, Deliverer." So, stop talking what you know nothing about

+
I think you assume too much, are pompous in your assumptions and therefore rude without thinking. You also imagine you know it all.
And what have you assumed here? You have assumed that I am Christian and that I believe the Jesus story.

DeepSight:
+
You are unnecessarily aggressive. Enjoy yasef.

I don't think I will waste my time reading that book of yours.

The term "Jew" or "Jews" is modern. All you have to do is check the first so called 5 books of Moses in old testament and you'll realise it doesn't appear there.

Before them, older cultures around the world have had the concept of a "Saviour" for thousands of years!!

Horus was called a saviour.

Buddha was and is still csalled a aviour.

Krishna was and is still called a saviour.

Mithra was called a saviour.

Etc. All of them were known in ancient times before anybody heard of Jesus.

Read it in the following books below:

1. The sixteen crucified saviours- Kasey Graves

2. Christianity before Christ- John G. Jackson

3. Who's this son of glory?- Alvin Buhd

Lucifyre:
For any claim or proposition to be considered true in the first place, there are certain requirements it must meet; otherwise, it’s just an empty claim. Truth, as we understand it, is objective. Truth is verifiable and demonstrable. Truth stands regardless of belief or acceptance.

Truth is falsifiable and consistent. Truth is non-contradictory. And Christianity quite clearly falls short of these criteria, making its claims anything but established truth. In fact, no religion meets that standard— they all make assertions and label them as truth. That’s a big difference.

Your definition for truth is so narrow that only physics and chemistry survive. Apart from these two, nothing else can be true for you since it simply cannot meet the standard.

Christianity is the fakest religion ever. It is built of absurdities. It is founded on pagan ideology and human sacrifice. Something the creator detest. He even said "Thou shall NOT kill" That does not sound like somebody who wants or likes human sacrifice??

Seun:
Believers, I'm hungry for a debate. Let's discuss whether or not Christianity is the true religion, which is what it claims to be. What's your best evidence? Let's have some fun!

You discuss Christianity, but openly ban those equally wanting to discuss Islam, claiming you are somehow too old to deal with matters relating to the banning of freedom of speech when it comes to the one religion? Why not admit with your full chest that you are not for freedom of speech or religion? 😒

Omoawoke:
In 2026, make we dey debate colonizers religion 🤣

Islam is also the religion of colonizers... yes, Islam colonized much of Northern Africa for almost 1400 years now. Why sheet on one religion and not the other? 😒😒😒

sonmvayina:
Christianity is the fakest religion ever. It is built of absurdities. It is founded on pagan ideology and human sacrifice. Something the creator detest. He even said "Thou shall NOT kill" That does not sound like somebody who wants or likes human sacrifice??

Christianity is pure fraud, no doubt about that.

That's why Rome had to destroy and suppress older beliefs for Christianity to survive because nobody in his/her right state of mind will believe the cock and bull story of Jesus.

And as you rightly pointed out, a God that warned that "thou shall not kill" cannot kil his own son. What more? After killing his son, the same God instead of blaming himself, blamed humanity for killing him!! Doesn't make sense at all

immortalcrown:
Is colonization truly the reason you do not want this debate?

Christianity does not belong to the colonizers but let us pretend that you are right. The politics you debate in 2026 was introduced by the same colonizers. The football you debate in 2026 was introduced by the same colonizers. The expensive cars you dream to own came from the same colonizers.

Point of correction, football (soccer) was not invented by colonizers Sir

Seun:
Believers,

I'm hungry for a debate. Let's discuss whether or not Christianity is the true religion, which is what it claims to be. What's your best evidence?

Let's have some fun!

A Christian said.....

"pure and faultless" religion before God not by outward ritual, but by controlling one's tongue, caring for vulnerable individuals like orphans and widows, and maintaining personal purity from worldly corruption

Going by those words, I want to believe Christianity are pronounced in all of these aspects than any other religion all over the world.

Seun:
The best evidence that Christianity is not true is the account of the resurrection of Jesus in the gospels. The accounts in Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are contradictory on basic facts. There is no way to construct a coherent account of the resurrection of Jesus that does't contradict one or more of the biblical accounts. See the contradictions below:

Who went to the tomb?
John: Mary Magdalene alone.
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary."
Mark: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome.
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and "other women."

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
Matthew: One angel sitting on the stone outside.
Mark: One young man sitting inside on the right.
Luke: Two men in dazzling clothes standing inside.
John: Two angels sitting inside (but seen later, after Peter and John visit).

What did the women do afterward?
Mark: They fled and said nothing to anyone because they were afraid.
Matthew & Luke: They ran with joy to tell the disciples.

Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
Matthew & Mark: The disciples are told to go to Galilee, where they will see him.
Luke & John: Jesus appears to them immediately in Jerusalem.

If the supposed eye-witnesses of the most important event in Christianity couldn't agree on basic facts, their religion can't be true. Right?

You argue against the trueness of one religion by presenting your opinions on what is written in the books, while I am banned from Islamic section for doing exactly the same in the Islamic section on Nairaland which is run by your person. How come the same freedom is denied my person? 🥱🥱

Dtruthspeaker:
Were the people of Antioch Jewish before they called them Christians?

Their is no where in the Bible did Jesus established a religion called Christianity, at least he claim to have come to preserve the existing law not to destroy them.
Christian and Christianity is never a religion in Nigeria context

DeepSight:
+
Truth may not be verifiable, demonstrable or falsifiable. Because there are many things that are true that no human being can ever know about, talk less of verify, demonstrate or falsify.

But yes, Truth must be consistent. And it stands regardless of belief.

There’s a difference between Truth existing independently of us, and a human claiming something is true. "For any claim or proposition..."

triplechoice:
Your definition for truth is so narrow that only physics and chemistry survive. Apart from these two, nothing else can be true for you since it simply cannot meet the standard.

Well, that’s the standard for truth when we’re talking about claims concerning objective reality. There’s a reason the bar is high — otherwise every random claim could just be asserted as truth. Virtually all areas that deal with objective reality operate with that same standard. If we lower it here, then any claim can simply declare itself true without meeting any real criteria rendering the wors truth meaningless.

sonmvayina:
Christianity is the fakest religion ever. It is built of absurdities. It is founded on pagan ideology and human sacrifice. Something the creator detest. He even said "Thou shall NOT kill" That does not sound like somebody who wants or likes human sacrifice??

You mean the god that accepted Jephtah's sacrifice of his daughter, supposedly tested Abram with slaughtering his son is against human sacrifice and killing. Same god who outrightly commanded different genocides and supposedly wuped out the whole earth. Pot meet kettle.

musicwriter:
So, you know all that? If so, it doesn't appear you made the first comment that I replied to.

As you rightly said, the concept of "Christ" has been for thousands of years before anybody heard of Jesus. Europeans coalesced all the older "Christ" stories that existed in the known world to create Jesus.

People called "Christ" and sons of Gods before Jesus include; Horus, Krishna, Buddha, Mithra, Zoroaster, Ptolemy Soter, etc).

Europeans simply coalesced all of them and fashioned out Jesus. That's why Jesus has all the attributes of the older Saviours, Redeemers, Messiah

What was wrong in my initial comment?

Pẹ̀lẹ́ tìẹ!😂

musicwriter:
Nobody in his/her right state of mind will believe the cock and bull story of Jesus.

Jesus was never a Christian. Christianity is an association formed after the supposed demise of Jesus. Evidently, Jesus was never aware of Christianity.

Lucifyre:
Well, that’s the standard for truth when we’re talking about claims concerning objective reality. There’s a reason the bar is high — otherwise every random claim could just be asserted as truth. Virtually all areas that deal with objective reality operate with that same standard. If we lower it here, then any claim can simply declare itself true without meeting any real criteria rendering the wors truth meaningless.

No. I disagree. Your standard is not "the standard for truth about objective reality". It is the standard for empirical science . Objective reality doesn't work the way you assume. . Most of what we consider true in life, dreams, consciousness, the past, love, doesn't meet it. That doesn't make those things "random claims". It just means your bar is set for the wrong job.

You fear that without your high bar every "random claim" would be asserted as truth. Apart from this being a false dilemma, it's strange you think you must accept every claim made be others, hence your worry. You can simply ignore claims you find unconvincing.

There's a middle ground. We can evaluate claims by different standard depending on the domain. Science's falsifiability standard is for repeatable, measurable phenomena, not for singular past events, inner experiences or metaphysical claims

You can only demand scientific demonstration if the person making the claim declares it scientifically proven truth. But when they have not said so, it is wrong to to demand scientific evidence. The only thing you can do is to ignore them or take them at their word if you trust the person


For instance, if I tell you, "I dreamed last night that I was flying", you cannot falsify it, demonstrate it or repeat it. Yet it is objectively true that I had that dream. Science confirms humans dream, but the specific content is not verifiable by your standard. By your rule , my claim would be ""not true " which is absurd.

That alone proves your standard is too narrow. You need to widen it so you don't miss out on certain things in life which are true but don't meet those criteria

musicwriter:
As Omoawoke has rightly advised earlier, you need to go and really research these things because lies are often intertwined with truth such that it takes time to separate the lies from the truths or half truths. It will take you up to 5 years of research to discover the truth.

Indeed, the religion that would later be called Christianity originated right here in Africa but it wasn't called Christianity. See attachment for a comparison of the attributes of the ancient Egyptian son of God Horus (7,000 years ago) and Jesus Christ (2,000 years ago).

But then, came European invaders who changed everything and turned everything upside down.

For your information, two European nations Greece and Rome conquered North Africa from 332 BCC (which in ancient time included the place now called Israel and Palestine) and they began fashioning out a God in their image.

They took a piece of the story of a saviour from different cultures near them and began fashioning a God. The first human being who ever called himself "Christ" was a European king named Ptolemy Soter. He forced Africans to worship him. Yes!

Seeing that their exploit was successful in Africa and the so called Middle East, they exported the concept of a universal saviour into Europe. It was all about the purpose of political control. Rome has acquired massive amount of colonies that it was no longer easily able to control. But if they could believe in one saviour instead of different Gods, then it will be easier to control the population. That was the idea.

So, the Christianity of today is not the same one that was in Africa before Europeas arrived ancient Egypt in ancient time (which includd Israel and Palestine in ancient time). Christianity today is European version of Christianity.

Think of it like Apple manufacturing phones cheaper in China and exporting it back to home country USA to sell.

Claims that the ancient Egyptian god Horus was born of a virgin are widespread online, but they are not supported by any actual Egyptian texts or archaeology, they are nothing but conspiracy theories rightly rejected by Egyptologists.

According to mainstream Egyptology, the story of Horus’ birth is very different from the modern narratives circulating on social media.

In authentic Egyptian mythology, Horus is the son of Isis and Osiris. After Osiris was murdered by his brother Seth, Isis recovered and magically reassembled his body. Using her powers, she briefly revived Osiris long enough to conceive Horus.

Their union—though magical—is still a sexual conception. Therefore, Isis is not depicted as a virgin in any ancient text.

Egyptian inscriptions and funerary texts such as the Pyramid Texts, Coffin Texts, and the Book of the Dead all affirm this storyline. Horus’ birth represents divine kingship, protection, and the continuation of Osiris’ legacy, not virginity.

The idea of Horus being born of a virgin comes from modern writers, not ancient Egyptians.
Several factors helped create this misconception:
1. Misinterpretation of Isis’ Titles
Isis was sometimes called “Mother of the God,” which some modern authors falsely equated with virginity. However, this title never implied that she conceived without sexual union.

2. Mixing Myths
Modern storytellers sometimes combine Horus with other solar deities or child-god images, creating a hybrid myth that never existed historically.

3. Modern Pop Culture and Pseudohistory
Films like Zeitgeist and older 19th-century writers such as Gerald Massey (not trained in Egyptology) spread claims of virgin births, crucifixions, and resurrections that are not present in Egyptian religion.

What Egyptologists Say
Professional Egyptologists—including Jan Assmann, Erik Hornung, and James Allen—universally agree:

There is no ancient Egyptian account of Horus being born of a virgin.
The virgin-birth narrative is a modern fabrication and does not appear anywhere in the original mythology.

sonmvayina:
Christianity is the fakest religion ever. It is built of absurdities. It is founded on pagan ideology and human sacrifice. Something the creator detest. He even said "Thou shall NOT kill" That does not sound like somebody who wants or likes human sacrifice??

Then explain Isaiah 53

tanigororo:
Their is no where in the Bible did Jesus established a religion called Christianity, at least he claim to have come to preserve the existing law not to destroy them.
Christian and Christianity is never a religion in Nigeria context

You are just moving post. What Jesus came to establish was clearly expressed in the Bible. And the first followers who subscribed to His religion were called Christians as noted even by Bible. Period

Christianity and Christian are the same thing the only thing is that many who call themselves Christians are not worthy to be called so. And that is still outside the topic

SIRTee15:
Claims that the ancient Egyptian god Horus was born of a virgin are widespread online, but they are not supported by any actual Egyptian texts or archaeology, they are nothing but conspiracy theories rightly rejected by Egyptologists.

According to mainstream Egyptology, the story of Horus’ birth is very different from the modern narratives circulating on social media.

In authentic Egyptian mythology, Horus is the son of Isis and Osiris. After Osiris was murdered by his brother Seth, Isis recovered and magically reassembled his body. Using her powers, she briefly revived Osiris long enough to conceive Horus.

Their union—though magical—is still a sexual conception. Therefore, Isis is not depicted as a virgin in any ancient text.

Egyptian inscriptions and funerary texts such as the Pyramid Texts, Coffin Texts, and the Book of the Dead all affirm this storyline. Horus’ birth represents divine kingship, protection, and the continuation of Osiris’ legacy, not virginity.

The idea of Horus being born of a virgin comes from modern writers, not ancient Egyptians.
Several factors helped create this misconception:
1. Misinterpretation of Isis’ Titles
Isis was sometimes called “Mother of the God,” which some modern authors falsely equated with virginity. However, this title never implied that she conceived without sexual union.

2. Mixing Myths
Modern storytellers sometimes combine Horus with other solar deities or child-god images, creating a hybrid myth that never existed historically.

3. Modern Pop Culture and Pseudohistory
Films like Zeitgeist and older 19th-century writers such as Gerald Massey (not trained in Egyptology) spread claims of virgin births, crucifixions, and resurrections that are not present in Egyptian religion.

What Egyptologists Say
Professional Egyptologists—including Jan Assmann, Erik Hornung, and James Allen—universally agree:

There is no ancient Egyptian account of Horus being born of a virgin.
The virgin-birth narrative is a modern fabrication and does not appear anywhere in the original mythology.

So is the Bible / Christianity version the correct one?

Seun:
Believers,

I'm hungry for a debate. Let's discuss whether or not Christianity is the true religion, which is what it claims to be. What's your best evidence?

Let's have some fun!

Seun leave religion alone and go and sleep.
Nigeria is burning

lawani:
No. Something that existed in Europe was super imposed on the teachings of the Jewish sect called Nazarene which came to be known as Christianity later. The Jews were expecting a Messiah to liberate their nation. A freedom fighter. The concept of Christ is different and it is a Greek mythology figure that predates Christianity. It is even obvious. There has always been Jesus Christ or Iesous Christ and it had nothing to do with any Jew. Iesous was the perfect and blameless son of Zeus. So anybody with an impressive conduct would be called a Christian or small Christ by the ancient Greek. It is quite obvious that Isa bin Yusuf was not the first Christ and that the current Christians are not the first group to be called Christians

This is clearly a beer parlour convulated mix created by a drunk. Europe and the world practiced paganism like Africans. Even Isreal did too so where did Europe get Christianity that they could now impose on Isreal?

Clearly, you are sharing your delus

Dtruthspeaker:
You are just moving post. What Jesus came to establish was clearly expressed in the Bible. And the first followers who subscribed to His religion were called Christians as noted even by Bible. Period

Christianity and Christian are the same thing the only thing is that many who call themselves Christians are not worthy to be called so. And that is still outside the topic

You are just confused, at no point Jesus declared Christianity as a religion.?

tanigororo:
You are just confused, at no point Jesus declared Christianity as a religion.?

You are just pretending that you do not comprehend so you resort to repetition since you real eyes that you do not have any reasonable thing to say further.

What Jesus came to establish was clearly expressed in the Bible. And the first followers who subscribed to His religion were called Christians as was noted even by Bible. Period.

Omoawoke:
So is the Bible / Christianity version the correct one?

The Virgin story in the bible is an independent narrative. It has not a comparison to any other ancient virgin birth.

What makes the Virgin birth of Jesus pretty solid is it was actually prophesied. A prophet 700 yrs b4 Jesus wrote down that a miracle will happen as a sign in the future and this will be a virgin girl given birth.

This is very reassuring to us Christians that the Virgin birth wasnt copied from some mythical stories of other ancient religions.

The Virgin birth in Judaism was already foretold 300 years b4 ancient Greek civilization even existed.

It's another Easter and we have some anti ressurection conspiracy theorists throwing ignorant jabs at the ressurection stories pointing at weak contradictions that have been thoroughly debunked and perfect justice has been done to harmonize the ressurection stories in the 4 gospel.

Well since Seun has joined them, I think we should do another re education for our atheist and agnostic friends on the ressurection story.


Here is my response to the resurrection contradiction claim.


I've gone thru the different resurrection accounts in the 4 gospel and the there's actually no contradiction at all.
In fact the different stories complement each other and when merged together the resurrection events makes logical sense



1. How many women visited the Tomb?

The important thing to note here is that none of the gospel writers said 'only' a particular number visited the tomb. They simply mentioned names of women they knew that visited the tomb.
actual logical contradiction requires exclusionary clauses such as “only x, y, and z were there and no one else” or “only three people witnessed incident a.” None of the Gospel texts do that here; hence, no demonstrable contradiction exists (see Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1-10; John 20:1).

Gospel of John seemingly makes it like only Mary Magdalene visited the tomb until we get to John 20:2. Mary finds the tomb empty, runs to Peter and (presumably) John, and says the following, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and WE do not know where they have laid Him.”

In reporting the words of Mary, John reveals that there were others with Mary.

2. Number of angels

The area which has generated the most discussion concerns the angels who were at the tomb of Jesus. Matthew and Mark relate that one angel addressed the women, while Luke and John say that two angels were at the tomb. This seems to be a discrepancy, with Matthew and Mark knowing of only one angel while Luke and John speak of two. However, Matthew and Mark do not say that there was only one angel at the tomb, but that one angel spoke to the women.

This does not contradict Luke and John, for Matthew and Mark specify that one angel spoke, but they do not say there was only one angel present or only one angel spoke. Quite possibly, one of the angels served as the spokesman for the two, thus he was emphasized.


3. . Who rolled the stone away

The issue with this question is centrally dealing with whether the stone was rolled away from the tomb when the women arrived. Notice that all but one account are in definite agreement. Mark, Luke, and John all say the stone had been moved when the women arrived. It is only Matthew who reports, or appears to report, that the stone was moved as the women were there. So let’s take a careful reading of the verses in question.


Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. (Mt. 28:1-2)

The event in verse 2 had already happened before the women arrived. They did not witness the earthquake or the angel rolling the stone. By the time they arrived the tomb, the stone was already rolled away. Matthew is only telling the readers how the stones was rolled away.


4. What happened after they left the tomb.

This is another area where we have a large degree of agreement between the Gospels. To varying degrees, the Gospels each report that the disciples were told. Or at least it was the intent to tell the disciples, which is all Matthew reveals. I will merge my explanation here with another seemingly contradiction which is who among the women saw Jesus.

If we study the accounts carefully, we can make the FF logical conclusion;

Mary Magdalene & the other women travel from Bethany to Jesus’ tomb.

Nearing the tomb, they notice the stone is rolled away. Mary runs to tell Peter and John while the rest of the women continued to the tomb.

With no corpse, empty tomb and encounter with strange men; the other women were initially shocked and took time for them to recover from these extraordinary encounter, until they got over their shock they told nobody.

Mary Magdalene returns to Jesus’ tomb with Peter and John.

Peter and John return to the house after seeing the empty tomb. Mary stays behind where she sees Jesus.

Afterwards, the other women returned to Bethany, stopping first in the city to report their findings to Clopas and other disciples. Thereafter, Jesus appears to the other women as they’re headed back to Bethany.

Another popular contradiction bible critics love to raise is the time the women visited the tomb which I will explain here.

All accounts indicate that it was early on the first day of the week. Matthew says it was as the day began to dawn. Mark, Luke and John all say “early”. The difficulty comes when we see John say that it was still dark, yet Mark say that the sun had risen.
Sunrise could vary in appearance depending on subjective observation. What is dark to some could be cloudy to another.
So these terms in reference to the same approximate time of day are not mutually exclusive.

Moreover, another explanation could be where the women journeyed from.
Earlier in the week some of the disciples lodged at Bethany, two miles from Jerusalem. It’s possible that the women were staying there for the Sabbath, and when John says it was “still dark”, he’s referring to the time they left Bethany and “went to the tomb”.
That’s more than enough time to go from “still dark” (Jn. 20:1) to “when the sun had risen” (Mk. 16:2).

Omoawoke:
So is the Bible / Christianity version the correct one?

Yes!
That is what we have been saying since