₦airaland Forum

Kobojunkie:
. That isn't true, as we see from the case of Timothy, Paul's friend, who was not circumcised as a child by his mother.

2. As I previously explained to you, their argument has nothing to do with anything since Jesus Christ of Israel never said anything about the need for circumcision. It's like arguing whether one will eat meat or no meat. It means nothing.

3. You are not even close to humiliating me, as all you continue to display is your sheer inability— or complete refusal — to step out of the religious mentality that you have been brainwashed with. It seems clearly the hardest thing for the religious to do, even if it would allow one to objectively assess the information that has been before them for almost 2000 years now. It is sad!

4. Again, there is no evidence that Jesus Christ of Israel or any of His Israelite disciples were directly assaulted by the Romans for their beliefs. Yes, there are numerous Religious fabrications of the accounts that seem to twist the narrative in favor of the Christian religion. But when you examine the actual accounts from the time, you immediately realize the fraud that has been perpetrated by Christianity all of this while, against our collective intelligence.

5. The image explaining the etymology of the word Gentile actually comes from the Oxford dictionary. The verses I posted from Genesis 10, along with all the others, come from Israelite Scripture. So, no, I am not the only one here who realized the actual meaning of the term Gentile separate from the deceitful meaning intended and adopted primarily by those of the religion of Christianity.

6. As for that particular man, since all Jesus Christ of Israel gave him, much like he gave the Canaanite Woman, was a miracle— the same crumbs that fall from the Master's table as the Master's Children eat their food. Jesus Christ of Israel did not preach salvation to the man, leading me to believe the man may not have been an Israelite.

7. Gentiles are Israelites; Timothy, Paul's friend, for instance, was a Gentile, not a Jew, and hence an Israelite.

8. The author of the book of John, who used the phrase The World — a metonymy — provided a clear explanation of the subset to which it referred in John 3 vs 14 - 18.

9. The Samaritans were not Israelites, yet their ancestor was Jacob?
The same Jacob who is ancestor of all Israelites?

😅 A little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing!
See how you are confusing yourself and those who may be taking you seriously. You don't know, yet you refuse to do some research to know, instead you keep repeating the same miseducation you got at some point.

Matthew 10:5-6: "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, 'Go NOT into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'"

You seem wholly ignorant of Jewish history, yet refuse to learn.
Several times you've mentioned the nation of Judah as existing at the time of Christ - a nation that disappeared almost 600 years before Christ!
One thing you don't understand is that by the time of Christ the term "Jew" had become synonyms with OT Israelites because Samaritans were a mixture of peoples.

722 BC the Assyrian Empire conquered the Northern Kingdom of Israel and deported many of its inhabitants. The Assyrians replaced the deported Israelites with foreign settlers from other regions, such as Babylon, Cuthah, and Avva.
OT Israelites who remained in the region, or who later returned, intermarried with these foreign settlers. The resulting population became known as the Samaritans, a distinct ethnoreligious group that were neither OT Israelites nor Jews.

GENTILES
God designated the descendants of Abraham, the Israelites, as His chosen people. He made a covenant with them and revealed His commandments to them, which they were to live according to. Those outside of the nation of Israel were considered gentiles.

CIRCUMCISION
Circumcision was part of this covenant (Genesis 17:10-14) and any uncircumcised male would be "cut off from his people,"

Cornelius – He was a Roman centurion, a Gentile, who converted to Christianity. He, along with his family.
Philemon – He was a wealthy Gentile who converted to Christianity
Luke – He was the author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts. He was a Greek physician who became a believer in Jesus.

I'm tagging everybody on the thread in case anybody bought Kobo's miseducation!
AngelahFlo, Petalss, LordReed, DeepSight, 22jumpstreet, delkuf, achorladey, MaxInDHouse
Jashub, Zaheertyler

.

AngelahFlo:
Thanks for making him see his folly. In all honesty his kind has been given to delusions that he can't see the truth. Left for me I'll leave him at this point. You've proved your point. You gave him the bait and he took it. How can Gentiles be Israelites? Wow
Again thank you sir
I tried making him see but he kept sticking to his Jesus of Israel ideology.

Anti-spam bot dealing with me!
Thanks. No mind am. You're the second person to tell him!

Kobojunkie:
Yes, Jews are Israelites after all. And there were also Gentiles— non-Jewish Israelites— also.

2. Their argument has nothing to do with anything since Jesus Christ of Israel never said anything about the need for circumcision. It's like arguing whether one will eat meat or no meat. It means nothing.

3. It is only established for those who prefer the plagiarized religious narratives. There is no evidence that the Romans persecuted the Jesus Christ of Israel movement.

4. The definition of the word comes from Scripture itself, and the term Gentile is used to refer to members of the same family/clan/bloodline inhabiting other nations or homes away from their fatherland. The many examples of the use of the term established beginning in Genesis 10 vs 2 - 5, provide you with all you need to know of the term and its application.

By centurion, I assumed you meant the one spoken of in the book of Acts, to whom an angel appeared, and all the rest. He was an Israelite. The Canaanite woman, however, made certain to expose the fact that she was not one of the Master's children but rather a dog— a non-Israelite —cattempting to eat from the crumbs that fell from the Master's table as His children ate their food. If you have been paying attention, you would note that Jesus Christ of Israel warned His followers not to give that which is Holy — the Gospel — to the dogs, aka the non-Israelites.

The very etymology of the word itself reveals that at its roots, it was used to refer to people of the same family/clan/bloodline, etc. That information has survived to this day despite the many campaigns by those of the religion of Christianity to see it vanish.

5. It is your religious delusions that fuel your biased take on the conversation between Jesus Christ of Israel and the Samaritan woman. I don't see anything remotely wrong with the way He spoke to them. The fact that He went on to spend days with the community further reveals that He held no particular grudge or disdain for them, as your religious glasses would have you believe.

6. That is the same world which in John 3 vs 14 - 18, Jesus Christ had described as the same world that Moses raised the bronze snake to in the Wilderness in Numbers 21. That world is comprised only of the bloodline of Jacob, condemned to die by YHWH.

Oga, ALL Israelites were circumcised. So again who were Paul and Peter arguing about wether they needed to go through circumcision as new converts to Christianity??
You don't need to answer - I don't want to continue humiliating you.

No evidence? How about this evidence bellow?

You are the ONLY person in the world who defines gentile that way. So until you form your own language, gentile means non-Israelite, which is how everyone else defines it!

The centurion I mean is the one whose servant was healed by Christ (see next post)

Proves nothing, he equally interacted with Gentiles (see next post). That doesn't make him "Jesus of Gentiles"

Nope. By "world" here they mean MANKIND because lots of them were actually not Israelites at all (read up on the make-up of Samaria)

Maxindhouse will not agree with this. His only neighbors are Jehovah's Witnesses!😅

AngelahFlo:
Wow
Hold it right there man!!
Are you saying your uncle eventually met and married this lady he met on TikTok. And they're still married?

Kinda remind me of some friends I met on Facebook. I remember one experience of mine where I met this pretty sexy lady through Facebook. You see those days I used to post my short stories on the Facebook notes page ( I wonder why they scrapped that feature) This lady read my work and literally fell in love with the writer she hadn't met yet at the time.
She sent me a friend request which I accepted and we swapped chats back and forth for like 2 weeks before she agreed to meet me on a date. This was back in 2013 or 2014 if I recall. I asked for her number which she provided and we moved from the net to phone gist mates. Long story short we met and had a wonderful date. She blew me away with her beauty and simplicity. All she ordered was a cold slaw and minerals while I was expecting her to be expensive. I wasn't sharp. Just gisted and we went our separate ways but we continued our friendship until one day about a year later we had another date and this time, she told me she was married and pregnant for another guy who she didn't really love cos of the way she was being treated. I've met several friends on Facebook and I've maintained a strong relationship with about 3 of them till I lost their contact when my old phone was stolen. Love is a funny thing really.

I was banned again. They ban me every second post I make!
Yeah, there seems to be something different about chatting someone for some time before meeting them in person that makes the connection special.
Instead of meeting the person in person from the beginning. I think it is easier to fall in love that way because your imagination makes them up the way you wish - like a silhouette, it is easier to love a sihouette

Kobojunkie:
1. What is clear is you seem desperate to claim a win when there is no such thing to be had in this for you, given the lack of evidence.

2. Again, what I have said up to this point, something that has yet to change even now, is that the followers of Jesus Christ — derogatively referred to as Christians at the time and ALL OF THEM Jews/Israelites— were persecuted, NOT by the Romans but by their fellow JEWS. You keep thinking that ignoring this aspect of my argument would somehow give you the win, but it won't.

The Roman persecution of the Christians happened only after the movement was hijacked by the non-Israelites(mostly Romans) and turned into a religio-political movement, resulting in infighting between the many factions within the movement, and eventually in the state moving in to control their power until it no longer could.

3. Stop lying already! You showed no such thing, given that it is untrue and you know it yourself. 🙄

4. But Jesus Christ did not only did with a Samaritan woman but rather the community of Samaritans in the area. This is clearly documented in John 4 for all to read.

5. The centurion was a Gentile from his own accounts, however, the Canaanite woman was not a Gentile, and she knew this well. This is why she, the Canaanite woman, asked, not for the food meant for the children of the Master, but rather for the crumbs that fell from the Master's table as the Master's children ate their food — miracles are some of these.

Huh? @capitalised/coloured, all of them Jews/Israelites?? So who were Paul and Peter arguing about wether they needed to be circumcised??
Please leave this point, you've lost it. It's been established that early Christians were greatly persecuted by Rome and Romans, nationally and locally. It didn't start after anybody hijacked anything!

Please define Gentile again for us and explain how the centurion was not a Gentile but the Canaanite woman was.

Was how Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman how he spoke to fellow Jews? (Since he was equally sent to them all) - "You Samaritans don't know what you worship, we Jews know what we worship". Was he in the habit of speaking to Samaritans and the woman was surprised he spoke to her? Did you read the part where they said: "...we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.” Note: THE WORLD!!!

Kobojunkieee:
1. I already posted the research for you to see for yourself. Paul and Silas were accused of being troublemaker Jews, not Christians, telling people that which is unlawful by Roman law.

2. The statement on Claudius says Jews, not Christians, were expelled from Rome. We know that Priscilla and her husband, written of in the Book of Acts, were among those who were expelled during that time. And according to them, it was not a Jesus Christ of Israel situation but a Jewish squabble that led to their eviction.
As Jewish Christians were considered a part of the Jewish community at the time, they were also expelled along with the other Jews.

2. As for the fire that razed Rome, it occurred in 64 AD, and if we follow closely the accounts from people such as Tarcitus, himself a Roman official a the time, we arrive at the Christians being chosen as scapegoats for Nero's punishment, not for their belief but for the fact that they were the most hated among the population at the time. It was a case of a bully choosing the most hated of the weak people to pin crimes on.
This isn't persecution. According to Tacitus, they were thrown under the bus because they were the most hated by the other people.

3. All you made clear was your ignorance of Jesus Christ of Israel by your continuous assertion of such ideas like Jesus Christ of Israel only approached Jews, which we have so far shown was not true. Even some among His disciples were likely not even Jews. Jesus Christ of Israel made clear He was sent only to the Lost Sheep of Israel and not to mankind.

Funny guy, still arguing settled matter. You at least concede Christians were hated. So why were Christians hated? And when did this hatred start? And what did this hatred lead to locally. Let me see how you avoid the p-word.

As for your (VERY ANNOYINGLY) always writing Jesus as "Jesus of Israel", you've been shown how he was infact "Jesus of the Jews", how he dealt with the Samaritan woman, and how he spoke to her. Yet you say his dealing with her at all is proof he was also sent to Samaritans - you forget he not only also dealt with the Centurion and the Cananite woman, both gentiles, he performed miracles for them but none for the Samaritan.

broIZ:
I feel like you guys are just arguing semantics.
Two differing opinions:
Kobo junkie's is that it's already against the law so it's not persecution with the underlying assumption that persecution simply means people are doing their thing which is not against the law yet you're harassing/killing/jailing people for it.

another is the other guy that roman making practicing Christianity against the law so they can be punished is just persecution.

But who's right? According to ICC persecution simply means you because it goes against their fundamental human right of freedom of identity and religion. even if that go against the national law or not.

now back to the time of roman. Well roman actually don't really have strict rules on what religion the citizen practice. we know they even allowed Judaism to exist and didn't persecute them. Perhaps because Judaist were not going about looking for followers among roman citizens. I think they allowed Christianity to exist without making it unlawful for a while when it's just small sect but later make it unlawful to practice.
I don't know if it's already unlawful or not during that bible scene. But if we are to follow the meaning of persecution as we know it now, then the other guy is right. It's persecution because it goes against their fundamental right of identity and religion irrespective of whether it's against roman law or not.

Thank you, not only that, EVERYONE calls it persecution as in below. Mr Kobojunkie cannot be the only one right while everyone else is wrong!

LordReed:
You have a funny way of arguing. Do you just enjoy being contrarian?

Thanks. I take that as a compliment. It's a matter of seeing both sides of the argument😎. Unlike someone like, say, Kobojunkie, who'd argue from now till eternity that early Christians were never persecuted by Rome - even when you show him proof that's not true!😆

SavageResponse:
Leave him be, let him learn his lesson the hard way!

Then again the surprise could be on us. Remember this:

This went on for two years. Then...she showed up. She's real. He's legit happy (not drinking anymore) and they just had a kid. It was the weirdest thing.

And this:

My ugly-ass uncle got a mail order bride... and 25 years later they are legit happily in love. She’s super cool and pretty good looking too.

LordReed:
So which is it: it is likely a scam because Nigerians have perfected scamming or it is not a scam because Nigerians have perfected scamming?

These are the operative words - "possibly not", "probably is", and "Nigeria".
"Nigeria" is what turned "possibly not" into "probably is"

LordReed:
It was Ghanaians that started the Nigerian Prince scam.

Meanwhile, it is you claiming this isn't a scam but also you so adamant that Nigeria is country full of scam. You can't have it both ways man.

I don't know who started it. Could be Martians. But Nigerians perfected it, then ran with it, then turned it into a real profession that people go to Yahoo school to learn!

I was telling that poster there are quite a few 25-year-old Naija ladies that'd gladly marry the guy.

dkidd:
Everyone should do what makes them happy please. Allow them love up. Life is short and everyone deserves a shot at it. To learn the lessons and enjoy the blessings or suffer the curses anywhich way

I actually agree with you. Instead of staying in Europe, bored. I bet he craves that adventure and warm weather and sun. He'd return to Europe tanned and with stories to tell!

.

LordReed:
WRONG! We find romance scammers from everywhere. The biggest romance scammers might actual be South East Asians.

What prevented her from getting a visa when she had someone sponsoring the trip? Someone that can easily be traced? I don't buy it.

There's only one country that has scam named after it. Type in Nigetian scam and see the results, or Nigerian prince. The only country with that honor

I guess you have not tried obtaining a visa. Even when he comes he still won't be able to get a visa for her. Even after they marry it'd still take some time

Sparsy:
But why is life like this?

In all these heartbreaking occurrences, I'm always compelled to ask if God is watching?

There's more than meets the eye.

The universe is governed by some strange and mysterious entities that we are yet to understand.

All this because of an accident - accidents that happen everyday

The10G:
Please ensure your uncle keeps sending without questioning. It's part of love ooo

Please tell your Uncle to keep sending

He's gone beyond sending, he's actually going there. Divorcing his wife and going, together with a wedding ring and a well-rehearsed marriage proposal!😆

LordReed:
I'd say it's a scam. If she didn't get a visa then there's no reason to think she really wants to be with him. That's if there is even a she in the first place.

But to get visa is not easy na. Are you not in Nigeria? On what basis would she get a visa?
It is possibly not a scam.
The only thing making it likely a scam is one word.
Remove that word and it could be legit.
That word? NIGERIA!

Kobojunkie:
1. Nonsense!

2. The legal codes in Rome were not easily cooked up like what you have today in Nigeria.

3. The law was in place before Paul and Silas showed up in Philippi. There was no persecution.

Kobojunkie:
Try to stay on track! Recall instead that the argument has been that Jesus Christ of Israel and His disciples were persecuted, not by Rome, but by their fellow Jews.

2. You seem to have lost track of your argument if you indeed asking me this. 😂😂😂😂

Oga, why not do some research instead of these baseless arguments. At least just use GOOGLE.
Local persecution of Christians (as with Paul and Silas) were already rife before Claudius ordered Jews out of Rome about 40 AD due to someone named "Chrestus" (Jesus). Then Nero intensified it starting 54 AD.
Do some research just for your own knowledge not for argument.

Another thing, you keep writing "Jesus of Israel" when it has been clearly shown to you that it is actually "Jesus of the Jews". If you must write "Jesus of the" then you must write that, otherwise leave it as just "Jesus", which is what he truly is - Jesus of mankind!

Kobojunkie:
Unlawful customs were against the law, and so it was not persecution.

2. Jesus Christ of Israel was not crucified for that purpose at all. Rather, the high priest and his gang fabricated lies against Jesus Christ of Israel, and then handed Him over to Rome as one who sought to usurp the Jewish throne. Pilate and Herod did not find Jesus Christ guilty of the crimes leveled against Him and deserving of the death penalty.
With Jesus Christ of Israel, there was no religion. His accusers were the Jews. They simply used Rome to accomplish their hateful acts against Him.

This guy! Can't you understand that anything can be made illegal?? The illegality or legality is NOT what makes persecution!. If they pass a law you can't practice your religion, that's persecution despite it's against the law!

Kobojunkie:
2. My mistake! He did say to Pilate that he was right.

Now we're finally getting somewhere. Now if even Christ was crucified for his beliefs how much more the apostles?
Do you now accept they were indeed persecuted right from the begining

Kobojunkie:
I recall asking you a question earlier, which you conveniently refused to answer.
This is really simple!

Oga, it was illegal to advocate any religion that ran counter to Rome! That's also why even Christ himself was crucified!

Kobojunkie:
You should know by now to stop trying to force your ideas between the lines of Scripture. It does not work with me.

2. But Jesus Christ never referred to Himself as the King of the Jews, though. Stop with the incessant attempts to include your delusions in the stories already!
Is it that you are operating under some delusion that there was religious freedom or tolerance in the Roman Empire or something at the time? There were laws in place to regulate the beliefs of the people, that much is made clear in the passage. You are told that what Paul did was considered unlawful —against the law of the land — yet you continue to blindly argue that it was persecution of some sort. 🙄🙄🙄

That's exactly the point: they were PERSECUTING Christians for their religious beliefs (which were against the Law)!

The main charge against Christ was that He was king of the Jews and that's what Pilate asked him ("Are you you king of the Jews?)

Kobojunkie:
Read the story and stick to what is in fact stated.
What Paul and Silas did was arrested by the men who had lost their slave girl. They accused Paul and Silas of teaching ideas that were unlawful for Romans to do. Clearly, it was not the supposed preaching but the content of what they said that brought about the flogging. So, as long as the content was unlawful, I don't see how it can be construed as persecution by anyone except one is dead set on making an issue of this.
Another thing to note is that in the verses above, Paul and Silas are said to have arrived in the area only days before and may not have been previously aware of the unlawfulness of disemminating those particular details hence the reason.

Oga you're really dense. Ok, define persecution for us. Were Christians not being punished for breaking the law (practicing Christianity). Does the fact it is against the law now make it no longer persecution?? You ok at all?

Kobojunkie:
Wrong! Again, Paul was not persecuted; the verse you quoted clearly stated that he was arrested for violating legal code and was punished for it.

Also, if you consider the fact that before 70 AD, Nero was accused of unjustly accusing the Jews of the time of crimes, then you realize that the whole idea of Christianity being criminalized in Rome was probably not true during the time before the eventual destruction of Jerusalem and Judah. The supposed criminalization came much, much later, probably towards the end of the second century in Rome.

You keep writing this nonsense when it's right there in your Bible that their crime was Christianity! Even Jesus himself was accused of trying to supplant Caesar by declaring himself king of the Jews. It was simply ILLEGAL from the beginning to advocate Christianity because it runs counter to accepted Roman practices!!

Kobojunkie:
They were advocating unlawful customs. If the law is clear that an idea is unlawful, advocating that idea is against the law and hence punishable by the law.

Imagine the unlawful act was preaching on the streets where the law clearly says, "No preaching allowed." If a man ignored the signs and went on to preach anyways, and was arrested for clearly violating legal code, do you conclude that the man was being persecuted as well?

Oga, I really think I'm wasting my time because you're unteachable!
Persecution means harassing someone for their beliefs or fior advocating those beliefs.
Removing the spirit from the girl was NOT a crime. That's why they didn't accuse them of that!
They insread accused them of preaching Christianity which was a crime.
If they were not preaching Christianity there would have been nothing to charge them with!
Their crime was advocating an alien, disruptive theology!

Kobojunkie:
Wrong! Again, Paul was not persecuted; the verse you quoted clearly stated that he was arrested for violating legal code and was punished for it.

Also, if you consider the fact that before 70 AD, Nero was accused of unjustly accusing the Jews of the time of crimes, then you realize that the whole idea of Christianity being criminalized in Rome was probably not true during the time before the eventual destruction of Jerusalem and Judah. The supposed criminalization came much, much later, probably towards the end of the second century in Rome.

I am trying my best not to label you as dense.
You see it written in the Bible in black and white!
They could have accused Paul concerning the girl. THEY DIDN'T!! Instead they accused him of PREACHING about Christianity!! How far is that from Christianity being illegal?? Jeez!!

Kobojunkie:
They were punished for breaking the law— unlawful act. Na you post am, and na you come dey call me dishonest for asserting exactly what is stated... how come?

Being a Christian was an unlawful act, talkless of preaching it!! That's the meaning of Persecution: being punished for being a Christian because being a Christian was AGAINST THE LAW!!!

Kobojunkie:
Go back through the story to realize what, in fact, happened. Paul cast a demon out of a girl who never asked him to or desired his help. He was arrested by those around the girl who saw him render her of no use to them by his actions on the grounds of causing problems. Read what is, in fact, contained in the book there and stop trying to play the victim card here. There was no mention of his belief or Jesus Christ of Israel or the fact that he was a Jew as the reason for his prosecution and imprisonment.

Stop being DISHONEST!! That's NOT what they were being punished for! It says it clearly what they were being punished for: For ADVOCATING (PREACHING!!!)