₦airaland Forum

felixomor:
Just look at yourself.

Unfortunately, is this not all DoctorAlien has been telling you?
You were simply trying to derail the thread endlessly....

Three people have told u on this thread, what I have always told you.
You have a reading problem.

Guy, you don quickly change direction. I thought you were saying it's not the priests' decision?

DoctorAlien:
Let me just play along with you.

The chief priests could have screamed to Judas as was leaving "what do you want us to do with this money?" He could have replied "anything." In other words, "use the money I gave you to buy anything, including land."

Therefore, Judas bought the land for the chief priests.

Lol... This is funny.
If Judas said, use the money to buy anything. How does that mean he bought the land for them? If you gimme money to use to do anything, is the money still yours? Of course not

felixomor:
@ bolded.
I can see how u have to add to the bible to buttress the lie, you tell yourself.

[b]6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “This is blood money, and it is against our Law to put it in the Temple treasury.” 7 After reaching an agreement about it, they used the money to buy Potter's Field, as a cemetery for foreigners. [/b]8 That is why that field is called “Field of Blood” to this very day.

Read your bible, you won't hear. Its Apostle Suleiman you will be defending all over nairaland.

And Am not a Christian so I don't need to add to the bible. The bible is wack enough on its own

DoctorAlien:
We are looking at the fact that if Judas did not provide the funds, the land would not have been bought.

Judas bought the land(for the chief priests maybe) because he funded the purchase!

Judas didn't BUY the land. The chief priest did. It was the priests decision to buy the land, the actual purchase was carried out by the priests

Judas Iscariot merely threw the money on the ground... They didn't even have to take it.
Or are you saying, if I throw morning on the ground and a person takes and uses it to buy a gun, that means I bought the gun

KingEbukasBlog:
Please stop embarrassing yourself here na . What kind of shallow responses are these na . How far you na . Its not by force to comment . Accept the beating you have received and leave abeg

Abeg shift!! This particular tactic is old and as ineffective as ever... But nice try tho'

DoctorAlien:
He needs not claim ownership of the land before he is recognized as the buyer. It can be said he bought the land for the chief priests, just like I can give the phone which my friend bought with my $100 to another friend. Okay?

If you GAVE $100 to a friend to use as he wishes and he buys a phone. Can you collect the phone from him? No because it's not your own!!
BTW the question is not about ownership but about who bought the phone

DoctorAlien:
Assuming he did not bring the money, would the land have been bought?

If I give a friend $100 and he uses it to buy a phone for me from Aliexpress: who bought the phone?

The last paragraph of your post reveals your puerile sense of logic. You need to read.

Didn't see the last part of your comment earlier . There's something called affirmative defenses in law. It means disproving a fact by proving another fact. The illustration I gave is an example. It's called alibi...
Apparently, you're the one who needs to read more

DoctorAlien:
Assuming he did not bring the money, would the land have been bought?

If I give a friend $100 and he uses it to buy a phone[b] for me[/b] from Aliexpress: who bought the phone?

They didn't buy the land for him! Don't you have access to a bible

blueAgent:
Look at excuse.

When are we going to see a video proof of Evolution and bigbang?

I don't believe in evolution or big bang
.
So when are we going to see video evidence of God

DoctorAlien:
Oga, if Judas did not get the money across to the chief priests, would the land have been bought?

I expected you to ask yourself this question.

If your answer to the question is "no", then I don't know what else you're saying, because it is obvious to every thinking being that the mere act of funding of the purchase qualifies Judas to be labelled as the buyer.

Judas didn't fund the purchase... Judas already relinquished ownership of the money by throwing it back to the priests. The priests used their money to buy a land... The second account clearly states that " Judas BOUGHT "...
For him to have bought there must have been an intention to buy. If I throw money at someone and the person goes to buy hard drugs. Can it be said that I bought the drugs?


BTW, the statement: I was at ibadan is not only contradicted by " I wasn't at Ibadan''. If I say , "I was at Lagos", it's also a contradiction because I can't be at two places at the same time

felixomor:
You dont even read what you are replying.
I clearly specifically told you "from common sense"

DoctorAlien has already told u again, what a contradiction is.
And he told u what a contradiction to "Judas bought the land" would have been.

You can only keep pretending.
Done on that.

Judas did not by the land, the priests did. At least in the first account... Therefore, contradiction!

Your acrobatics is intriguing tho

DoctorAlien:
A statement that is contradictory to "Judas bought the field" is "Judas did not buy the field"

The chief priests bought the field, but it was Judas who funded the buying. Thus, Judas can be said to have bought the field.

U guys are obviously not familiar with the story..
In the first account, Judas had no intention to buy any land, he merely returned the money they gave him. In the second he acquired the land himself and died on the land. So "Judas did not buy the field."
Even the creation story has two accounts. The bible is nothing more than badly written fiction

felixomor:
Wait, i dont want to derail this thread.

But let me just answer your question from simple common sense, without even opening the bible.

Lets assume your paraphrasing of the bible is correct:

Supposing Judas bought the land in January and the priest that you are tAlking about, bought the land later in June,

Please with your common sense,
Is it still a contradiction to say "they both bought the land"?

I suggest u should open your bible because you are talking complete trash:

In the first account, he gave the money to the priests who used it to buy a burial place for strangers. While in the second account, the money that was already used by the priests was used by Judas to buy a land where he fell to his death...

You obviously are not even familiar with the story. So shameful

felixomor:
The Word of God and His History.

And the word of god is what? Scientific proof or what? I don't need to tell you that's a fallacy... Using the word of god to prove the existence of god

felixomor:
You do know what a contradiction means,
Or u dont?

Oh... Are u really saying that's not a contradiction?

felixomor:
Yes there is proof that it wasnt created by what you call "Aliens".

What's the proof?

felixomor:
Old Gist.

Please educate yourself on what you call bible "contradictions"
Here:

https://www.nairaland.com/3538710/bible-contradiction-dummies-correction-internet

Remember I asked you a question on that thread that you evaded...

Matt 27: 1-7 says Judas bought the land he was buried in while acts 1: 16-18 says the priests bought it... Tell me that's not a contradiction

KingEbukasBlog:
Define proof . And is there proof that the universe was not created by God ??



What does this mean ? Can you explain why a CREATED universe proves that there is NO CREATOR .



There is no such thing as the 'Christian God' . If you meant to ask for the proof that the Christian's concept of God is true , then I'd say scrutiny. Christian theism fulfills every logical expectation of what God should be like .

. Is there proof the universe wasn't created by aliens? A created universe doesn't prove god, since it doesn't prove that a set of super- intelligent aliens also created the world

Please, show how Christianity fulfills every logical explanation of what god should look like and show why same is not applicable to the Islamic god

DoctorAlien:
That the Bible is always true.

The contradictions in the bible show that it's not true:
2SA 24:1 The Lord inspired David to take the census.
1CH 21:1 Satan inspired the census.


1KI 22:23, 2CH 18:22, 2TH 2:11 God himself causes a lying spirit.
PR 12:22 God abhors lying lips and delights in honesty.

2CH 19:7, AC 10:34, RO 2:11 There is no injustice or partiality with the Lord.
RO 9:15-18 God has mercy on (and hardens the hearts of) whom he pleases.

MT 7:21 Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
AC 2:21, RO 10:13 Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
AC 2:39 Those God calls to himself will be save

MT 8:28-33 Two demoniacs are healed in the Gadarene swine incident.
MK 5:2-16, LK 8:26-36 One demoniac is healed in this incide

KingEbukasBlog:
Oh no no I'm not a deist . I'm a Christian .

So bro , don't evade the question . Answer

There's still no proof the universe was created by god.. So a created universe doesn't prove god, even if we are assuming it was created.
So tell me, is there any proof of the existence of the Christian god?

KingEbukasBlog:
That something cannot come from absolute nothingness or cause itself to exist . Didn't you read the write-up ?

Is funny that the basis of your own belief is either of the aforementioned and that every orderly complex system began to exist due to random chaotic processes . Am I wrong?

Are you a deist now? My bad!!
And here I was thinking you are still a Christian

BTW Christianity is also the most abject religion

DoctorAlien:
No. We believe in the GOD that created the ancient Jews and Romans, and who, indeed, created the whole universe, and everything that exists.

And the basis for your belief is??

felixomor:
Please, if u dont have meaningful information,
Dont derail the thread.

But am not derailing... Am actually just holding a contrary position to yours on the same subject matter

felixomor:
You are the only one scared here.
I only posted a breaking news and u started quoting "666"
Who asked you ?

You only posted breaking news and you titled it Endwatch breaking news?
The thread is an obvious but pathetic attempt to connect recent events with the bible.

And please, why would I be scared? When Jesus himself prophesied that he would come before all his followers died...Matt 16:28 Or you didn't read that part of the bible?

Even Jesus is giving fake prophecies.. At least we know where Suleiman learnt his craft

elampiro:
So between Ronaldo and Nani, who would you choose to score for you from a clear position at the edge of the box assuming the next marker is 3 yards away. Not freekicks.

I will choose Ronaldo but that doesn't change the fact that statistically Ronaldo 's accuracy percentage is lower than that of others... That's the hard fact... The construction of the facts is another matter entirely

elampiro:
Not every goal attempt is a shooting accuracy in the context I speak. There are times you just make attempts for the sake of that is logical to do under the circumstance. But what I mean is shooting particularly from outside the box or just inside it after the way is clear to hit target with a powerful shot, either curly it or hitting a rocket. Nani mostly balloon from there while Ronaldo, Robben and Messi mostly hit target from such clear shooting position.

This is not true... For shots outside the box, Ronaldo has a terrible shot accuracy.. The reason he scores or used to score a lot of them was because he played a lot of them... In fact he played three times the number of shots an average player will play per match

felixomor:
Keep looking.

This one is so scared of the end of the world... Guy, take a chill pill!

Christians and paranoia tho'... So how is a microchip the same as a mark of 666? Or isn't that what the bible says?

elampiro:
Nani is talented/skillful with limits. For instance, he cannot head. His shot accuracy is like 30% (compared to Ronaldo, Robben, Messi, etc with 70% and above). Nani has no great pass. He is behind Giggs in crossing.

But Nani is great at short dribbling, zigzaging, speed-stop-break movement and pace.

So Nani is very skillful in some areas while lacking the required skills in other key footballing areas, hence his lack of consistency to be a world class.

Ronaldo doesn't have 70% shooting accuracy... Not sure even Messi has that..
I get your point

How many people have died from sicknesses

God is a narcissist... Here's why
- he always wants to be the center of attraction
- he holds grudges
- it's never his fault, it's always yours or the devil's