₦airaland Forum

Kenyanstar: I have come to acknowlegde that most nigerians are educated but lack wisdom. Kenyans were in the same cuagmayer a decade ago. TB joshua lacks the moral grounds to perpetuate a godly act, when he slapped and ended acknowlegding without a tinge of shame that he would repeat the same mundane act. Kenyan preachers were forced to be indicted into a tribunal that regulates there activites which ensures that believers are not ripped by fake churches. Currently kenyas top televangelists are either serving time for different crimes commited under the holy cloth.

may be you should read the stories well.... It aint about TB Joshua, and that Nigga slapped no one...it is about Oyedepo. And yeah, I would a TB joshua that at least shows compassion for the needy with his various welfare program than an Oledepo that that is busy building empires from the contribution of poor folks and rich folks in his church..... Unlike Kenya where at least some right thinking people have made laws to curtail the excesses of the conmen, Nigerians get so emotional and irrational when it comes to religion both muslims and christians alike, they will label you as evil and of the devil. It is pathetic and annoying, they see their bible wielding conmen as some super natural being that is above reproach.

Super1759: hahahhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahhahahaaha.this man! And u say ur own beta pass ma own? Chineke meeeeeee.guy if I be u.I go go nysc secretairate and faint dia.I won't stand up even if they pour me water.they wil now byforce relocate me.wia I deh I deh heaven be that oooo.

nna, I was in Abuja for complete one month, paid 30grand to get relocated to lagos where I leave but for where na....i take vex enter sokoto, do late clearance...now i don begin ask for refund from my runsman.....all i need now na chic...the female corper dem post here no follow...na their Uni babes i wan go arrange...already i don get contacts....i am meeting this chic in sokoto town nxt wk soon as allawee show...no time o....and i no wan carry olosho, me i be clean fine guy, i no need that kind parols....

[quote author=ondo_boi]LMAO! Na village u dey? If u don sign ur terminal letter u beta go home...na so so flexn dudes dey do 4 here...no pay no work[/quote]guy where u dey serve.....me i dey inside one villa in sokoto...no light, no beer and dont even try touchin the gals let alone touch them....else u will be leaving here maimed for life....congie wan kill guys for here...from my villa to sokoto town na 700 going and another 700 comin back....from d lga i dey stay to the villa my ppa dey is 300 to and fro....me na once in a wk i dey go ppa...nxt wk gan na no pay no work parols.....na chic me i need here....d sun heat here is crazy....i bathe like 5 times everyday here cos of the sun...then the sand storm is crazy...yestarday, I had to take off my contacts when it started....geez, i almost got blinded...could not find my way home at the thick of the storm...when i got home, my room was covered in dust.....this place is bleeped men

Super1759: Make una try emulate us in kogi.I be batch A.d land is blessed with fresh fruits and food. Mango,cashew,yamNpalm nut,corn,etc. A d village I deh.every morning.we go puck mango and cashew(fresh and confirm) we pray and bless amd and chop and go to our ppa.4 night.we go cook yam(d villagers gave us) on firewood and chop am wit oil,drink water and sleep.is this not balance diet? We don even 4get dis allowee tin sef

lol...obviously, U are one of those corpers planning to build a home with their allawee...hahahaha...guy u dey suffer walahi...what type of life are u trying to encourage here? U be almajiri? Dont you ve parents or guardians...lol...guy I am in a villa in Sokoto state, food has never been a problem here either but I don't ve to stoop to the level you are recommending ...na wa o....guy i hope u aint playing with their gals sha...here na congie be the wahala o...lol

akj26: I just dey pity D new corpers batch A.Those guyz don broke pata pata, they are just leaving on D old corpers.

what? Leaving off which old corper? Are you high on Urine stench? Am in the batch A of 2012 and have been the one catering for my room mate who is a Batch B corper...broke ass buch that like to act like say na their own bad pass...lol

bappahman: The report is that the office of the accountant general had allocated the money for nysc to the airport authority due to electrical problems in airports across the country

guy what exactly are you saying??lol

It is realy annoying how these dishonest bunch keep our money in a fix deposit to accrue some interest before we get paid. Na God go punish them. Imagine they posted me to a village in Sabon Birnin, sokoto state. From sabon birnin to my PPA to and fro costs me 300 bucks, me already na once in a wk parol things na im i dey....next wk i no go go anywhere until i get that alert....even the state and lga allawee dem no pay...the batch b set wey we meet dem dey owe them like 3months state allawee...their father...let the protest begin jare.

Quote From Joeagbaje
The apostles were based in Jerusalem battling with mosaic law. But Jesus wanted the gospel to reach the Gentiles. Jesus sent paul to the Gentiles , and the early church endorsed it. Galatians 2:8-9 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me,they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

My response:
“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away not an iota, not a dot will change from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever changes one of the least of the commandments, and teaches men so (e.g. Paul), shall be the least in the Kingdom of heaven” – Mathew 5:17-19 “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to become void” – Luke 16:17
These were Jesus's words and contrary to what you, towing the Pauline gospel will like us to believe, Jesus had no problem with the law, instead he endorsed it and threatened anyone that tries to undermine the law. I don't know where you got the impression or Idea that the disciples were battling with the Judaic law when infact the problem that they were having with paul was because Paul's preaching was encouraging even jewish christians not to follow the judiac laws which even Jesus had endorsed.
Here is one of paul's numerous twist of faith based salvation:
Ephesians 2:8-9
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by work.
Paul's doctrine of belief and faith rather than good works brought him into conflict with Jesus' handpicked disciples who knew Jesus personally and better understood his teachings. The apostle James in obvious response to Paul's misleading preachments countered: “Faith by itself, if it has no works is dead” - James 2:17 “A man is justified by works not faith alone”- James 2:24 “As body without spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead” – James 2:26. Paul himself alluded to this doctrinal confrontation with Jesus' handpicked disciples: “If someone preaches another Jesus different from the one we preach…if you receive a different gospel from the one you accepted…I think that I am not in the least inferior to these superlative apostles” - 2 Corinthians 11:4-5
The endorsement from the leadership in the church in Jerusalem he spoke about in Galatians 2:8-9 were his own claims or at best his own understanding of the agreement reached when he had a meeting with the Jerusalem council comprising of james peter and john.

Quote from Joagbaje
The church didn't dispute the fact. If someone highly places in the society and a terror to the. Birch suddenly became a convert and became so humble labouring among the people . This must be God.
My response:
This is another vague statement based on personal rationalization and an act of fore-conclusion.
I could as well say a person that has an enormous agender as to create another religion based on a mix of a paganized version of jewish theological history and tradition and middle eastern dieties' myth plus some personal mystical philosophy can go all the way to achieve his agender, it does not make my assertion a fact. So your response there is vague and does not address the issue quoted.

Quote from Joagbaje
Jesus didn't tell Peter and James such things. They didn't make such claim . Jesus told them of the coming of the holy spirit who will teach them all things. Paul was the main person he granted such great revelation of the church to. The early church didn't doubt such authenticity. So it shouldn't be an issue with us. He was openly endorsed and commissioned. By men and by the holyghost who is the chairman of the church Acts 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
Response from Me:
Yes Jesus may not have explicitly told them like I depicted it, neither did he say anything about anyone outside of the 12 disciples getting a different superior revelation of the church, such claims could only be traced to Paul. And did you say he was openly endorsed by God and men? How? Where? Besides the books written by Paul himself where else was it stated that God gave him such revelation to creat a christ entirely different from the historical Christ of the jew. Don't even mention act cause that is exactly thesame thing if you know about the theological background of the author, Luke.
Luke was a ( Koine) Greek speaking Gentile writing for an audience of Gentile Christians. The Early Church Fathers wrote that Luke was a physician in Antioch and an adherent of the Apostle Paul. It is said to be that the author of the Gospel of Luke is the same as the author of the Acts of the Apostles.
Whatever he said was gotten from paul's own account so quit with all that God picked him specially story abeg bro.

Quote from Joagbeja
Jesus already spoke against Judaic laws. He broke the sabbath. He told Peter to eat unclean meat etc. Paul only amplified what Jesus came to do .
My Response:
Again brother, you are very wrong in your submissions that Jesus broke the sabbath day law.
Matt. 15:1-3 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!" Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
Jesus was critisizing their deliberate misinterpretation of the the law. The pharasis were adding their complicated traditional observance to the interpretation of the mosaic laws and that was what Jesus condemned and not the sabbath observance.
Matthew 12:1-14; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5 In this passage Jesus and His disciples were traveling about, as they often did in their preaching work. This day was the Sabbath, and they were traveling through grain fields. The disciples were hungry so they plucked grain and ate. This was not stealing but was expressly permitted by the law, as long as one did so only to meet an immediate need, not to carry it home and keep it for future consumption (Deuteronomy 23:24). The Pharisees criticized the act, not as stealing, but as a violation of the Sabbath. This was the first of a whole series of conflicts between Jesus and the Pharisees about the Sabbath. Two things must be remembered.
(1) The Pharisees, as they had done with other things (Matthew 15:1-14), had added a whole complex system of traditions about Sabbath observance. Much of this was intricate and detailed; but above all it was based on their own ideas, not on what God's law really said. (2) They were motivated in their criticisms, not by sincere concern for the Sabbath, but by a desire to trap Jesus (v10). Jesus did not disobey God's Sabbath law: not here or any place else, nor did He defend anyone else in violating it. Note V7 -- Jesus expressly stated that the disciples, in what they did here, were " guiltless." Jesus did, however, here and elsewhere, resist and oppose the Pharisees' traditions which were not taught in God's law, and which they bound as essential on others. The current situation is an example of this. The Pharisees said Jesus' disciples did what was " not lawful." Jesus defended the action and showed why the disciples were "guiltless." Some people use this passage to try to prove that Jesus did not believe in strict observance of God's law. Such efforts are false and futile. In many Scriptures, Jesus taught, and inspired His apostles to teach, the need for obedience. Jesus' arguments on verses 5-14 clearly show that what He did was permitted by the Sabbath law and was not a violation of it. Jesus lived under the Mosaic law (Matthew 5:17-20). It remained in effect till He died. The Sabbath was part of that law, included even in the 10 Commands (Exodus 20:8-11; 16:22-30; 23:12; 31:12-17; 34:21; 35:2,3; cf. 22:16; Numbers 15:32-36; etc.) Jesus obeyed the law without sin (Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:2
2 Corinthians 5:21). Sin is transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). Jesus' sinlessness was essential to His being a sinless sacrifice for us (see previous verses)

@Omosexy, here is another expository article on this topic. “Therefore let us abandon the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to more maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works but of faith toward God” – Hebrew 6:1
This is probably the most brazen attack by Paul on the Christianity taught by Jesus. In this verse, Paul had the temerity to imply that Jesus' teaching was immature, while he, Paul was the smart alec to take Christianity to the next level. How right Paul proved to be, for his heretic perversion of Jesus' mission has now become mainstreamChristianity.
As evident from his harangue quoted above,Paul disparaged Jesus' teaching as “repentance from dead works”. But what were the “dead works” Paul denounced ? His rants in his other epistles provide the answer – “works of law”:
“For all who rely on works of the law are cursed” – Galatians 3:10
“For no human will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” – Rom 3:20
“For we believe that a man is justified by faith even without works of law” – Romans 3:28
The “law” of course being traditional Judaic law which Jesus wholeheartedly supported:
“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away not an iota, not a dot will change from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever changes one of the least of the commandments, and teaches men so (e.g. Paul), shall be the least in the Kingdom of heaven” – Mathew 5:17-19
“It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to become void” – Luke 16:17
Thus Jesus not only unequivocally endorsed Mosaic law - stoning to death adulterers anddisobedient children (Deut 22:22, Deut 21:18-21, Matthew 15:4, Mark 7:10); killing Sabbath violators (Exodus 35:2); human sacrifice (Exodus 22:29-30, Ezekiel 20:26); trial by ordeal (Num 5:14-22); killing non-virgin brides (Deut 22:20); marriage by rape (Deut 22:28-29), and other such cruel Sharia-like barbaric laws – he (Jesus) threatened to deal in afterlife with heretics like Paul who preach otherwise (Mathew 5:19).
Jesus would be aghast at today's Paulinists masquerading as Christians, who deride “old school” mosaic law as they are now under the Pauline dispensation of the “grace”:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works - Ephesians 2:8-9
Paul's doctrine of belief and faith rather than good works brought him into conflict with Jesus' handpicked disciples who knew Jesus personally and better understood his teachings. The apostle James in obvious response to Paul's misleading preachments countered:
“Faith by itself, if it has no works is dead” - James 2:17
“A man is justified by works not faith alone”- James 2:24
“As body without spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead” – James 2:26
Paul himself alluded to this doctrinal confrontation with Jesus' handpicked disciples:
“If someone preaches another Jesus different from the one we preach…if you receive a different gospel from the one you accepted…I think that I am not in the least inferior to these superlative apostles” - 2 Corinthians 11:4-5
Note Paul's sarcastic derision of Jesus' apostles as “superlative”. More importantly his reference to receiving a “different gospel” in the above verse is quite instructive, for there were indeed numerousgospels (over 50) in early Christianity before Emperor Constantine compelled the Church elders at the second Council of Nicea (325 AD) to arbitrarily select the four that are now included in the standardized Christian Bible.
Apparently Pauline Christianity used different gospels from Judeo-Christianity preached by Jesus' apostles. The gospels of the Hebrews, Thomas, Clement and second apocalypse of James were among the earliest Christian scriptures and were used by the then prevalent Judeo-Christian faction.
Pauline Christianity which was initially fringecult only became ascendant after the 70AD Roman destruction of the Jerusalem temple in response to a Jewish revolt against Roman rule. This resistance to Roman rule was actually what the biblical Jesus stood for, and for which he was executed when heattempted to seize power from the Romans as “King of the Jews” (Luke 19.38, Matthew 21:5-9), in order to restore traditional Judaism.
Thereafter the original Judeo-Christianity was crushed and the pro-establishment Pauline Christianity (Rom 13:12) which was later adopted as the official religion of Romebecame ascendant, with Paul supposedly authoring most of the books in the New Testament that now define Christianity.
To avoid the terminal fate that befell Judeo-Christianity which was crushed by Rome, Paul the loyal Roman citizen Paul advised:
“Everyone must submit himself to the governing (Roman) authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority (of Rome) is rebelling against what God has instituted,and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves” - Romans 13:1-2
Pauline Christianity is actually a paganised distortion of Judaism, as the Christ described in the New testament gospels was plagiarized from pre-Christian pagan cultures of the Middle East. Mithra, Dionysus and Osiris were all pre-Christian pagan deities (ancient Persian, Greek and Egyptian) that were born of virgins, died and resurrected, with their resurrection signifying some sort of redemption. The birthdays of Mithra and Dionysius were bothDecember 25th!!
Since Pauline Christianity was mainly addressed to non-Jews (Acts 22:21, 26:18), it is not at all surprising that gentile pagan myths and practices found their way into the New testament and Christianity. Even the Christian worship day (Sunday) is not theBiblical Sabbath (Saturday), but the worship day for the Roman sun deity – Sol Invictus - as was decreed by Emperor Constantine.
NB: Bible quotes are from Revised Standard Version.
Nafata Bamaguje

buzugee: you raise some good points but i think you are lost in translation

here are alternative translations

2 corinthians 11 vs 17 When I talk as a confident boaster, I am not talking with the Lord's authority but like a fool. ( i dont see anything wrong with this statement )

romans 3 vs 7 "But," someone might still argue, "how can God condemn me as a sinner if my dishonesty highlights his truthfulness and brings him more glory?" ( looks to me like he is making an argument with himself and not stating as fact that he is outrightly lying )

as for paul always emphasizing faith instead of works, what he is trying to say is that you can be a slave to ' following the laws and commandments ' and hence feel imprisoned. but if you enhance your faith and your spiritual nature, then your body naturally falls in line with the ways of the lord and as such you dont have to focus on your works. the laws are just a guideline as to what is right and wrong. if you have no faith, then you need to be guided by the laws, however if your faith is strong, your faith will guide you instead of the laws. seems like an easy concept to grasp.

( keep in mind i only read your first post. i am feeling lazy to delve into the second one. i will try to muster up the strength. interesting post though )

ok bro try to read the remaining other article it is insightful also I will like you to read romans especially from chapter 7 to its every verse you will understand that Paul's faith base salvation is not anyway a way to enhance helping christians to follow the law. In fact, he was saying that you do not need the law to achieve salvation as long as one believes in the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ and its symbolic importance in the birth of a new christian.

Joagbaje: Remember that Jesus didn't tell the disciples everything. They were not yet born again. They hadnt recieved the holyghost yet. And thereby didn't have facility to recieve deeper truth.It's the holyghost that actually came to lead the church into truth. So,

John 16:12
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

John 14:17
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.


paul was rather a complement to Jesus .

brother, lets not forget that Paul was not one of Jesus's disciples. In fact, Paul never met Jesus physically, so it is pertinent that we don't talk about John16:12 and the ensuing verses like Paul was amongst those to which Jesus was telling will recieve the spirit of truth when the holyghost comes upon them. Besides, Jesus would have typically told them that a more different and spiritually superior message would be given to somebody outside of the twelve disciples just like he predicted his betrayal. Let's not forget that Paul's claims of meeting Jesus was actually a private affair that was not substantiated by anyone else besides himself hence the need to validate himself all the time that he was sent by God. Our God does not contradict himself, he can't say to Peter james and co that salvation is by virtue of the observance of the law and by faith in our lord Jesus while he tells Paul that salvation is by virtue of one's faith in him, Jesus christ even if one does not observe the law. Is it not obvious from reading Romans 7 from verse one to the end that Paul's emphasy for the disregard of Judaic laws stemmed from the fact that he had inner morally debasing desires that he struggles with which runs contrary to Judaic laws and even Christ's teachings. If you observe very well with an open mind, U will notice that even though he claims to be spreading the gospel of christ, his teachings always end up going contrary to christ's teachings and dwelled a lot on human emotions that can't be controlled as it concerns the law and man's default sinful nature. Let's not forget that it was Paul that introduced the whole concept of a new convenant with christ and the new testament which erases mosaic laws which is the basis of Judaic laws. Till today, judo christians even though less popular than the Pauline Christians do not agree on the concept and philosophy of faith based salvation which is what the entire christiandom preaches. I would advice that you keep an open mind and especially the second article I posted about Paul being the founder of christianity.

Joagbaje: @OP


You misunderstand Paul that's all . Many misunderstood him also in the bible days including apostle Peter.

1pet 3:15
. . . ;even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Others falsely accusing him of encouraging sin as religious mockers do today to teachers of grace .

Romans 3:8
And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

Any one who must mature in the things of the spirit must be rooted in the doctrine of Paul. He was given the revelation of the church.

Galatians 1:11
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

In order words, you are saying paul had a different vision and revelation superiorly different from what Jesus had initially preached? Is not contradictory that he claimed to have seen Jesus Christ in a vision on his way to damascus to persecute christians only to be converted by christ whose teachings he then denigrates as elementary in hebrew 6:1. Yet you say he was wrongly misunderstood by Peter, Barnabas and james who were actually disciples of christ, had met him and understood the philosophy of his teachings. Why will christ give paul a different course of the gospel and not reveal it to his disciples. You think about it. Am coming with more articles that gives some historical insights backed of course with bible verses.

The Apostle Paul Founder of Christianity
by Lewis Loflin
Jesus was not the founder of Christianity as we know it today. Most of the New Testament doesn't even concern the historical Jesus while the main influence is the Apostle Paul and through the church he founded at Ephesus a Greek convert named John. Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, he only claimed some spiritual visions and proceeded to Hellenize the teachings of Jesus (who preached a generic form of Judaism), until he created Pauline Christianity. Because there are no known writings from Jesus or His actual Apostles, most of what He really taught is remains controversial. Also see the disputed Gnostic Gospels .
But according to Paul, Jesus' teachings are not relevant to salvation. While Jesus is regarded by Christians as the founder of thefaith, Paul's role in defining Christianity can't be ignored and trumps Jesus on theology. "Paul is regarded as the great interpreter of Jesus' mission, who explained, in a way that Jesus himself never did, how Jesus' life and death fitted into a cosmic scheme of salvation, stretching fromthe creation of Adam to the end of time." The doctrines of Christianity come mostly from the teaching or influence of Paul, a Pharisee(?) who rejected his Pharisaic Judaism.
His worship was that of a "Christ" totally unrelated to the Jewish Messiah, a nationalist (and human) figure that was supposed to free the nation from foreign (Roman) rule. Paul would later be placed over his Jewish-Christian rivals by a Gnostic heretic named Marcion. See Marcion . The Church in its struggles with both Marcion and the Gnostics was forced to define itself and launch an internal war to silence opponents.
What is shown below is taken word for word from The Sierra Reference Encyclopedia .
Copyright 1996 P. F. Collier, L. P. All rights reserved.
PAUL, ST.
PAUL, ST. (died c. A.D. 68), founder of PaulineChristianity. His name was originally Saul. Helater claimed that he was a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, from a long-established Pharisee family in Tarsus. According to Acts (though not according to Paul himself) he studied in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, the leader of the Pharisees and grandson of Hillel.
This account of Paul's youth, however, is subject to doubt, since the tribe of Benjamin had long ceased to exist, and Pharisee families are otherwise unknown inTarsus. According to Paul's opponents, the Ebionites, he came from a family of recent converts to Judaism. He learnt the trade of tent-making (or perhaps leather-working), by which he made his living.
While still a youth in Jerusalem, Saul became part of the opposition to the newly formed Jerusalem Church (the disciples of Jesus, who, believing that Jesus had been resurrected, continued to hope for his return to complete his messianic mission). Saul was present at the death of Stephen. Soon after, Saul was an active persecutor of the Jerusalem Church, entering its synagogues and arresting its members. Acts represents this as due to Saul's zeal as a Pharisee, but this is doubtful, as the Pharisees, under Gamaliel, were friendly to the Jerusalem Church (see Acts 5).
Moreover, Saul was acting in concert with the high priest (Acts 9:2), who was a Sadducee opponent of the Pharisees. It seems likely that Saul was at this period an employee of the Roman-appointed high priest, playing a police role in suppressing movements regarded as a threat to the Roman occupation. Since Jesus had been crucified on a charge of sedition, his followers were under the same cloud.
The high priest then entrusted Saul with an important mission, which was to travel to Damascus to arrest prominent members of the Jerusalem Church. This must have been a clandestine kidnapping operation, since Damascus was not under Roman rule at thetime but was in fact a place of refuge for the persecuted Nazarenes.
On the way to Damascus, Paul experienced avision of Jesus that converted him from persecutor to believer. Paul joined the Christians of Damascus, but soon he had to flee Damascus to escape the officers of KingAretas (II Corinthians 11:32-33), though a later, less authentic, account in Acts 9:22-25 changes his persecutors to "the Jews."
After his vision, according to Paul's own account (Galatians 1:17), he went into the desert of Arabia for a period, seeking no instruction. According to Acts, however, he sought instruction first from Ananias of Damascus and then from the apostles in Jerusalem. These contradictory accounts reflect a change in Paul's status: in his own view, he had received a revelation that put him far higher than the apostles, while in later Church opinion he had experienced a conversion that was only the beginning of his development as a Christian.
Paul's self-assessment is closer to the historical truth, which is that he was the founder of Christianity. Neither Jesus himself nor his disciples had any intention of founding a new religion. The need for a semblance of continuity between Christianity and Judaism, and between Gentile and Jewish Christianity, led to a playing-down of Paul's creative role. The split that took place between Paul and the Jerusalem Church is minimized in the Paulinist book of Acts, which contrasts withPaul's earlier and more authentic account inGalatians 2.
Paul's originality lies in his conception of the death of Jesus as saving mankind from sin. Instead of seeing Jesus as a messiah of the Jewish type human savior from political bondage, he saw him as a salvation-deity whose atoning death by violence was necessary to release his devotees for immortal life. This view of Jesus' death seems to have come to Paul in his Damascus vision. Its roots lie not in Judaism, but in mystery-religion, with which Paul was acquainted in Tarsus.
The violent deaths of Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dionysus brought divinization to their initiates. Paul, as founder of the new Christian mystery, initiated the Eucharist, echoing the communion meal of the mystery religions. The awkward insertion ofeucharistic material based on I Corinthians 11:23-26 into the Last Supper accounts in the Gospels cannot disguise this, especially as the evidence is that the Jerusalem Churchdid not practise the Eucharist.
Paul's missionary campaign began c.44 in Antioch. He journeyed to Cyprus, where he converted Sergius Paulus, the governor of the island. It was probably at this point thathe changed his name from Saul to Paul, in honor of his distinguished convert. After journeys in Asia Minor where he made manyconverts, Paul returned to Antioch. His second missionary tour (51-53) took him as far as Corinth; and his third (54-58) led to a three-year stay in Ephesus. It was during these missionary periods that he wrote his Epistles.
Paul's new religion had the advantage over other salvation-cults of being attached to the Hebrew Scriptures, which Paul now reinterpreted as forecasting the salvation-death of Jesus. This gave Pauline Christianityan awesome authority that proved attractive to Gentiles thirsting for salvation. Paul's new doctrine, however, met with disapproval from the Jewish-Christians of the Jerusalem Church, who regarded the substitution of Jesus' atoning death for the observance of the Torah as a lapse into paganism. Paul was summoned to Jerusalem by the leaders James (Jesus' brother), Peter, and John to explain his doctrine (c.50).
At the ensuing conference, agreement was reached that Paul's Gentile converts did not need to observe the Torah. This was not a revolutionary decision, since Judaism had never insisted on full conversion to Judaism for Gentiles. But Paul on this occasion concealed his belief that the Torah was no longer valid for Jews either. He was thus confirmed in the role of "apostle to the Gentiles," with full permission to enroll Gentiles in the messianic movement without requiring full conversion to Judaism.
It was when Peter visited him in Antioch and became aware of the full extent of Paul's views that a serious rift began between Pauline and Jewish Christianity. At a second conference in Jerusalem (c.55), Paul was accused by James of teaching Jews"to turn their backs on Moses" (Acts 21:21). Again, however, Paul evaded the charge by concealing his views, and he agreed to undergo a test of his own observance of theTorah. His deception, however, was detected by a group of "Asian Jews" (probably Jewish Christians) who were aware of his real teaching. A stormy protestensued in which Paul feared for his life and was rescued by the Roman police, to whomhe declared for his protection that he was aRoman citizen. This surprising announcement was the end of Paul's association with the Jerusalem Church, to whom the Romans were the chief enemy.
The Roman commandant, Claudius Lysias, decided to bring Paul before the Sanhedrin in order to discover the cause of the disturbance. With great presence of mind, Paul appealed to the Pharisee majority to acquit him, claiming to be a Pharisee like James. Paul was rescued by the Pharisees from the high priest, like Peter before him. However, the high priest, resenting this escape, appointed a body of men to assassinate Paul. Learning of the plot, Paul again placed himself under the protection of the Romans, who transported him by armed guard from Jerusalem to Caesarea. The High Priest Ananias was implacable, no doubt because of Paul's defection from his police task in Damascus, and laid a charge of anti-Roman activity against him.
Paul appealed for a trial in Rome before Caesar, his right as a Roman citizen. The assertion of Acts that the Jewish "elders" were also implicated in the charges against Paul is unhistorical, since these same elders had just acquitted him in his Sanhedrin trial. Paul was sent to Rome, and here our information ends. Legends speak of his eventual martyrdom in Rome.
Paul's authentic voice is found in his Epistles. Here he appears as an eloquent writer, skilled in asserting his authority overhis converts as their inspired teacher.
The view often asserted, however, that Paulwrites in the style of a rabbi is incorrect. Hisoccasional attempts to argue in rabbinical style (e.g., Romans 7:1-6) reveal his lack of knowledge of rabbinic logic. Paul's letters belong to Greek literature and have affinity to Stoic and Cynic literature. His knowledge of the Scriptures is confined to their Greek translation, the Septuagint. Paul was a religious genius, who invested Greek mystery-religion with the historical sweep and authority of the Jewish Bible.

The Apostle Paul Founder of Christianity
by Lewis Loflin
Jesus was not the founder of Christianity as we know it today. Most of the New Testament doesn't even concern the historical Jesus while the main influence is the Apostle Paul and through the church he founded at Ephesus a Greek convert named John. Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, he only claimed some spiritual visions and proceeded to Hellenize the teachings of Jesus (who preached a generic form of Judaism), until he created Pauline Christianity. Because there are no known writings from Jesus or His actual Apostles, most of what He really taught is remains controversial. Also see the disputed Gnostic Gospels .
But according to Paul, Jesus' teachings are not relevant to salvation. While Jesus is regarded by Christians as the founder of thefaith, Paul's role in defining Christianity can't be ignored and trumps Jesus on theology. "Paul is regarded as the great interpreter of Jesus' mission, who explained, in a way that Jesus himself never did, how Jesus' life and death fitted into a cosmic scheme of salvation, stretching fromthe creation of Adam to the end of time." The doctrines of Christianity come mostly from the teaching or influence of Paul, a Pharisee(?) who rejected his Pharisaic Judaism.
His worship was that of a "Christ" totally unrelated to the Jewish Messiah, a nationalist (and human) figure that was supposed to free the nation from foreign (Roman) rule. Paul would later be placed over his Jewish-Christian rivals by a Gnostic heretic named Marcion. See Marcion . The Church in its struggles with both Marcion and the Gnostics was forced to define itself and launch an internal war to silence opponents.
What is shown below is taken word for word from The Sierra Reference Encyclopedia .
Copyright 1996 P. F. Collier, L. P. All rights reserved.
PAUL, ST.
PAUL, ST. (died c. A.D. 68), founder of PaulineChristianity. His name was originally Saul. Helater claimed that he was a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, from a long-established Pharisee family in Tarsus. According to Acts (though not according to Paul himself) he studied in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, the leader of the Pharisees and grandson of Hillel.
This account of Paul's youth, however, is subject to doubt, since the tribe of Benjamin had long ceased to exist, and Pharisee families are otherwise unknown inTarsus. According to Paul's opponents, the Ebionites, he came from a family of recent converts to Judaism. He learnt the trade of tent-making (or perhaps leather-working), by which he made his living.
While still a youth in Jerusalem, Saul became part of the opposition to the newly formed Jerusalem Church (the disciples of Jesus, who, believing that Jesus had been resurrected, continued to hope for his return to complete his messianic mission). Saul was present at the death of Stephen. Soon after, Saul was an active persecutor of the Jerusalem Church, entering its synagogues and arresting its members. Acts represents this as due to Saul's zeal as a Pharisee, but this is doubtful, as the Pharisees, under Gamaliel, were friendly to the Jerusalem Church (see Acts 5).
Moreover, Saul was acting in concert with the high priest (Acts 9:2), who was a Sadducee opponent of the Pharisees. It seems likely that Saul was at this period an employee of the Roman-appointed high priest, playing a police role in suppressing movements regarded as a threat to the Roman occupation. Since Jesus had been crucified on a charge of sedition, his followers were under the same cloud.
The high priest then entrusted Saul with an important mission, which was to travel to Damascus to arrest prominent members of the Jerusalem Church. This must have been a clandestine kidnapping operation, since Damascus was not under Roman rule at thetime but was in fact a place of refuge for the persecuted Nazarenes.
On the way to Damascus, Paul experienced avision of Jesus that converted him from persecutor to believer. Paul joined the Christians of Damascus, but soon he had to flee Damascus to escape the officers of KingAretas (II Corinthians 11:32-33), though a later, less authentic, account in Acts 9:22-25 changes his persecutors to "the Jews."
After his vision, according to Paul's own account (Galatians 1:17), he went into the desert of Arabia for a period, seeking no instruction. According to Acts, however, he sought instruction first from Ananias of Damascus and then from the apostles in Jerusalem. These contradictory accounts reflect a change in Paul's status: in his own view, he had received a revelation that put him far higher than the apostles, while in later Church opinion he had experienced a conversion that was only the beginning of his development as a Christian.
Paul's self-assessment is closer to the historical truth, which is that he was the founder of Christianity. Neither Jesus himself nor his disciples had any intention of founding a new religion. The need for a semblance of continuity between Christianity and Judaism, and between Gentile and Jewish Christianity, led to a playing-down of Paul's creative role. The split that took place between Paul and the Jerusalem Church is minimized in the Paulinist book of Acts, which contrasts withPaul's earlier and more authentic account inGalatians 2.
Paul's originality lies in his conception of the death of Jesus as saving mankind from sin. Instead of seeing Jesus as a messiah of the Jewish type human savior from political bondage, he saw him as a salvation-deity whose atoning death by violence was necessary to release his devotees for immortal life. This view of Jesus' death seems to have come to Paul in his Damascus vision. Its roots lie not in Judaism, but in mystery-religion, with which Paul was acquainted in Tarsus.
The violent deaths of Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dionysus brought divinization to their initiates. Paul, as founder of the new Christian mystery, initiated the Eucharist, echoing the communion meal of the mystery religions. The awkward insertion ofeucharistic material based on I Corinthians 11:23-26 into the Last Supper accounts in the Gospels cannot disguise this, especially as the evidence is that the Jerusalem Churchdid not practise the Eucharist.
Paul's missionary campaign began c.44 in Antioch. He journeyed to Cyprus, where he converted Sergius Paulus, the governor of the island. It was probably at this point thathe changed his name from Saul to Paul, in honor of his distinguished convert. After journeys in Asia Minor where he made manyconverts, Paul returned to Antioch. His second missionary tour (51-53) took him as far as Corinth; and his third (54-58) led to a three-year stay in Ephesus. It was during these missionary periods that he wrote his Epistles.
Paul's new religion had the advantage over other salvation-cults of being attached to the Hebrew Scriptures, which Paul now reinterpreted as forecasting the salvation-death of Jesus. This gave Pauline Christianityan awesome authority that proved attractive to Gentiles thirsting for salvation. Paul's new doctrine, however, met with disapproval from the Jewish-Christians of the Jerusalem Church, who regarded the substitution of Jesus' atoning death for the observance of the Torah as a lapse into paganism. Paul was summoned to Jerusalem by the leaders James (Jesus' brother), Peter, and John to explain his doctrine (c.50).
At the ensuing conference, agreement was reached that Paul's Gentile converts did not need to observe the Torah. This was not a revolutionary decision, since Judaism had never insisted on full conversion to Judaism for Gentiles. But Paul on this occasion concealed his belief that the Torah was no longer valid for Jews either. He was thus confirmed in the role of "apostle to the Gentiles," with full permission to enroll Gentiles in the messianic movement without requiring full conversion to Judaism.
It was when Peter visited him in Antioch and became aware of the full extent of Paul's views that a serious rift began between Pauline and Jewish Christianity. At a second conference in Jerusalem (c.55), Paul was accused by James of teaching Jews"to turn their backs on Moses" (Acts 21:21). Again, however, Paul evaded the charge by concealing his views, and he agreed to undergo a test of his own observance of theTorah. His deception, however, was detected by a group of "Asian Jews" (probably Jewish Christians) who were aware of his real teaching. A stormy protestensued in which Paul feared for his life and was rescued by the Roman police, to whomhe declared for his protection that he was aRoman citizen. This surprising announcement was the end of Paul's association with the Jerusalem Church, to whom the Romans were the chief enemy.
The Roman commandant, Claudius Lysias, decided to bring Paul before the Sanhedrin in order to discover the cause of the disturbance. With great presence of mind, Paul appealed to the Pharisee majority to acquit him, claiming to be a Pharisee like James. Paul was rescued by the Pharisees from the high priest, like Peter before him. However, the high priest, resenting this escape, appointed a body of men to assassinate Paul. Learning of the plot, Paul again placed himself under the protection of the Romans, who transported him by armed guard from Jerusalem to Caesarea. The High Priest Ananias was implacable, no doubt because of Paul's defection from his police task in Damascus, and laid a charge of anti-Roman activity against him.
Paul appealed for a trial in Rome before Caesar, his right as a Roman citizen. The assertion of Acts that the Jewish "elders" were also implicated in the charges against Paul is unhistorical, since these same elders had just acquitted him in his Sanhedrin trial. Paul was sent to Rome, and here our information ends. Legends speak of his eventual martyrdom in Rome.
Paul's authentic voice is found in his Epistles. Here he appears as an eloquent writer, skilled in asserting his authority overhis converts as their inspired teacher.
The view often asserted, however, that Paulwrites in the style of a rabbi is incorrect. Hisoccasional attempts to argue in rabbinical style (e.g., Romans 7:1-6) reveal his lack of knowledge of rabbinic logic. Paul's letters belong to Greek literature and have affinity to Stoic and Cynic literature. His knowledge of the Scriptures is confined to their Greek translation, the Septuagint. Paul was a religious genius, who invested Greek mystery-religion with the historical sweep and authority of the Jewish Bible.

The Apostle Paul Founder of Christianity
by Lewis Loflin
Jesus was not the founder of Christianity as we know it today. Most of the New Testament doesn't even concern the historical Jesus while the main influence is the Apostle Paul and through the church he founded at Ephesus a Greek convert named John. Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, he only claimed some spiritual visions and proceeded to Hellenize the teachings of Jesus (who preached a generic form of Judaism), until he created Pauline Christianity. Because there are no known writings from Jesus or His actual Apostles, most of what He really taught is remains controversial. Also see the disputed Gnostic Gospels .
But according to Paul, Jesus' teachings are not relevant to salvation. While Jesus is regarded by Christians as the founder of thefaith, Paul's role in defining Christianity can't be ignored and trumps Jesus on theology. "Paul is regarded as the great interpreter of Jesus' mission, who explained, in a way that Jesus himself never did, how Jesus' life and death fitted into a cosmic scheme of salvation, stretching fromthe creation of Adam to the end of time." The doctrines of Christianity come mostly from the teaching or influence of Paul, a Pharisee(?) who rejected his Pharisaic Judaism.
His worship was that of a "Christ" totally unrelated to the Jewish Messiah, a nationalist (and human) figure that was supposed to free the nation from foreign (Roman) rule. Paul would later be placed over his Jewish-Christian rivals by a Gnostic heretic named Marcion. See Marcion . The Church in its struggles with both Marcion and the Gnostics was forced to define itself and launch an internal war to silence opponents.
What is shown below is taken word for word from The Sierra Reference Encyclopedia .
Copyright 1996 P. F. Collier, L. P. All rights reserved.
PAUL, ST.
PAUL, ST. (died c. A.D. 68), founder of PaulineChristianity. His name was originally Saul. Helater claimed that he was a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, from a long-established Pharisee family in Tarsus. According to Acts (though not according to Paul himself) he studied in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, the leader of the Pharisees and grandson of Hillel.
This account of Paul's youth, however, is subject to doubt, since the tribe of Benjamin had long ceased to exist, and Pharisee families are otherwise unknown inTarsus. According to Paul's opponents, the Ebionites, he came from a family of recent converts to Judaism. He learnt the trade of tent-making (or perhaps leather-working), by which he made his living.
While still a youth in Jerusalem, Saul became part of the opposition to the newly formed Jerusalem Church (the disciples of Jesus, who, believing that Jesus had been resurrected, continued to hope for his return to complete his messianic mission). Saul was present at the death of Stephen. Soon after, Saul was an active persecutor of the Jerusalem Church, entering its synagogues and arresting its members. Acts represents this as due to Saul's zeal as a Pharisee, but this is doubtful, as the Pharisees, under Gamaliel, were friendly to the Jerusalem Church (see Acts 5).
Moreover, Saul was acting in concert with the high priest (Acts 9:2), who was a Sadducee opponent of the Pharisees. It seems likely that Saul was at this period an employee of the Roman-appointed high priest, playing a police role in suppressing movements regarded as a threat to the Roman occupation. Since Jesus had been crucified on a charge of sedition, his followers were under the same cloud.
The high priest then entrusted Saul with an important mission, which was to travel to Damascus to arrest prominent members of the Jerusalem Church. This must have been a clandestine kidnapping operation, since Damascus was not under Roman rule at thetime but was in fact a place of refuge for the persecuted Nazarenes.
On the way to Damascus, Paul experienced avision of Jesus that converted him from persecutor to believer. Paul joined the Christians of Damascus, but soon he had to flee Damascus to escape the officers of KingAretas (II Corinthians 11:32-33), though a later, less authentic, account in Acts 9:22-25 changes his persecutors to "the Jews."
After his vision, according to Paul's own account (Galatians 1:17), he went into the desert of Arabia for a period, seeking no instruction. According to Acts, however, he sought instruction first from Ananias of Damascus and then from the apostles in Jerusalem. These contradictory accounts reflect a change in Paul's status: in his own view, he had received a revelation that put him far higher than the apostles, while in later Church opinion he had experienced a conversion that was only the beginning of his development as a Christian.
Paul's self-assessment is closer to the historical truth, which is that he was the founder of Christianity. Neither Jesus himself nor his disciples had any intention of founding a new religion. The need for a semblance of continuity between Christianity and Judaism, and between Gentile and Jewish Christianity, led to a playing-down of Paul's creative role. The split that took place between Paul and the Jerusalem Church is minimized in the Paulinist book of Acts, which contrasts withPaul's earlier and more authentic account inGalatians 2.
Paul's originality lies in his conception of the death of Jesus as saving mankind from sin. Instead of seeing Jesus as a messiah of the Jewish type human savior from political bondage, he saw him as a salvation-deity whose atoning death by violence was necessary to release his devotees for immortal life. This view of Jesus' death seems to have come to Paul in his Damascus vision. Its roots lie not in Judaism, but in mystery-religion, with which Paul was acquainted in Tarsus.
The violent deaths of Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dionysus brought divinization to their initiates. Paul, as founder of the new Christian mystery, initiated the Eucharist, echoing the communion meal of the mystery religions. The awkward insertion ofeucharistic material based on I Corinthians 11:23-26 into the Last Supper accounts in the Gospels cannot disguise this, especially as the evidence is that the Jerusalem Churchdid not practise the Eucharist.
Paul's missionary campaign began c.44 in Antioch. He journeyed to Cyprus, where he converted Sergius Paulus, the governor of the island. It was probably at this point thathe changed his name from Saul to Paul, in honor of his distinguished convert. After journeys in Asia Minor where he made manyconverts, Paul returned to Antioch. His second missionary tour (51-53) took him as far as Corinth; and his third (54-58) led to a three-year stay in Ephesus. It was during these missionary periods that he wrote his Epistles.
Paul's new religion had the advantage over other salvation-cults of being attached to the Hebrew Scriptures, which Paul now reinterpreted as forecasting the salvation-death of Jesus. This gave Pauline Christianityan awesome authority that proved attractive to Gentiles thirsting for salvation. Paul's new doctrine, however, met with disapproval from the Jewish-Christians of the Jerusalem Church, who regarded the substitution of Jesus' atoning death for the observance of the Torah as a lapse into paganism. Paul was summoned to Jerusalem by the leaders James (Jesus' brother), Peter, and John to explain his doctrine (c.50).
At the ensuing conference, agreement was reached that Paul's Gentile converts did not need to observe the Torah. This was not a revolutionary decision, since Judaism had never insisted on full conversion to Judaism for Gentiles. But Paul on this occasion concealed his belief that the Torah was no longer valid for Jews either. He was thus confirmed in the role of "apostle to the Gentiles," with full permission to enroll Gentiles in the messianic movement without requiring full conversion to Judaism.
It was when Peter visited him in Antioch and became aware of the full extent of Paul's views that a serious rift began between Pauline and Jewish Christianity. At a second conference in Jerusalem (c.55), Paul was accused by James of teaching Jews"to turn their backs on Moses" (Acts 21:21). Again, however, Paul evaded the charge by concealing his views, and he agreed to undergo a test of his own observance of theTorah. His deception, however, was detected by a group of "Asian Jews" (probably Jewish Christians) who were aware of his real teaching. A stormy protestensued in which Paul feared for his life and was rescued by the Roman police, to whomhe declared for his protection that he was aRoman citizen. This surprising announcement was the end of Paul's association with the Jerusalem Church, to whom the Romans were the chief enemy.
The Roman commandant, Claudius Lysias, decided to bring Paul before the Sanhedrin in order to discover the cause of the disturbance. With great presence of mind, Paul appealed to the Pharisee majority to acquit him, claiming to be a Pharisee like James. Paul was rescued by the Pharisees from the high priest, like Peter before him. However, the high priest, resenting this escape, appointed a body of men to assassinate Paul. Learning of the plot, Paul again placed himself under the protection of the Romans, who transported him by armed guard from Jerusalem to Caesarea. The High Priest Ananias was implacable, no doubt because of Paul's defection from his police task in Damascus, and laid a charge of anti-Roman activity against him.
Paul appealed for a trial in Rome before Caesar, his right as a Roman citizen. The assertion of Acts that the Jewish "elders" were also implicated in the charges against Paul is unhistorical, since these same elders had just acquitted him in his Sanhedrin trial. Paul was sent to Rome, and here our information ends. Legends speak of his eventual martyrdom in Rome.
Paul's authentic voice is found in his Epistles. Here he appears as an eloquent writer, skilled in asserting his authority overhis converts as their inspired teacher.
The view often asserted, however, that Paulwrites in the style of a rabbi is incorrect. Hisoccasional attempts to argue in rabbinical style (e.g., Romans 7:1-6) reveal his lack of knowledge of rabbinic logic. Paul's letters belong to Greek literature and have affinity to Stoic and Cynic literature. His knowledge of the Scriptures is confined to their Greek translation, the Septuagint. Paul was a religious genius, who invested Greek mystery-religion with the historical sweep and authority of the Jewish Bible.

Why was Paul so vehemently opposed to good conduct (works) as means of salvation, and insisted that faith alone suffices, conferring righteousness even in deadly sin (Rom 8:10) ?
The answer can be found in Paul’s derangedpersonality. From his epistles it is evident that Paul was a morally weak troubled soul who agonized and battled in vain with some unspeakable personal demon or abominable sinful trait, which try as he may, Paul couldn’t give up:
“I do not understand my own actions, for I do not do what I want but what I hate… ForI know nothing good dwells within me…As I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want ” – Romans 7:15-19
Although Paul didn’t have the guts to mention in his epistles the unspeakable evil that troubled him, it has been suggested that he was a repressed homosexual who couldn’t change his “sinful” nature that violated traditional Judaic law. Hence the heretic nut-job formulated the warped misleading idiocy that faith can actually transform ungodly evil into righteousness:
“To one who does not work (by the law) but trusts him who justifies the ungodly , his faith is reckoned as righteousness” – Rom 4:5
Islam’s “prophet” Mohammed would have loved this wacky sophistry that rationalizes and justifies ungodly evil. He is known to have plundered, robbed, raped, massacred, paedophiled and incested all in righteous devotion to the Muslim false god – Allah.
Paul blundered further:
“If Christ is in you, even if your bodies are dead in sin, your spirits are alive in righteousness” – Rom 8:10
Seriously, why would any sinful Paulinist (sorry Christian) bother to be good, if faith in Christ is all that is required for righteousness?
This is utterly incomprehensible to we “pagan” African traditionalists for whom exemplary good conduct is mandatory for ascension to the higher spiritual dimension in the afterlife where as deified ancestors we become one with our creator.
In traditional African spirituality, there’s no free ticket or short cut to “heaven”. Belief insome fairy-tale man-god does not substitute for good conduct and cannot make up for wicked sinful life.
On the other hand there is no everlasting burning torture in hellfire by a cruel vindictive deity (Allah, Yahweh). Those who are not good enough for heavenly deification are reincarnated and given another opportunity. Herein lies the significance of African names like Babatunde, Yetunde, Nnanna, Ekaete, Magajiall of which are rooted in the African concept of reincarnation.
Enough digression. Paul concocted the inane claptrap of faith transmuting evil intorighteousness as some sort of ego defence mechanism to deal with his self-loathing “sinful” guilt – “nothing good dwells in me”(Rom 7:18) . The homosexual hypothesis is supported by the fact that Paul never married, and from his condescending remarks about women.
Paul’s fabricated doctrine is further laid bare by his own admission that his misleading preachments were not from God but were driven by egomania:
“What I am saying, I say not with the Lord’s authority but as a fool in boastful confidence. Since many of you boast, I too will boast ” – 2 Cor 11:17-18
This is contrary to what today’s Paulinists would have us believe that the Judeo-Christian god inspired the authors of their Bible. Paul on the other hand, the most pre-eminent author in the New testament not only clearly stated that he wasn’t inspired by Yahweh, but actually admitted to lying for his quasi-religious agenda:
“But through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abound, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” – Romans 3:7
From the above verse, wacko Paulo seemed genuinely perplexed that his lies for his bogus dogma were considered sinful. Such was the perverted morality of the founder of modern Christianity.
This notion of lying to advance a religious agenda is not peculiar to Christianity, but also obtains in Islam – the other major falsedogma with which we Africans have been brainwashed. In Islam it is called Taqiyya (deception), and partly explains the cognitive dissonance of Muslims whose claims about Islam contradict observed reality.
Muslims insist theirs is a “religion of peace” but we non-Muslims know Islam to be the most violently intolerant dogma humanity has ever known (Quran 9:5,123). They claim the Quran is a repository of scientific knowledge, but even Muslims acknowledge the Islamic world lags far behind the non-Muslim world in science & technology.
They claim Islam enhances the position of women, but the worst forms of misogynistic abuse and violence against women are rampant in the Islamic world – honor killing, stoning to death, pedophillia, forced marriage, female genital mutilation etc.
Back to Pauline deception. The cock and bullyarn about Paul’s dubious road-to-Damascus conversion after a prior history ofsupposedly persecuting Christians, is strikingly similar to the false testimonies sometimes given by evangelical Christians intoday’s Churches to dramatically exaggeratethe impact of Jesus on their miserable lives.
Typically goes, “I was formerly an assassin or armed robber until I received Jesus…blah blah blah”. It beats me why the police neverarrest these publicly self-confessed killers and armed bandits even though there’s no statute of limitations on murder or armed robbery.
The truth of the matter is that the dreary frustrating misery of their pathetic existence which drives their vacuous placebo solace in churches would be much less compelling story for wooing converts and perpetuating their mental enslavement. Hence the need to embellish their otherwise less captivating accounts with the “I was formerly a witch” crap.
Evidence that the road-to-Damascus yarn was a hoax can be found in the inconsistencies and contradictions of the various accounts of the purported conversion in books of Acts and Galatians, as well as in Paul’s own admitted proclivity to lying in order to advance his self-glorifying quasi-religious agenda (Rom 3:7). The book of Acts alone contains 3 disparate versions of the fraudster’s road toDamascus fabrication.
Even among early Christians Paul lacked credibility, hence he desperately cajoled:
What I write is true. Before God I do not lie! - Galatians 1:20
This beggar’s belief!! Having confessed to falsehood (Rom 3:7) and admitted his false preachments aren’t from God (2 Cor 11:17), he invokes the same “God” to cover up his lies.
Other inconsistencies in the New testament narrative of Paul, particularly his alleged persecution of Christians, are beyond the scope of this already lengthy write-up.
Suffice to surmise that Paul’s lack of tangible connection to Jesus as did the chosen 12 apostles who were Paul’s major rivals (2 Cor 11:4-5), adversely affected his credibility among early Christians. Consequently, the blaspheming charlatan concocted the road-to-Damascus canard in which he purportedly met Christ, just so as to boost his (Paul’s) flagging credibility and popularity among early Christians.
Nafata Bamaguje

Why was Paul so vehemently opposed to good conduct (works) as means of salvation, and insisted that faith alone suffices, conferring righteousness even in deadly sin (Rom 8:10) ?
The answer can be found in Paul’s derangedpersonality. From his epistles it is evident that Paul was a morally weak troubled soul who agonized and battled in vain with some unspeakable personal demon or abominable sinful trait, which try as he may, Paul couldn’t give up:
“I do not understand my own actions, for I do not do what I want but what I hate… ForI know nothing good dwells within me…As I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want ” – Romans 7:15-19
Although Paul didn’t have the guts to mention in his epistles the unspeakable evil that troubled him, it has been suggested that he was a repressed homosexual who couldn’t change his “sinful” nature that violated traditional Judaic law. Hence the heretic nut-job formulated the warped misleading idiocy that faith can actually transform ungodly evil into righteousness:
“To one who does not work (by the law) but trusts him who justifies the ungodly , his faith is reckoned as righteousness” – Rom 4:5
Islam’s “prophet” Mohammed would have loved this wacky sophistry that rationalizes and justifies ungodly evil. He is known to have plundered, robbed, raped, massacred, paedophiled and incested all in righteous devotion to the Muslim false god – Allah.
Paul blundered further:
“If Christ is in you, even if your bodies are dead in sin, your spirits are alive in righteousness” – Rom 8:10
Seriously, why would any sinful Paulinist (sorry Christian) bother to be good, if faith in Christ is all that is required for righteousness?
This is utterly incomprehensible to we “pagan” African traditionalists for whom exemplary good conduct is mandatory for ascension to the higher spiritual dimension in the afterlife where as deified ancestors we become one with our creator.
In traditional African spirituality, there’s no free ticket or short cut to “heaven”. Belief insome fairy-tale man-god does not substitute for good conduct and cannot make up for wicked sinful life.
On the other hand there is no everlasting burning torture in hellfire by a cruel vindictive deity (Allah, Yahweh). Those who are not good enough for heavenly deification are reincarnated and given another opportunity. Herein lies the significance of African names like Babatunde, Yetunde, Nnanna, Ekaete, Magajiall of which are rooted in the African concept of reincarnation.
Enough digression. Paul concocted the inane claptrap of faith transmuting evil intorighteousness as some sort of ego defence mechanism to deal with his self-loathing “sinful” guilt – “nothing good dwells in me”(Rom 7:18) . The homosexual hypothesis is supported by the fact that Paul never married, and from his condescending remarks about women.
Paul’s fabricated doctrine is further laid bare by his own admission that his misleading preachments were not from God but were driven by egomania:
“What I am saying, I say not with the Lord’s authority but as a fool in boastful confidence. Since many of you boast, I too will boast ” – 2 Cor 11:17-18
This is contrary to what today’s Paulinists would have us believe that the Judeo-Christian god inspired the authors of their Bible. Paul on the other hand, the most pre-eminent author in the New testament not only clearly stated that he wasn’t inspired by Yahweh, but actually admitted to lying for his quasi-religious agenda:
“But through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abound, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” – Romans 3:7
From the above verse, wacko Paulo seemed genuinely perplexed that his lies for his bogus dogma were considered sinful. Such was the perverted morality of the founder of modern Christianity.
This notion of lying to advance a religious agenda is not peculiar to Christianity, but also obtains in Islam – the other major falsedogma with which we Africans have been brainwashed. In Islam it is called Taqiyya (deception), and partly explains the cognitive dissonance of Muslims whose claims about Islam contradict observed reality.
Muslims insist theirs is a “religion of peace” but we non-Muslims know Islam to be the most violently intolerant dogma humanity has ever known (Quran 9:5,123). They claim the Quran is a repository of scientific knowledge, but even Muslims acknowledge the Islamic world lags far behind the non-Muslim world in science & technology.
They claim Islam enhances the position of women, but the worst forms of misogynistic abuse and violence against women are rampant in the Islamic world – honor killing, stoning to death, pedophillia, forced marriage, female genital mutilation etc.
Back to Pauline deception. The cock and bullyarn about Paul’s dubious road-to-Damascus conversion after a prior history ofsupposedly persecuting Christians, is strikingly similar to the false testimonies sometimes given by evangelical Christians intoday’s Churches to dramatically exaggeratethe impact of Jesus on their miserable lives.
Typically goes, “I was formerly an assassin or armed robber until I received Jesus…blah blah blah”. It beats me why the police neverarrest these publicly self-confessed killers and armed bandits even though there’s no statute of limitations on murder or armed robbery.
The truth of the matter is that the dreary frustrating misery of their pathetic existence which drives their vacuous placebo solace in churches would be much less compelling story for wooing converts and perpetuating their mental enslavement. Hence the need to embellish their otherwise less captivating accounts with the “I was formerly a witch” crap.
Evidence that the road-to-Damascus yarn was a hoax can be found in the inconsistencies and contradictions of the various accounts of the purported conversion in books of Acts and Galatians, as well as in Paul’s own admitted proclivity to lying in order to advance his self-glorifying quasi-religious agenda (Rom 3:7). The book of Acts alone contains 3 disparate versions of the fraudster’s road toDamascus fabrication.
Even among early Christians Paul lacked credibility, hence he desperately cajoled:
What I write is true. Before God I do not lie! - Galatians 1:20
This beggar’s belief!! Having confessed to falsehood (Rom 3:7) and admitted his false preachments aren’t from God (2 Cor 11:17), he invokes the same “God” to cover up his lies.
Other inconsistencies in the New testament narrative of Paul, particularly his alleged persecution of Christians, are beyond the scope of this already lengthy write-up.
Suffice to surmise that Paul’s lack of tangible connection to Jesus as did the chosen 12 apostles who were Paul’s major rivals (2 Cor 11:4-5), adversely affected his credibility among early Christians. Consequently, the blaspheming charlatan concocted the road-to-Damascus canard in which he purportedly met Christ, just so as to boost his (Paul’s) flagging credibility and popularity among early Christians.
Nafata Bamaguje

jmoore: Jesus I know, Paul I know, Who are you, poster?

well, you dont ve to know me, I made some research on Paulinity and the history of christianity. This particular article struck me the most, the writer is a well respected professor of theology and has written very authoritative books and articles on religion not just christianity. I shall paste the part 2 of this articles both here and as a separate thread. I will like to see other people's contributions as well, christians especially.

This is realy revealing and shocking....seriously, if one should look into the history of our religions, one will just come to the fact that all along everything we have heard, been taught, read and known have been all along an old aged lie. Religion is a scam walahi.

“Therefore let us abandon the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to more maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works but of faith toward God” – Hebrew 6:1
This is probably the most brazen attack by Paul on the Christianity taught by Jesus. In this verse, Paul had the temerity to imply that Jesus' teaching was immature, while he, Paul was the smart alec to take Christianity to the next level. How right Paul proved to be, for his heretic perversion of Jesus' mission has now become mainstreamChristianity.
As evident from his harangue quoted above,Paul disparaged Jesus' teaching as “repentance from dead works”. But what were the “dead works” Paul denounced ? His rants in his other epistles provide the answer – “works of law”:
“For all who rely on works of the law are cursed” – Galatians 3:10
“For no human will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” – Rom 3:20
“For we believe that a man is justified by faith even without works of law” – Romans 3:28
The “law” of course being traditional Judaic law which Jesus wholeheartedly supported:
“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away not an iota, not a dot will change from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever changes one of the least of the commandments, and teaches men so (e.g. Paul), shall be the least in the Kingdom of heaven” – Mathew 5:17-19
“It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to become void” – Luke 16:17
Thus Jesus not only unequivocally endorsed Mosaic law - stoning to death adulterers anddisobedient children (Deut 22:22, Deut 21:18-21, Matthew 15:4, Mark 7:10); killing Sabbath violators (Exodus 35:2); human sacrifice (Exodus 22:29-30, Ezekiel 20:26); trial by ordeal (Num 5:14-22); killing non-virgin brides (Deut 22:20); marriage by rape (Deut 22:28-29), and other such cruel Sharia-like barbaric laws – he (Jesus) threatened to deal in afterlife with heretics like Paul who preach otherwise (Mathew 5:19).
Jesus would be aghast at today's Paulinists masquerading as Christians, who deride “old school” mosaic law as they are now under the Pauline dispensation of the “grace”:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works - Ephesians 2:8-9
Paul's doctrine of belief and faith rather than good works brought him into conflict with Jesus' handpicked disciples who knew Jesus personally and better understood his teachings. The apostle James in obvious response to Paul's misleading preachments countered:
“Faith by itself, if it has no works is dead” - James 2:17
“A man is justified by works not faith alone”- James 2:24
“As body without spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead” – James 2:26
Paul himself alluded to this doctrinal confrontation with Jesus' handpicked disciples:
“If someone preaches another Jesus different from the one we preach…if you receive a different gospel from the one you accepted…I think that I am not in the least inferior to these superlative apostles” - 2 Corinthians 11:4-5
Note Paul's sarcastic derision of Jesus' apostles as “superlative”. More importantly his reference to receiving a “different gospel” in the above verse is quite instructive, for there were indeed numerousgospels (over 50) in early Christianity before Emperor Constantine compelled the Church elders at the second Council of Nicea (325 AD) to arbitrarily select the four that are now included in the standardized Christian Bible.
Apparently Pauline Christianity used different gospels from Judeo-Christianity preached by Jesus' apostles. The gospels of the Hebrews, Thomas, Clement and second apocalypse of James were among the earliest Christian scriptures and were used by the then prevalent Judeo-Christian faction.
Pauline Christianity which was initially fringecult only became ascendant after the 70AD Roman destruction of the Jerusalem temple in response to a Jewish revolt against Roman rule. This resistance to Roman rule was actually what the biblical Jesus stood for, and for which he was executed when heattempted to seize power from the Romans as “King of the Jews” (Luke 19.38, Matthew 21:5-9), in order to restore traditional Judaism.
Thereafter the original Judeo-Christianity was crushed and the pro-establishment Pauline Christianity (Rom 13:12) which was later adopted as the official religion of Romebecame ascendant, with Paul supposedly authoring most of the books in the New Testament that now define Christianity.
To avoid the terminal fate that befell Judeo-Christianity which was crushed by Rome, Paul the loyal Roman citizen Paul advised:
“Everyone must submit himself to the governing (Roman) authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority (of Rome) is rebelling against what God has instituted,and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves” - Romans 13:1-2
Pauline Christianity is actually a paganised distortion of Judaism, as the Christ described in the New testament gospels was plagiarized from pre-Christian pagan cultures of the Middle East. Mithra, Dionysus and Osiris were all pre-Christian pagan deities (ancient Persian, Greek and Egyptian) that were born of virgins, died and resurrected, with their resurrection signifying some sort of redemption. The birthdays of Mithra and Dionysius were bothDecember 25th!!
Since Pauline Christianity was mainly addressed to non-Jews (Acts 22:21, 26:18), it is not at all surprising that gentile pagan myths and practices found their way into the New testament and Christianity. Even the Christian worship day (Sunday) is not theBiblical Sabbath (Saturday), but the worship day for the Roman sun deity – Sol Invictus - as was decreed by Emperor Constantine.
NB: Bible quotes are from Revised Standard Version.
Nafata Bamaguje

Alusi Okija: This na the same guy wey talk say ehn wan fhuck Army girl but ehn mind dey cut!!
EHn don open new account again ontop army matter.
This story na "stories that touch".
See civilian beat army!! You think say na ludo them dey play before you enter army?!
I laugh in JTF.
Maybe na 'Salvation Army" she dey!!

u dis guy sef u no go kill me with wetin u dey write...ahahahahahha

Gbawe: Thank you. You highlight precisely why there is an "argument". Go to the website of other Africans. You will see that they praise and encourage genuine developmental effort regardless of which part of their Country is enjoying it. For Nigerians, everything is a competition concerning ethnicity. This is why we have seen the chief mischief maker here mention Akwa Ibom, Edo, Enugu et al while saying the efforts of fayemi is a "big fat lie". Why would anyone interested in the progress of his own Country be that hateful and negative?

Here on Nairaland, the trend, highlighting how much hatred is in the heart of Nairalanders and probably Nigerians by extension, is for people to blindly,mischievously and ignorantly criticise anything not from their region and perhaps being done by the administrators of a Party they hate. It becomes sickening after a while.

You can see here that not a single critic of Fayemi on this thread, after calling him a liar and mocking the man, has had the grace to admit their ignorance after photos bear out the good work of the Governor in the road infrastructure sector. Anyway, it is for the hater to ponder on his own 'sickness' and negativity. What I know is that being that way can only predispose them to becoming losers and sad, frustated old men and women.

guy seriously you like to take things too personal like you are getting paid for it. You need to stop with your lengthy rants and stop accusing others of something you do here on NL as a past time job. Incase you did not notice, most of the critics here have actually been Yorubas and real Ekiti indigens that live and work in the state, unlike you that are arguing from a distance and forcefully trying to ram it down everyone's throat. Paperbrown and Kobo( yes I don't like the hag, she argues just for the fun of it but...... ) this time made some very serious and revealing points here that only showed the folly of your own argument. And yes, you are a bias party freak, it shows in your angry arguments and replies. Just as you like to criticize beaf for his support for PDP and Jonathan, so is your lack of sincerity in matters that have to do with your party ACN. It is obvious you are a charcoal pot calling a mere kettle black. Learn to argue without all that hateful outburst and anger abeg!!....and please cut down on the epistles, it gives one headaches. They are hardly read, so don't bother.

There must be a different set of laws for the clergy in Nigeria. If this is not the case, then somewhere in the country’s law book, I believe, it is written in small prints: “Religious leaders are exempted from these laws.” That the founder of Living Faith Ministry aka Winners Chapel, David Oyedepo, has not been invited for questioning by the police after a video shows him slapping a young woman across the face during a “deliverance session” purportedly to exorcise her of witchcraft is a confirmation that these obscenely wealthy preachers that are littered all over a country where about 80 per cent of their congregation wallow in near abject poverty, are above the law. Isn’t it bad enough that Bishop Oyedepo, a multi-millionaire, is exempted from paying taxes? Now, he must assault a woman, make a show of it and subsequently brags about it. In case most Nigerians, inured after seeing all kind of abuses go unpunished, are wondering what’s the big deal in an “almighty preacher” slapping a “witch”. Well, for me it’s a huge deal. Let me explain. The implications are as dire as they are far- reaching. First, an assault is a crime and this, in no way, should be overlooked because it is done only once with thousands of people cheering along. I must confess. With millions of followers spread over the world; the owner of, until recently, the world’s largest church auditorium; the owner of two private universities; the owner of at least two private jets; just to mention but a few of his earthly possessions, Bishop Oyedepo is no ordinary person and thus this show of sheer irresponsibility should be treated with a seriousness proportionate with his persona. The assault in question occurred during Winners Chapel yearly headline event named Shiloh. This programme is stupendously popular with hundred of thousands of people heading to the church’s spiritual mecca in Ota near Lagos and some million others viewing it live via satellite from around the world. If the millionaire preacher is not called to book on this, it will further splash muck on the already blackened image of Nigeria. At a time when we are still trying to rid ourselves the despicable treatment of so called “child witches” in the hands of the likes of Evangelist Helen Ukpabio the least we expect is for another preacher to slap us back into that infamy (all pun intended). Another implication of this shameful behavior is its multiplier effect. In Nigeria many pastors are desperately seeking to break into the Ivy-league of millionaire preachers. They are the ones who will sheepishly replicate anything any mega preacher does without stopping for a while to put their brains to use. They talk like their idols, dress like them and will perm their hair if their god figures do. These monkey-see-monkey-do fanatics will continue this unashamed irresponsibility of their superior in their local parishes. “If Papa Oyedepo did it, then it must be right”. They wouldn’t stop at just slapping. They would kick, punch, flog, abduct and even sexually abuse their subjects in the name of spiritual exorcism. History has shown that adherents of religious groups have displayed far deadlier fanaticism than the originators of such movements. And poor Nigerians too scared of eternal damnation that they have been told will be their lots if they challenge their preachers will cow into their homes and do nothing but sulk. Many of these excesses end up unreported and even when they are, the police do nothing about them and the victims end up being ostracized in their neighbourhoods for having the guts to demand justice. Again, if this is done in the public with such glee, God, save us from what these men do in your name when we are not looking. For me, the reaction of the congregation was even more offensive than the assault on the young woman. Isn’t it worrisome that many of those in the auditorium will readily lynch a homosexual if they knew one but here they are seen cheering the abusive behavior by their spiritual Godfather? Nigerians are interesting people. You will be amazed at how intellectual we can be in almost any discourse outside religion. Try to get many Nigerians to be logical on issue about their pastors, priests or imams and you will be shocked how they will immediately denigrate into the worst form of stupidity. They will drool such incredibly childish excuses in defence of their religious leaders you would think you are back in kindergarten all over again. For the benefit of doubt, let’s assume that Bishop Oyedepo really wanted to exorcise the young lady of witchcraft, whatever happens to the laying of hands and the power of the Word? I can’t remember a place in the Bible that reads: “And Jesus slapped the demons out of her”. A second look at the video will show that the violence inflicted on the young lady has absolutely nothing to do with exorcism. The point in issue is that the bishop “gentleman”, so used to people cowing and scampering to his orders, felt insulted when the brave girl insisted that she wasn’t a witch. All I see here is a man with a slighted ego. This is made even clearer when he asked the young girl if she knew who he was? If you loathe Rev. King of the Christian Praying Assembly, who awaits the hangman for dousing seven girls (who double as his sex slaves) from his congregation with petrol and throwing a lit match at them killing one of them in 2006 for indulging in “sexual immorality”, then you should denounce Bishop Oyedepo for assaulting the young girl. Don’t be alarmed. You will agree with me that Rev. King didn’t wake up one morning, tired of his orgy with the girls, and decided to set them ablaze. No. There is always a history. It may have started with a slap or a punch that went unreported because the girls were probably scared of being condemned to Hades if they brought charges against him. Convinced he is a demigod, Rev. King grew into a monster that killed a woman and maimed six others. Impunity fosters lawlessness. No matter how big one is, no one should be above the law. Bishop Oyedepo should be made to face the full course of the law.

mankand: Mr. Man , go anms ask Professor jerry Gana when he donated 5, 000 ,000 to covenant university, the church rejected it on the condition asking him if the money is from his pocket or from governmen t pocket. He could not defend himself.

Shikenah

hey Jesus christ o nazareth...why are u ppl this gullible and desperate....where did u pick this nonsense from...do u have proof?

f i o: please go and read your elementary agric. Science and list out the problems facing agriculture in west africa, before talking about business and agro whatever. OGA OO!

you sound so angry like somebody is trying so hard to discredit the message of your propagander. As long as Ekiti is a rural state, all that big talk about industrilization and big ticket projects for now is not in their reach. While you are busy thinking elementry like the cretins in governments are doing, some serious minded societies have the development of their agro industries to swell their GDP, FDI opportunities and used it as a launch pad to attract the needed developments and funds for big ticket projects that attract both FDI and investors. And yes thesame mistake made by some northern states that concentrated all her efforts on building every road in the states can be replicated in Ekiti state if his only plan with the state's very limited resources is majorly concentrated on building and repairing roads in the magnitude that will sap other sectors of needed funds. Abi you think say na paper im go take pay for the "Huge construction site im dey talk about ni?"
By the way, what exactly do you think agro allied industry is? Just shut up if you don't know what it is all about.

[quote author=Kilode?!]I've not had the opportunity to drive on Abia local roads. So maybe what I consider terrible is an expressway compared to those, who knows.[/quote]trust me bro, the roads in Abia states are death traps, more annoying is the fact that unlike Ekiti state that evidently do not have much funds at her disposal, Abia state in comparison has a way better financial prospectus yet has nothing to show for it. That is why it is important these days that governmnt spends money on projects that can generate economic activities. For instance, instead of wasting resources building federal roads that will only end up in an ownership dispute with the FG, funds should be channeled to intercity roads that link communities with potentials for agro allied industries, build more link roads to market places and towns. They should support the efforts of local farmers and heavily subsidize their cost. Government can actively start a campaign geared at attracting known local business men from the state and neigbouring states to invest in the burgeoning agro allied industries. They should find a way to exploit and highlight the areas where they can actually compete favourably with others. Building of roads is no doubt a good thing but it should be tied to a strategic importance else they might end up in thesame quagmire like many nothern states with enviable roads all over the place but little serious human and economic activities.
Seriously state governments need to start first with investment from the people of the state before looking out, that is the best way to attract others. Businesses bring other businesses.

Katsumoto: I don't believe that anyone is saying that road building will necessarily lead to increased business activities. The point is that you a good road to aid business activities. The government should do its part in developing infrastructure and then stimulate business activities through other means. The presence of goods roads is necessary for business but it is not a stimulant on its own.

For instance, two men both buy trucks to start 2 moving businesses. Mr A assumes that by having a truck, business will come to him and Mr B goes out to drum for business. At the end of the first year, Mr A only has 5k miles on his truck and $500 profit while Mr B has 75k on his truck and $7500 profit.

You do make a good point about indigenes being part of the development of state. You will find that Ogun state businessmen will probably have more business activities in Lagos than Lagos indigenes. Just like Dangote has more investments in Lagos than Kano. The governors in Nigeria are not doing enough but thats because most of them have no business being leaders.

I agree with you as well but I just feel development in this 21st century should go beyond building and repairing roads. In fact, instead of just building roads, government can tie infrastructural development to their strategic importance to a particular sector where the state has comparative advantage. Giving the fact that the state is highly dependent on the pittance from Abuja, it can not afford to be embarking on projects that, yes are good but realy are not economically expedient. Like Kobo said, if transporting materials, goods and services have not been shown to be a major problem in the state then Ekiti state government giving their very lean pocket do not have any business "converting the state to a huge construction site". They should be more focused on projects that will have the needed effect on stimulating economic activities and attracting investors to the state. There is too much politics these days in the claims of road construction by state government that it gives the wrong impression that constructing roads is the biggest challenge to improving the economy and attracting investors.

Seriously, on this one, I unbeliavably have to agree with Kobo JUNKIe; building good roads has done very little to stimulate the economic activities in states that have taken that as a policy solution. I have been to states like zamfara, zaria and presently am in Sokoto, one thing I find common in all these states is the network of good roads scattered all over their towns, most of them are rarely used and experience minimal vehicula activities. Yet there is almost no serious economic activities witnessed in any of these states. Instead a place like Aba for instance with its huge infrastructural lack and directionless leadership continues to have huge economic activities and GDP.
May be it has to do with the active involvment and participation of its indigens to the economy of the state. Seriously, while it is very important that government does its own bit by building the required infastructures, the people in Ekiti will have to show faith too in the potentials of their state, they have to show the investors outside that the state can be economically viable if there is a geniune resolution. There should be a reverse in the way every local investor sets up in Lagos thereby killing any potential of neigbouring states in the region. The position of Lagos and its large population size should be taken advantage of by neigbouring states in the region and not the reverse where Lagos is sucking every opportunities from them. Ogun state for instance has been very disappointing in this regard giving the fact that it is very close to the Lagos market plus it has one of the largest wealthy Yoruba and Nigerian business men and women yet they would rather take their investment to Lagos than invest in Ogun state.
Contrary to that, many of the big time traders you see in places like ladipo, Balogun... Et al have strong branches in their home places like Onitsha, Aba, Porthacourt, Asaba, warri and co.
If you go to Nnwei and Aba in particular, most of the industries you see there are owned by the indigens. That is how to stimulate the growth of a state, these economic activites are what will actually draw other investors, outside professionals and the needed market to patronize the investment opportunities of the state and buy any goods produced in the state.
These are very practicable examples that do not need all those big talk of unrealistic industrilization scales that we all know are not in the reach of any of these states for now.

But I still will like to see pictures anyway, makes more sense that way....could not read all the article