₦airaland Forum

secretsuccess:
my name is joshua a chemical engineering graduate. it is so difficult to survive as a hardworking, honest and God fearing person here in Nigeria. After my NYSC i have been struggling from place to place, looking for opurtunities. i always shuttle from lagos to portharcourt...thinking that one day it will be well. i just discovered that it will never be well..

When we were in secondary school we were told to get a good course..my parents were happy when i got chemical engineering..then in school it was get a good result..that was no problem, i got a second class upper.

Ater service it was get certified..ahh, no wahala.. i got my NEBOSH certificate..then again some said it was connection..ok, i joined lots of proffesional whatsapp groups after much work, i even had to pay for some...funny enough the so called proffesional group failed woefully.

twice i was called for a job brief..twice i was rejected..the first reason was because i am igbo the woman saw my name and her countenance changed though she dashed me 2k and told me the usual words i would get back to you..ok, fair enough. The second was in portharcourt i was rejected because
of my church..Roman catholic.. hmmm. A young man was also rejected for same reason he kept on complaining while i was just laughing..though later i begged him for #100 for my TP, he gave me sha.. he is a nice man.

ok. i had to go back to the drawing board..met some people and they said i should just do further courses..oooo! course again, ok.. no wahala. i begged my mum to sell her bike for 110k so i can add 30k and do process safety and loss prevention..she accepted.. i sold the bike and did the course.. yet, no interview call. i said ok let me visit companies and give them the cv..my brother no show.

i sat still again..and then reviewed my cv..paid 2k for push CV to review the cv..still no luck.. downloaded CV review app used it time and time again. same results.. no calls.

the only thing i get everyday is insults from my Father and some relatives of how lazy and weak i am...this is not fair life itself is not fair..is it not better to die? after working hard in school and after school for about 8-10 years no result for it..

People will always say dont be tired but my brother i don tire... i know many of us have same story, but for me the only thing i can do to make the pain easy.. is write..

Nigeria is not worth it.. did i tell you i briefly went into business?.. but how can you do well in business without long time experience.. it is always difficult..well, the pressure is much and i see that breaking point is close... only God knows Tomorrow.

These days the only thing that comes to my mind is suicide..i have downloaded lots of books to see if i can find a solution.. but none yet.. please if you have good advice for me i am willing to hear it.

thanks
E Joshua

Sarassin:
There is no historical evidence that John started his ministry in the year 29CE.

But let’s try to deal with the thorny issue of dating the death of the Baptist. I shall be relying on the historical accounts of Josephus in this instance.

According to Josephus there is an argument between Herod Antipas and King Aretas. Herod illegally married the wife of his step-brother Herodias. Herod had been married to Aretas’ daughter, who then fled home to her father.
By the way this King Aretas is the same one mentioned by Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:32 so we know that (a converted) Paul is active at this time.

This of course would be a nonsense because it places Jesus much too close to Paul, whose conversion on the road to Damascus must have happened in one of the years between 28CE and 36CE and in fact closer to the earlier date.

Herod's battle with Aretas appears to have broken out soon after Herod's first wife, Aretas' daughter, left him.

The death of Tiberius who had instructed his commanders to attack Aretas occurred on 16 march 37CE so we can reasonably state that the battle took place during the winter of the year 36/37. (there is further evidence for this but I won't bore you all)


Josephus states: That the quarrel with Aretas sprang up "about the time" that Herod's brother Philip died in 34 CE (Ant. 18.4.6 106) We know that the Baptist was alive at this time because he interpreted a dream to Philip, not that it did him much good, Philip died on the same day.

We know that the Baptist had died before the war broke out. There is only the time window of the fall of 34CE when we know that the Baptist was still alive and the winter of 36CE by which time he would be dead. If we factor in a period of incarceration of John by Herod, it is not unreasonable to assert that he died in 36CE.

Sarassin:
Fine, pray do tell us then who in your opinion was the leader of the early Church in Jerusalem at the time of Paul's conversion?

Agreed, this is what the quasi-historical account of Luke states. I am presenting what actual historians recorded. Quoting "Thee's" and "Thines" does not make biblical accounts historically accurate.

Sarassin:
Now you are simply being obdurate. I gave you a number of impeccable historical sources who made it clear that James led the early church. Whether he was appointed to the position or inherited it or whatever, the point is validly made and properly attested that he led the Church in Jerusalem. It is not in doubt.

Where have I stated that Jesus died in 36CE?

The author of Acts is alone in his claim that James did not believe in Jesus. Contemporary sources state otherwise as I have shown. Luke’s claim is clearly mendacious.

Where did I claim that Stephen was a “nom de guerre” for Paul? You’re putting words into my mouth. I wrote that Luke masked the true event of Saulus attacking James by claiming it was Stephen who was attacked.

History tells us no such thing. It is only Luke who makes this claim, he is not a witness to the event and it is not attested in any other gospel, sorry, biblical accounts are not historical.

I have already done so. Do you suppose that even the murderous Saulus was brave enough to attempt the murder of Two prominent Christian figures on the steps of the same temple?

Splinz:
While I may not agree with a lot of claims by sir Sarassin, his assertion and quotes from history regarding James, brother of Jesus, as an apostle and later leader of the Church, is largely correct.

Yes, James, Christ’s younger brother, also functioned as an apostle. We do know that a number of other men were later ordained apostles, with one likely filling the position that James (John’s brother, who was martyred in AD 42 by Herod) had held. Note that it was after James was martyred that the twelve (now eleven) went to the lost tribes of Israel—their primary mission (Matthew 10:5-6). It therefore simply means that someone must have taken James place to complete the Original Twelve, before they start their primary assignment.

While it is true that these later apostles were ordained by the Original, it doesn't in anyway means that they are inferior or lower in rank to their predecessor, seeing that the office of an apostle is the highest in the Church of God, and all were directly responsible to Christ alone. As an example of no seniority among apostles, consider Peter who can be considered as the “Chief Coordinator” of the Church during its formative years, how he was confronted openly by Paul, a much later or younger apostle (Galatians 2:11-13).

Now consider the council at the Headquarters Church in Jerusalem, in AD 49, as related in Acts 15. Verse 6 shows the apostles and elders gathered to consider the matter of circumcision. Peter led the council in their discussion and the decision was pronounced by James, Christ’s brother (13 & 19), and accepted by all present as the judgment bound on Earth and in heaven.

Just as another example of an apostle after the Original Twelve, in his Church History of Brittany, Cressy writes, “St. Aristobulus [Romans 16:10], a disciple of…St. Paul in Rome, was sent as an Apostle to the Britons, and was the first Bishop in Britain, he died in Glastonbury, A.D. 99.” And speaking of Joseph of Arimathea, also in Britain (said to be the first that planted Christianity in Britain), Cressy wrote “‘Joseph was buried near the little wattle church he built [at Glastonbury].’ The lid of the sarcophagus said to have contained his remains bore the simple inscription: ‘To the Britons I came after I buried the Christ. I taught, I have entered my rest.’”

cc: Scholar8200

Sarassin:
It is simply not possible that Herod Antipas made that statement. By Herod’s own admission he had killed John the Baptist. Now we know for a fact that he killed the Baptist sometime in the year 36CE before he went to war with Aretas and lost in 37CE.

Now unless the deaths of the Baptist and Jesus took place in the same year (of which there is no evidence) if you say Jesus outlived John then it means the earliest Jesus died is 37CE in the middle of the Bar Kochba war which is impossible.

We know also that Paul had experienced his epiphany of Christ before 37CE and headed to Arabia, we know this because he was escaping down walls in baskets from Aretas before, the war broke out. Would Paul have an epiphany of Christ whilst Jesus was still alive?

So, you tell me how Antipas could have ever uttered those words.

he killed the Baptist sometime in the year 36CE before he went to war with Aretas and lost in 37CE

analice107:
Cc: Scholar8200, pls answer this.

Sarassin:
With the greatest respect sir, this is a nonsense. Subject to what authority? He was made head!

,First you said my assertion that James was head of the early church was a pathetic claim. Now, I have provided 5 or 6 referenceable historical sources who have confirmed that James did indeed head the early church,

in fact In the Nag Hammadi documents Jesus himself designates James as the head over all of the disciples and affirms that “for James’ sake heavens and the earth came into existence” (Logion 12)

The best you can come up with is that James was not “daddy G.O”
Do you now accept my earlier statement that James was the acknowledged head of the early Jerusalem church? A simple yes or no will suffice.
[quote]confusion, sarrasin, is when you quote in five places that the Apostles made James head and quote in another place that Jesus made James head when clearly James did not believe Him till after His Passion!

[quote]And where have I stated that Stephen =James? That is just a red-herring with which you are tying yourself up in knots trying to deflect from the main issue.

Pre-conversion Saul of Tarsus was responsible for the deaths and imprisonment on many Christians. Historical accounts place him at the scene of the attack on James on the steps of the temple at Jerusalem, we can actually date the account. The author of Acts places the chronology of his account of the killing of Stephen in the exact same timeline that James was attacked. Luke's account of the killing of Stephen may have taken place, but it was definitely not in the chronological order and context in which he placed it

Therein lies the problem, the constant desire to merge historical facts with biblical stories. There's nothing to reconcile. I am merely presenting historical facts as they are available in a bid to present biblical characters as they might have been seen in a historical context, particularly Jesus of Nazareth. I am not obliged to fit historical analysis into your biblical worldview.

Sarassin:
And Jesus wept.

Hegesippus, in the fifth book of his Commentaries, mentions that James was made a bishop of Jerusalem he states: "After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem”
Clement of Alexandria wrote in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes that James the Just was chosen as a bishop of Jerusalem by Peter, James (the Greater) and John.

According to Eusebius, James was named a bishop of Jerusalem by the apostles: "James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles. Ecc Bk II Chap 23:1

Jerome wrote the same: "James... after our Lord's passion…... [b]ordained by the apostles [/b]bishop of Jerusalem..." and that James "ruled the church of Jerusalem thirty years (on illustrious men Chap 2)
James is a principal author of the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15 if you even know what that is.

I am staggered at the breadth of your lack of knowledge, I made a clear statement that James had been the head of the Jerusalem church and you are wittering on about 12 men in a room.

Did you think I made it up? You are here casting sly aspersions on me but you cannot refute even the slightest information I have presented. I should remove the “Scholar” from your moniker if I were you!

sonofthunder:
maybe it was 'Saul' that met James... Lol.

Sarassin:
There are no personal assumptions here. In the immediate years after the death of Jesus, James nicknamed “the Just” was the acknowledged head of the Jerusalem church, that set of believers who sought to practice the teachings of Jesus as he taught. You are singularly uninformed if you did not know this, it is divinity 101.

James as the head of the church had a following. Yes we are all aware of Paul’s persecution of the Church. How many would accept Paul's doctrine's if it had been apparent from the outset that he had tried his hardest to murder the brother of Jesus, the Christ from whom he claimed he received his epiphany?

I don't have to highlight anything for you. Do the research, both books are widely available.

Sarassin:
Paul affirmed a lot of things. There is no doubt that it was James as the head of the Jerusalem church

who was attacked by the henchmen of Saulos with him standing by, James was removed by his followers and taken to Qumran where he remained until he recovered. The biblical account is simply masking the actions of Paul in attacking the leader of the Jerusalem church.

It might come as a huge shock to you but the Bible is not an historical document. You have asked me for my sources, go and read the Recognitions and read the Antiquities, read up about the antecedents of the religion you profess and when you have done so come back and lets have a proper discussion.

Sarassin:
I wrote that either Christian sources were unaware of the chronology or it was falsified, in light of what we now know, it has to be one or the other.


The historicity says otherwise. And how does John the Baptist outliving Jesus detract from him being a ‘forerunner’ of Jesus if indeed he was. Clearly he preceded Jesus. If you dispute that John the Baptist outlived Jesus in light of the information I posted, kindly highlight where you think I got it wrong.


You know full well that Paul would not make such a ridiculous claim to have received an epiphany of Christ in the years that Jesus was alive.



Not an assumption at all. In the quasi-historical Book of Acts we are acquainted with Paul’s attack on Stephen, this attack is in fact against James, it is attested in the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and by Josephus, two independent sources. His attack on James takes place before his conversion.

Are you serious? did you actually read what I posted? I think you're throwing a hissy fit!

OLAADEGBU:
Why did Jesus need to ascend into Heaven?

Sarassin:
Yes, I believe John the Baptist outlived Jesus. I will show you why, first we shall establish the year that the Baptist died looking at historical sources available and then we shall look at the death of Jesus.

First of all, the idea that John the Baptist and Jesus were of approximately the same age is proven at the outset to be an invention and historically untenable. Christian sources either did not exactly know, or deliberately falsified, the chronological order of the births of Jesus and the Baptist. We know this because we have the historical writings of Josephus that puts the first arrest of John the Baptist by order of Archelaus as the first appearance by the Baptist which is best placed in the period immediately after Herod's death and before the journey of Archelaus to Rome in 4CE.

Now if we are to trust the Christian tradition that Jesus outlived the Baptist, then the death of Jesus must be placed in the year 36CE at the earliest, in accordance with Luke's idea of the course of affairs after the death of John the Baptist.

This of course would be a nonsense because it places Jesus much too close to Paul, whose conversion on the road to Damascus must have happened in one of the years between 28CE and 36CE and in fact closer to the earlier date.

We should keep in mind that Paul is at this time busily trying to murder James (brother of Jesus), and escaping from King Aretas before the outbreak of the war.

John the Baptist is murdered by Herod Antipas in 36CE.

We know this because Herod Antipas goes to war with the Arabian king Aretas in 37CE and is defeated. His defeat is attributed as retribution by the Jewish God for Herod’s unjustified killing of a godly man i.e John the Baptist.

The trial of Herod Antipas before Agrippa is fully documented. Herod gives the justification of the murder of John the Baptist as the fear of a popular uprising orchestrated by John the Baptist. Agrippa's letter and the protocol of the trial of Antipas were naturally preserved in the commentarii principis of Caligula, where they were consulted by Josephus and other historians.
We have the name of the bearer of the letter, the time of his arrival, the place where Caesar held the trial, undoubtedly we are dealing here with documentary evidence of primary importance.

As further historical evidence for the timeline of the death of John the Baptist; We know that Philip the tetrarch died on the evening of the day on which John the Baptist had interpreted to him his dream about an eagle. And we know from the Antiquities that Philip died in the spring or summer of 34CE.

Therefore we can establish that John the Baptist died no later than 36CE, but that he was alive in the summer of 34CE

An2elect2:
You are welcome Yes feel free to ask any question

I think before considering anything. The first questions we ought to ask ourselves are: Is this a fact in the Bible? If yes... Is it worth looking at? And how is it defined in the Bible?

That aside, the Bible is very clear about the predestination of the elect. This shouldn't even be debated seeing that they are expressly stated or implied in so many passages. One very good example
is Romans 8:30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Before time began, From the foundation of the world, God chose some people to be called and justified in time and be glorified hereafter. It then follows that no one would be called to be a Christian (because a Christian is a person justified by the faith of Christ) without first being predestined.

Moreover, the popular envangelical sub-clause "accepting Christ as personal Lord and saviour" is same as saying Christ isn't the saviour yet until we make him one and His death not enough but only made all he died for "savable". I.e It is insufficient to save a man including changing that man's heart and will towards God.
If truly Christ's death is enough for those he died for, all of them would be brought to life in time by God himself. Hence, receiving Him isnt borne out of a man's will but God's.

An2elect2:
Don't forget this...

malvisguy212:
bro, I miss your post so much, good to have you back, may God give you strength to continue to defend the truth.

halarho:
Zkososo I am pissed off with the way u attend to this issue and it depict the high level of your counter sagacity to know the truth......Any evidence from the bible that categorically detest Islam....of course none......even in the book of Barnabas u will find in there that a Prophet is coming after Jesus but you people with Ur hatred and pride covered it up......after all some prophets have been sent before Jesus and the last was after him which is my Prophet.........Moreso the bible you claim to be your source of evidence is indeed full of lies, unreasonable talks after all it was designed after Jesus by some of his haters including paul, Peter and co......Abraham is indeed the father of faith......and Islam is indeed the way to faith....Jesus never call to Christianity rather he called to the path of God.....you people out of your ignorance took him as God.....#Wise up.....God does not beget.....put biase and subjectivity aside......Islam does not preach violence even the Jews during the time of the Prophet can testify to this...go back to history....

OLAADEGBU:
Why did Jesus entrust Mary to the apostle John instead of to His brothers? If Mary had other children, shouldn't they have been the ones to take care of her?

sonofthunder:
this relates how we are expected to study the Bible... each word, then line, then verse, then ...

OLAADEGBU:
God bless you.

sonofthunder:
Mr. Finney tells of a church in which
there was a continuous revival for
thirteen years. At last the revival
stopped, and everybody feared and
questioned why, till one day a tearful
man arose and told how for thirteen
years he had prayed every Saturday
night till after midnight for God to
glorify Himself and save the people.
But two weeks before, he had stopped
this praying, and then the revival had
stopped. If God will answer prayer
like that, what a tremendous
responsibility rests on us all to pray!
Oh, for a holy soldier in every corps
and a believing member in every
church, who would spend half of
every Saturday night in prayer! Here
is work for resting officers, and for
people who cannot go into Christian
work because of insurmountable
difficulties. You can do some needed
knee-work.
But let no one imagine that this is
easy work. It is difficult and amounts
sometimes to an agony, but it will
turn to an agony of joy in union and
fellowship with Jesus. How Jesus
prayed!

An2elect2:
I forgot its you! Another Freewiller! These are the kinds of false Spirits we receive when we reject the truth.
This story of a strange woman with strange experience that has no resemblance with the life of the saints in the Bible who also had the infilling of the Holy Spirit.

Unlike "Righteous Helen" the Spirit they received revealed Christ to them not turning them into some strange beings to be reverred.

God has called us to make disciples after Him and not ourselves like your Helen.

Pls what is more demonic than this quote that ascribes power to Helen's name?



"Her name was so powerful" What blasphemy. Was Paul's name powerful? Was Peter's name powerful? Was Stephen's name powerful?

These apostles of God did not make disciples after themselves but after Christ. We are to follow suit. Preach Christ who alone has all power and by whose name alone every knee should bow. And not turn ourselves into "special beings" or "special Christs" and take God's glory.

Do not be deceived. Test all Spirits. I have not spoken out of hatred but out of great concern. Weigh my words with the Bible and you will see I am not lying.