₦airaland Forum

Maynman:
Jesus never existed beyond the books of New Testament.

🥱🥱🥱

But all through the 1st century people were writing about him.
Not 2nd century but 1st century.

Maynman:
Paul was a nazarene.

Nazarene is a gnostic group.

So Paul was preaching Jesus of Nazareth.
Ok which one did Herod think Paul was preaching?

Maynman:
Jewish christians call themselves the way.
Only people from nazarene were called “nazarene”.

Other Jewish Christian sects include ebionites, zealots, they never called themselves “Christians”.

It doesn't really matter. It's a useless argument. That why most Christians on this forum ignores u when u bring up this argument.

Jesus didn't form a religion. He only told us to follow him and become like him.
Whatever name u want to call yourself is fine. It doesn't really matter.
U do t want to bear Christian but called Nazarene, all well and good.
Just follow Christ, that's the Koko.

Maynman:
That’s because you don’t understand what “christ” means.
Constatine worshipped Helios christos.
Not to forget there is difference between Iesus chrestus and jesus of Nazareth.

So which one was Paul talking to Herod about.
Iesus chrestus, Helios Christos or Jesus of Nazareth.

Which one was Paul preaching and which one was Herod thinking about.

Maynman:
Understand the context illiterate.

Shaul does not endorse the term "Christian" here when Agrippa suspects him of being a "chrestos /christian". Shaul instead deflects away from such an idea and clears things up for the undiscerning Agrippa, the man who judges in the flesh (1 Pet 4:6):

Acts 26:28-29 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. (And) *but Paul said, I would to Elohim (pw God), that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am.

The context would have been far clearer if "but" had been the chosen translation here (Greek "de" instead of "and" since the Greek allows for either option. I believe "and" was chosen to further sell the lie that Shaul thinks himself to be a Christian. The use of "but" on the other hand would signify Shaul opposing Agrippa's false perception that Shaul is a "Christian". Addtionally Agrippa states "almost" (Greek "oligos"

[*StrongsGreek*]
3641 oligos ol-ee'-gos of uncertain affinity; puny (in extent, degree, number, duration or value); especially neuter (adverbially) somewhat:--+ almost, brief(-ly), few, (a) little, + long, a season, short, small, a while.

Agrippa, for a while, had the preconceived idea that he was being persuaded to be a "Christian" because of the way Shaul was arguing his case so strongly.

🥱🥱🥱
Good u did some work on yourself after that brutal humiliation I gave u on previous thread. You almost cried.

Anyway, even u know what u wrote up there is unconvincing.

Why should Herod be thinking of becoming a Christian if what Paul was telling him wasnt related to Christianity. How does that makes sense to u.

It's like someone preaching Christ to me and I'm thinking of becoming a Buddhist.
Then I tell him, 'u almost made me become a Buddhist'
Seriously, does that make sense to u.

Early Christians called themselves The way
Jews called them Nazarene
They were called Christians by gentile who believed in Jesus Christ.

Maynman:
Which evidence?

The evidence u denying.

Maynman:
I said Pseudepigrapha

Are you dumb?

So u used a pseudepigrapha to rebute an argument. A dubious source to counter a claim.
How does that make sense to u.
Why then should I believe other nonsense u've been posting here.
They could as well be dubious articles from false writers.

Maynman:
You are little like your creator, both of you will be buried together.
No he didn’t refer to paul as a Christian.

It's either u have no shame or u have a short memory.
I humiliated u on this topic and now u back again to receive another dose of humiliation.
Are u not the one that said Herod called Jesus followers Christians in Antioch?

Anyway this is your answer.

Maynman:
He specifically mentioned the john he met

And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the 172 presbyter John.

I hope u know Jesus had more than 12 disciples.
Papais clearly called John the Presbyter a disciple of the Lord.

Maynman:
There was nothing like “Christianity” then, there was nothing to push.

Paul was called leaders of nazarene not a christian.

I buried u on this point in the past. I'm not going back on it.
Herod clearly referred to Paul as a Christian.

Maynman:
Who is ignatius of Antioch?

U mentioned him. Why did u mention someone u don't know.
Are u confused.

Maynman:
How do you know it is from papais itself because the book says so? And this book was found by?

As usual denying evidence. Once an evidence shatters their claim, they deny it.

Maynman:
Free yourself from the bondage of ireneaus.

Look up “jewish christians”.

So what are u on about Jewish Christians .
The first Christians were Jews, everybody knows that.

They tried to push a narrative that christianity is a continuation of judaism and that some of the mosaic law should be followed- read the book of acts.

As Christianity spread out of Judea territory, this belief fell out of place and Christology was firmly established.

So what's so special about Jewish Christians that I must learn.

Maynman:
Which ignatius??
The one that wrote letters?

Is Ignatius of Antioch a real person or not.

Maynman:
No Illiterate, the person was explaining the book.
Number 1 said the book were said to be written by papias according to iranaeus
Number 2 said in the book, papias was not even a eye witness, he never met the apostles.
He never met the apostles he said it himself, he got to know from a friend of a friend according to the book 😂😂
Read!!!

Don't be lazy and dumb the same time. Read further down, that's why I brought it here.
Number 1 simply stated these are the only known works of papias according to Irenaeus.
Number 3 and 4 are quotation from papias work itself.
And further down, it said he met and heard from John.

Maynman:
Pseudepigrapha

Is he a real person or not. That's the question.

Maynman:
And who is this ignatius, mention his writings.

One of iraeneus ghost writers.

Wow, few minutes back Ignatius was a real person.
All of a sudden he has become a ghost writer.

Maynman:
What did you underline?
What does it mean?

Iraeneus has really put you in bondage.

That was papias own words not irenaeus.

Maynman:
Free yourself from the bondage of ireneaus.

Look up “jewish christians”.

But u didn't see this.
Irenaeus is really tormenting u tonight.

Another apostolic father is Papias of herapolis. Known to John and other apostles.
He lived 60 AD to 130AD.
His works the exposition of the Sayings of the Lord is an important early source on Christian oral tradition and especially on the origins of the canonical Gospels.
Papias confirmed Mark wrote the gospel according to him as dictated by Peter.

Here is what he wrote about gospel of Matthew.

Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could.

The writings of papais
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxxix.html

Maynman:
Have you looked up “jewish christians” yet?

Ignatius mentioned Evodius in his writings.

Maynman:
There was no “Christianity” in first century.


I hope you have learnt where the apostolic fathers come from.

So another apostolic father was evodius of Antioch.
He was the 2nd bishop of Antioch and actually coined the name Christianity. He was well known to Peter himself.
He died 69 AD and was succeeded by Ignatius.

Maynman:
Tertulian also formed up the word “trinity”, a constantine concept.

Look up helios christos, you are worshipping a Roman Parody!

Today I'm curing u of ignorance regarding 1st century Christianity.
Next time I will take u up on other centuries

Maynman:
This is the evidence for your savior
https://timsteppingout./2015/10/01/early-christianity-irenaeus-and-his-web-of-lies/

Have u checked out Tertullian and his own web of lies. He did more work on early church writings than irenaeus.
Maybe that will help u feel better.

Maynman:
Dubious sources.

Polycarp never meat john.

John didn’t write any gospel, all the gospel are written by UNKNOWN!!!

Good, we done here. What u doing now is denying evidence.
I leave u to your folly or fantasy.

Maynman:
Which john did he meet?

Irenaeus couldn't have met any of the 12 disciples because they were all dead by the time he was born.
That's what I meant, thus cannot be qualified to be called an apostolic father.

Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp who died 155 AD.

Maynman:
NO, they were not, bring out your sources.

This is polycarp letter to the Philippians.

Maynman:
Thought you said “ he couldn't have met any of them”
Now he is a student, well Irenaeus is a Liar, polycarp never met john.

Which fraudulent letter?

What century was Tertulian?
Hope you know Tertulian was a MONTANIST.

Irenaeus didn't meet any of the 12 apostles, that's what I meant.
Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp. He would know if Polycarp met John the apostle.

Maynman:
All what you just said comes from iraneus, if he was born in 130AD, how did he know?
Surely he must have read it somewhere?
Post another evidence apart from iraneus that was not born then.

Do u understand what's called chian of narration.
Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp.
Polycarp in his letter mentioned Ignatius.
Tertullian was another Christian writer who mentioned apostolic fathers.

Cybertroll:


Black Africans and defending a borrowed God who's anti-civilization

While the world advances without any opposition from your unusually silent God, you're here excusing why he hindered the progress of the early men for some stupid reason (his insecurity).

You people have started with your stupid reasoning.
B4 black Africans met the borrowed God, what advance civilization did he build. Wakanda?

Maynman:
You are the illiterate, i never said “5 apostolic father”, i said apostolic father.
And who made this people “apostolic fathers”?
I just showed you none of these met the apostles with the dates mentioned.

Who made this people “apostolic”?

Apostolic fathers were early church leaders who personally met and knew the 12 apostles of Jesus.
Irenaeus was born in 130AD, he couldn't have met any of them.

Now answer my question, was polycarp, Clement and Ignatius Christian leaders in the 1st century. Yes or No.

Maynman:
Apart from him who again?
And was this not 100 years AFTER?
Is Iraenius also not an apostolic?
Who gave him the title?
A fraud using a forgery to ascertain himself.

Of the many gospels written in antiquity, exactly four gospels came to be accepted as part of the New Testament, or canonical. An insistence upon a canonical four, and no others, was a central theme of Irenaeus of Lyon.

He claimed only four in number; according to Romer, "like the four zones of the world, the four winds, the four divisions of man’s estate, and the four forms of the first living creatures – the lion of Mark, the calf of Luke, the man of Matthew, the eagle of John."

Iraenius isn't one of the 5 apostolic fathers, Olodo.
If u understand why they are called apostolic fathers, u won't mention Iraenius.
Read u won't do, study u refuse. Instead u will be filling your head with rubbish conspiracy theories making claims u can't defend.

I will continue to knack your head with sense on nairaland until u repent.