₦airaland Forum

Goosethetruth:
Jesus cosmic Jesus.
Paul does not seem to believe in a human Jesus who walked the earth but a cosmic entity he encountered through a vision.
This Pauline concept of Jesus obviously set Paul on a collision course with the other Apostles.

To be continued.

Goosethetruth:
Jesus Christ,who spoke Aramaic, never wrote a single word about his ministry.


To be continued.

Goosethetruth:
Jesus Christ,who spoke Aramaic, never wrote a single word about his ministry.
Paul on the other hand after his visionary and spiritual dreamlike encounter with the cosmic Jesus became a preacher and missionary of his own idea of the ministry.
Paul wrote more than half of the books in the Bible new testament although only seven letters can really be regarded as undisputed letters. The undisputed letters of Paul are: Romans,1st and 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians,1st Thessalonians,and Philemon.

These undisputed Pauline letters are the earliest Christian writing and the texts preceeded the gospels of Mark,Matthew, Luke and John.
I repeat the Undisputed Pauline letters were written and in use in the early Christian Church long before the first gospel of Mark was written.
The fact that the four gospels which were totally anonymous and without names is another discussion in itself.

The fact that Paul's undisputed letters bear his name and byline written in the first person while the gospels which came later with no names and written in the third person is enough to show that none of the writers of the gospels were witnesses to what they wrote about.
The gospels were collections of myths,oral traditions which were written and embellished from the letters of Paul.
Note that Mark which is the first gospel writes about a human Jesus while the last gospel which is John embellished this Jesus into a Divine Jesus who is the same as God. As the years moved on from the first gospel the Jesus story also evolved and changed. This accounts for all the contradictions in the same stories in the gospel.


In essence Paul's message that he received from his vision with the cosmic Jesus on the road to Damascus is : Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected,is the Lord. It is through faith and not law that Christians are reconciled to God,filled with the holy spirit, made part of the church,while awaiting the return of the cosmic Jesus.
Paul does not seem to believe in a human Jesus who walked the earth but a cosmic entity he encountered through a vision.
This Pauline concept of Jesus obviously set Paul on a collision course with the other Apostles.

To be continued.

Goosethetruth:
It is quite amusing how Christians love burying their heads in the sand when confronted by the truth about their religious book.
The answer this guy (typing with caps locked aggressively) seeks, have already been postulated severally on this thread by myself. There is even a graphic image that shows which texts preceeded each other, but apparently comprehension is a problem.
I will only respond to people who seek to advance their knowledge. Simple.
Tomorrow the thread continues for those who desire to advance their knowledge of the origins of the anonymous gospels,Paul's letters and their influence on Christianity.

MaxInDHouse:
Some people just feel like advancing their opinion without respecting the opinion of others and the funny thing about them is they are intolerant yet they will continue to accuse anyone who tries to reason with them.
So after engaging him i discovered that he's only seeking to promote his ideas so to him those who aren't dancing to his tune are burying their heads!

Goosethetruth:
Guy,
This is the problem with you guys. You don't read. You don't comprehend. Typing with caps locked is not knowledge. It is like shouting during a discourse,trying to brow beat others into your point of view. Everything I have written on this thread are verifiable if you do a little research!
The answers you seek are all over this thread. The answer you seek is in the post you quoted.
I will be forced to ignore you because it is obvious you are trying to derail this thread.

sonmvayina:
All the so called authentic Paulina where written before any of the gospels..... according to scholars. The first book of the new testament to be written is 1st Thessalonia....

The gospel came much later.

Goosethetruth:
Facts:

1. The undisputed letters of Paul were written around AD48-AD62.
2. The disputed letters of Paul were written around AD50-AD67.
3. The gospel of Mark was written around AD65-AD70.
4. The gospel of Matthew was written around AD70-AD85.
5. The gospel of Luke was written around AD80-AD90.
6. The gospel of John was written around AD90-AD100

Bear in mind that these four gospels were originally written in Greek and NOT Aramaic. These gospels were also anonymous. There were no names affixed to these books originally. This means that throughout the first century there were NO names on these gospels!


Fact:

Names were attached to these four anonymous texts by the early church leaders and elders to confer an authentication of the content in these anonymous texts.

So who were the persons who attached these four names to these gospels?

1.Papias(~120CE)
2. Irenaeus(~180CE)
These were the church leaders who attached the names to these four anonymous gospels in order to give them credibility and apostolic authority.

The people whose names appear on those gospels are not the people who wrote those books. So if the early leaders of the church could do this what else could they not do?
These are questions you should ask yourself!

Goosethetruth:
I will go on to prove that each of the gospel writers who were anonymous took their bearing from Paul's cosmic Jesus and embellished it with oral traditions while copying each other to create the four church fathers/ elders approved gospels.
Here are how the four gospels record Jesus death on the cross.

Goosethetruth:
I will go on to prove that each of the gospel writers who were anonymous took their bearing from Paul's cosmic Jesus and embellished it with oral traditions while copying each other to create the four church fathers/ elders approved gospels.
Here are how the four gospels record Jesus death on the cross.

Lucifyre:
Uhmm ok?! 😒 That changes literally nothing I said, this is besides the fact, your bible literally states that nowhere. Basically a new age invented interpretation to combat the ludicrousness and absurdity of the fictional hell. Guess the god who seemingly doesn't change, gave this new pov recently.

Lucifyre:
Yeah... No. This is one of xtainity's biggest retcons by renegotiating and reinterpreting the text to fit a narrative thousands of years l8r by non-contemporary sources. Isaiah 53 clearly refers to Isreal as the servant, like all the preceding chapters before it in context. The funny thing is even in the whole book of Isaiah, the only time the hebrew word for messaiah is mentioned, it's referring to the persian king Cyprus. Not only does the servant in Isaiah 53 not die for anyone's sin(he repents of sin), he also dies multiple times and has physical children. Didn't know Jesus had physical children.

Nnamdipapa:
It means they were not eye witnesses and merely retelling stories. So we cannot claim any part of the Bible as facts.

DeepSight:
The summary of your argument is that we are the property of God and he can do as he pleases with us.

My question is simple. How is that different from being owned by a white slave master during the slave trade? And why should I worship or love such a slave master?

Perhaps you might want to convert to Islam because its worldview accurately aligns with what you are saying. According to Islam, we are slaves of Allah.

DeepSight:
FreeIgboho & Image123.
Justify.

Lucifyre:
The concept of sin is nonsense in the first place seeing as morality isn't objective and is highly influenced by socio - cultural factors.

Lucifyre:
Sin is just the typical subjective and religious concept/construct people pretend is some objective thing everyone has to adhere to. No one died for any sins, an apocalyptic prophet was killed like a common criminal, something his followers[b] were not expecting as this didn't resonate with the messiah they looked forward to. So they carried out one of the biggest retcons in history by negotaing and reinterpreting the actual events to somewhat fit the narrative they were expecting. [/b]

Nnamdipapa:
I do not agree with the Bible which was written by men with limited knowledge. I also do no think the Bible is relevant in 2025 as it is riddled by inconsistencies and have been recycled countless times. This is not a direct attack on Christianity from me as I have the same opinion about organized religion.

Kobojunkie:
See desperate attempt to deviate, abeg! 🙄🙄🙄🙄

Again...
1. Did Paul, who not only boasted of his Roman citizenship but also submitted himself to the Romans to be tried by them rather than his own people, inform you that in so doing he submitted himself to this spiritual wickedness he mentioned?

2. He clearly said he wrestled not against individuals --- flesh and blood.( There is no report of him singling out individuals as his enemies in any of his letters.) So, who do you think?

---

P.S. The only one capable of, in fact, putting on the armor of God as described in that same book of Books is the Lord. The insistence that Paul's statement, put on the armor of God carries some spiritual connotation, which then applies to spirits and whatever else you imagine for yourselves there is ludicrous. Jesus Christ of Israel never sent His followers out to fight or battle spirits or demons.

Kobojunkie:
1. Did Paul who not only boasted of his Roman citizenship but also submitted himself to the Romans to be tried by them rather than his own people inform you that in so doing he submitted himself to this spiritual wickedness he mentioned?

2. He clearly said he wrestled not against individuals --- flesh and blood.( There is no report of him singling out individuals as his enemies in any of his letters.) So, who do you think?

Kobojunkieee:
1. Religion is politics after all.

2. Who said anything about Roman officers being spiritual wickedness? Did Paul tell you this, or did you make this up on your own?

Pickieox:
When we say xtianity is White idolatary with mixture of European myth, they will tell us our mouth is smelling as if we were not former xtians. Africans especially Yoruba xtians will believe this myth because a White man tells them so and it's written in a book sponsored by Emperor Constantine. But they will never believe Odùduwà coming from heaven with a long chain.

Kobojunkieee:
I hate religious gobbledegook so much, ehn! 🙄🙄🙄

Powers and principalities, as used about 2000 years ago by a man named Paul, were in regard to the political governments and military lords and rulers of his time. Why una come transform that for us to the absurd is beyond me.
Thanks to King James for the particular introduction of the term Principality into this religious script. However, the term was used regarding human affairs and not this nonsense of a familiar bullsheet you posted of.

Faithscan:
..

Faithscan:
..

======================================

Kobojunkieee:
Asking me this as though Christian has ever believed in that which is in fact stated.🙄🙄🙄

Ask a handful of Christians out there, irrespective of their denominations, and they will tell you 7 out of 10 times that the human soul was created as an eternal essence.

Explore2xmore:
While Gabriel Said Reynolds offers thoughtful academic insights, his use of speculative phrases like "one might imagine…" doesn’t equate to a firm assertion about a lost or hidden Qur’an.

The Ṣanʿāʾ palimpsest doesn’t undermine the Qur’an’s integrity. Instead, it:

Affirms a rich history of oral and written transmission

Shows early flexibility in expression—something you'd expect in a vibrant oral culture

Confirms that the final standardized Qur’an is the result of a careful, collective effort, rather than a solo rewrite.