₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
It is based on what?

They are wrong.

So your problem is u believe life came out of nothing.

Why then are u fixated on genesis story when even African culture u came out from has similar creation story.

Your logic that nothing brings forth life is based on what logic.
What example can u give to support your evidence that nothing can beget something.

As I told u, I dont need Jewish history to tell me a supreme deity created heaven and earth. It's a well known fact agreed by all cultures.
Just like no one told any race or culture how to reproduce and make babies.

LordReed:
LoLz. Why not answer the question? Are you afraid it will prove me right? Bwahahahahaha!

My believe God created humans isn't based on any Jewish history.

Now let me ask u a question. Yoruba people believe Eledumare created heaven and earth and also humans.
Are they right or wrong?

LordReed:
Do you believe your god created human beings and is that belief based on the Genesis story?

Guy give it a rest. Your understanding of Christian theology and biblical exegesis is extremely poor.
Your claim that Christians accepts the genesis creation story as literal expose u as ignorant.

FYI creation science based on literal interpretation of genesis story has been rejected by mainstream Christianity as nonsense.

LordReed:
Says the guy who believes in the Jewish creation myth. LoLz.

Did I ever tell u I believe in the literal Jewish creation story.
Your understanding of the old testament is wack.
Do more reading my friend.

pacespot:
If there is one area that Whites or any other race shouldn't be competing with Blacks in terms of wealths, it's this music industry. But trust the Whites to elevate their own at the expense of others. All these music and video streaming platforms like Spotify, YouTube, Netflix, etc should have been owned by Blacks. Blacks create the best musics and videos that drive users to these platforms, but they barely earn much from them. Look at how much Taylor Swift earning from YouTube and Spotify alone, that is more than total net worth of any African artists alive or dead today? Tell me what is special about her songs, apart from "blank space" I don't even listen to any.

When it comes to making big big money, na white people get am. They locked that space up tight.
It will be hard for any other race to break in without their permission.
Look at IT and tech. Despite all the hard work being done by Chinese and Indians, na whites owned start ups always break the jinx.

MindHacker9009:
This is why anyone making money from gullible followers with the name of the invented jesus christ will always fight tooth and nail by claiming the invented superman jesus christ was a real character:

Why don't u tell LordReed your faith. Maybe u can explain the Jewish religion to him better.
I think its unfair for a Christian to be defending Judaism myths and legends when we actually have someone who believes in those tales.

LordReed:
.

Ok I will take time to respond to your claims- that's what they are because u provided zero evidence for any of your submissions.

It's obvious u running your own script here and not engaging but since it's the first time we debating I'll oblige u.

1. For the upteenth time, the old testament is not binding on Christians because its doctrines are no longer relevent. The old testament is the history of the Jews which is weaved around their religious practice and beliefs.
Christians are not accountable to defend the history in the book, that's for the Jews- it's their history.
Instead, we read the history with theological interpretation because therein lies the principles God wants mankind to follow.
It's not about the Jews, it's about God. So u telling me to defend Jewish history is ridiculous.

Israelites were not the only ones who worshipped Yahweh. But they were the only ones who finally got it right after many years of turbulence and rebellion.
So it's only pragmatic we learn about God's principles and ordinances from them.

Regarding your so called Jewish myths/legends, it boils down to how do we handle the history? Swallow it hook, line and sinker or reject it outright?
All works of ancient history are neither entirely factual nor entirely made up.
By looking at details in history book and comparing with independent sources, as we do for the Jewish history, we do have a good chance of figuring out what is historically correct.

That's why I said David was considered a myth until the inscription city of David was discovered in 1993.

2. What old testament scripture did the Christians decide to exclude? I'm interested in these scriptures.

Comparing the book of Daniel to gospel of Peter makes no sense. Asking why the book of daniel was included in OT but the gospel of Peter was rejected in NT shows u not here to engage but argue for the sake of it.

3. Your different criteria noise will only make sense if u can point out any Jewish prophet acknowledged by Israelites as a man of God but his work rejected by the tanakh compilers.
The Jews compiled the works of their recognised prophets sent by God throughout their history spanning thousands of years and made a book out of it.
Now u questioning why the Christians didn't use same criteria to compile the new testament. Does that make sense to u?
As I said, u don't understand the historical context of the old testament. That's the problem.

4. Let me ask u a question, was there a Babylonian king who had mental health problem?
David was considered imaginary until 1993 then he became a real person. That's how ridiculous your historical evidence claim can be.

5. Your question on whether the church fathers confirmed the authorship of the gospel is outright ridiculous and shows you ve never done any serious research on the gospel works itself.
By the late 1st century, the the church and apostolic fathers knew the writers of the 4 gospels.
There's both internal and external evidence confirming authorship of the books.
Papias, Justyn matyr, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria all confirmed the 4 gospel writers.
Marcion the first Christian to codify a Christian cannon in early 2nd century used the gospel of Luke.

The Muratorian cannon is the earliest new testament cannon dated to 170 AD. It confirms the traditional authorship of the 4 gospels

In fact, out of the 1st & 2nd century church fathers writings, none of them named the gospel authors as anonymous or attribute them to anyone else.
There was never a time in early church history that there was a misnomer of the 4 gospels authorship.

Even Celsus a Greek philosopher and Christian critic in the 2nd century affirm apostolic authorship.
Do u get it now!!!

6. Once again your description of gospel writers as fisherman and couldn't have learn greek is ignorance in display
Greek was the lingua Franca in ancient eastern Roman empire. It was the language of commerce and communication amongst different ethnic group. It's far more widespread then u think.
Jesus spoke Greek, Andrew and Philip were Greek names and there's evidence they spoke Greek.

Regarding the gospel writers: Matthew was an accountant, Luke was a medical doctor. John Mark was a gentile who followed Paul to preach in foreign cities, which language will they speak? Paul told mark to bring his scrolls when coming to visit him, how will he know the ones to bring if he can't read.

Abeg this one no be talk.

6. Atheist are funny human beings. When it comes to ancient biblical evidence they start shouting anonymous up and down.
Tell me, how many of the historical records of ancient civilisations do we know the authors.
Most of what we know about Egyptian civilization today is from the royal annals and Egyptian book of the dead. Do u know the authors of these works or were they anonymous? Do u trust them?
Who wrote the Cyrus cylinder that tells us a lot about the Achaemenid empire? Do u trust it even though it's anonymous.
If above is yes then what's the problem with Didache, a book used by Jewish Christians in 70AD.
Mr Man stop the double standard, look for the book and read it.

7. I want u to provide evidence for that Papias quote u brought here. Let me see his works u lifted it from.

So because something is recited orally mean it shouldn't be misinterpreted? Is that what u saying?
Now that we have written form, don't we have misinterpretation?

8. Finally I dont understand what u on about gospel of Peter. I already told u it was written in the 2nd century. How can a book written decades after the death of Peter be authored by him?

Going forward, I will only response to your statements borne out of facts and evidence. Any other thing else will be ignored.
Your opinion doesn't count.

Maynmaynmayn:
Only the EGO can be affected by shame or praise, I have dropped It. I am doing this for Fun.

Before nko, that's why u no get shame.
U will still look for me tmrw.

LordCenturion:
never waste your energy, christians will do everything to defend the book they know nothing about,they have been badly brainwashed

I agree with u that atheist shouldn't waste their energy on Christians because u guys don't even know anything about the bible u want to chuk mouth enter.

Abi no be one of u chop disgrace this night on this thread. That one no kuku get shame, he will still find my trouble tmrw.

But atheist that has shame will know when to keep shut and not get involved in what he knows little about. A good example is Lord reed, I will advise u follow his lead.

Maynman:
Your mental psychosis has blinded you.

https://ancient-hebrew.org/semitic-origins/semitic-origins-of-the-book-of-matthew.htm

You are exactly where the Catholic wants you to be, defending it vigorously.

So u actually knew the gospel of Mathew was written in hebrew but came here earlier and started ranting that none of the gospel was written in Jesus own language.

If this is not dissociative identity disorder, I dont know what else to call it.

So what's the point of tonight's argument when u already knew the answer. It's obvious u just want to argue for attention sake.

U will write anything no matter how rubbish just to seek attention.
I won't be surprised if u are on another atheist forum arguing Jesus Christ is real. I won't put.is pass U, because U will do anything for attention..anything.

Maynman:
Greeks in that context means gentiles

U will come here behaving like a thirsty dog that needs water as if your life depends on it.
Ok they will offer u opportunity to crave your thirst but all u will be writing is nonsense.
That's why nobody takes u serious anymore.

Maynman:
The gospel made sure to exceptionally show Jesus spoke nothing but Aramaic whenever he is in Capernaum.

I gave u my time today but u wasted it. I would have used it more productively.

U are nothing but a time waster. This is the reason nobody wants to debate u.

People will be talking mathematics, u will arrive and start talking about weather. How does that make sense.

U will be desperately begging for attention as if u have something reasonable to discuss.
But yet still the same conspiracy junks without any reasonable evidence.

Maynman:
You have already seen it but mental psychosis, you can't believe the truth.

After Pilate was done writing what did they say?
John 19:20
Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.

Now the place Jesus was crucified was Golgotha.
Which language is Golgotha where "Many of the Jews read this sign"?

What does Golgotha has to do with language spoken by Jesus.
Everybody u see why I hate debating this guy.

Mary and Joseph took Jesus to live in Egypt for some time. What language did they speak while in Egypt?
If Joseph and Mary could communicate in lingua Franca of 1st century AD Egypt, what stops them from teaching their son.

Jesus used the word hypocrite in his sermon which is rooted in Greek. What does that say about his knowledge of the language.

2 of Jesus disciples had Greek names Andrew and Philip. What does that tell u about the communality of the Greek language influence in Judea region

The likelihood that Jesus had Greek-speaking disciples is highlighted in John 12:20–23, where a group of Greeks specifically approach Philip asking to speak to Jesus who then in turn approaches Andrew. Philip and Andrew then together approach Jesus about the Greeks.


Now there were some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the festival. 21 They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, with a request. “Sir,” they said, “we would like to see Jesus.” Philip went to tell Andrew; Andrew and Philip in turn told Jesus.

In John 7:35 the crowd even speculates that Jesus might leave them and go and teach Greeks, which presumably means they knew he could speak Greek.


The Jews said to one another, “Where does this man intend to go that we cannot find him? Will he go where our people live scattered among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks?

Maynman:
He has been posted to Palestine probably for years, common sense he will learn the language of the common people.


Which language is 'Akeldama'?

You see why it's a waste of time debating u. Always off point all the time.
Once u get stuck, u start waffling. Bringing irrelevant points.

U came here questioning why the gospel should be written in Greek when Jesus only spoke Aramaic.

Jesus spoke to Roman officials, in what language?
Produce evidence the Roman officials could speak Aramaic. I'm not interested in your opinion. I want evidence.

Why did Pontus Pilate ordered king of the Jews to be written in Greek if Greek was an irrelevant language in Judea. Who were the target audience?

If u fail to answer my question. I will end this debate. It's becoming another waste of time.

Maynman:
Read slowly
A roman stationed in Palestine would attempt to learn some hebrew and Aramaic since these was the languages in everyday life in that part of the world then.

in how many languages did pilate write "king of the Jews"?
And why did he do it?

how come NONE of your gospel was written in the languages Jews understand?

So the Roman officials are not obliged to learn the local language then. what made u think the Roman centurion learnt and spoke Aramaic.

Why was the inscription on Jesus head written in Greek? If Greek is irrelevant in Judea why would Pilate have the inscription written in Greek.
Who are the targeted audience expected to read the inscription in Greek?

Maynman:
in how many languages did pilate write "king of the Jews"?
And why did he do it?

Latin was the everyday language of the roman military as well as all the government offices. A roman stationed in Palestine would attempt to learn some hebrew and Aramaic since these was the languages in everyday life in that part of the world then.

Produce evidence a Roman official has to learn a local language to be stationed in the region.

So Latin is the lingua franca of the Roman empire in the first century AD? Is that what u saying?

Maynman:
in how many languages did pilate write "king of the Jews"?
And why did he do it?

Think, how will Roman Centurion communicate in a region full of Aramaic speaking people?

What's the lingua Franca in the Roman empire during 1st century AD?

Maynman:
Aramaic, in how many languages did pilate write "king of the Jews"?
And why did he do it?

The crowd were shouting release "Barabbas", bar abbas, that's Aramaic meaning son of the Father.

When Jesus spoke to the Roman centurion he healed his servant, in what language did they communicate?

Maynman:
you are the one that's an illiterate, your analogy of mathematics and heresy is wrong, because first off you lack what "heresy" means.
Mathematics don't work on dogma, there's no authority that decides beliefs or doctrine in the field of math.

If not that you are dumb, where in the new testament did Jesus speak "Greek"?
Does that not mean most of his audience and discples spoke the common language then, ask yourself, how come NONE of the new testament books was written in the common language among them?

When Jesus spoke to Pontus pilate, what language did he speak?

Maynman:
What does "heresy" mean?
When you have an authority(Catholic) deciding the foundation of your Christianity, other opinions are regarded as "heresy".
If another was in authority, all your ORTHODOX BELIEFS will be "heresy".

Olodo. U can't even interpret sentences properly.
I mean people gathered talking and analysing mathematics. Then u arrive and start talking about religious heresy.
How this mathematics and religious heresy relates?

That's how u sound here, the reason u so annoying.

Even this sentence, u thought I was talking about heresy in the bible.

For someone who claim he's atheist, ur obsession with Christianity is alarming. U can't get your head round anything else apart from Christianity, u see it everywhere.

Even if west fall, there's no guarantee Africa will rise. In fact the fall of the west will make the world poorer, because they are the biggest consumer of goods.
With no one to buy, the world will enter depression n people will become poorer.
China isn't ready to become a consuming nation, Africa is too poor to afford anything to buy. India has potential but can't replace the west.

As per immigrants flooding the west, I don't think it will lead to its demise; it will only change the demography and structure of western nation.

In the future, whites will simply segregate themselves from the rest/other ethnic groups within their own country. They will live in separate cities, their kids will attend separate schools, they will develop infrastructure n amenities within those selected n simply ignore the rest.

So the white race will thrive, the problem is Europe will become less attractive because immigrants or other ethnicity will live in rubbish areas.

LordReed:
This is funny. The criteria for some parts of the same so called Holy Book was made different to others and yet you are here trying to defend the reason why books where excluded? LoLz.

The question is not about the historicity of Daniel but the authorship of the book.

I think the bigger problem here is your poor understanding of what's called the bible.

The bible consists of two independent and separate books- the old testament and new testament.
Their development is completely independent of each other. The new testament is not the continuation of the old testament neither is it volume 2 of the OT. One doesn't complement the other.

As at the time the Lord Jesus was walking the surface of this earth, the tanakh as we have it today already existed, compiled and established.
There were no Christians involved in the development of the old testament.

The new testament is based on a different theology that focus on the Christology of Jesus. The criteria set for it's compilation would be different and that's the ones agreed upon by the church and Christians.

So if the historicity of Daniel isn't in contention, why do u doubt the wrote down what's in the book of Daniels. Scholars argument is borne out of the fact that Daniel is a legend of sort and not a real person.

LordReed:
By what method do you know who wrote the gospels, just tell me that.

The early church fathers who were less than few decades away from the apostles confirmed who wrote the gospels. Some of these church fathers knew people who met the apostles and heard from them.

Now thousands of yrs later some scholars writing their PhD in bible theology came up with doubts about gospel authors. Why? because the gospel letters were not signed, the ascribed authors are fishermen and couldn't have learn how to write, the contents in the letters are too sophisticated for 1st century Christians AD.
None of the above made sense to me.

I have debated the gospel authorship multiple times on nairaland, can't go thru it again. Research a book called Didache and an apostolic father called papias.
Maybe we can start for there.

LordReed:
Heard the gospel from who? And why shouldn't they be told again? What is wrong with repetition especially to buttress whatever point is being made? Why do they quote passages from the prophets and the psalms if they've already heard those many times before?

Once again problem lies in poor understanding of the structure of the new testament.
The letters were written to mostly gentiles who were new to the Abrahamic religious concept.
They knew about Jesus because they hear the gospel in their church, but not familiar with the tanakh. It's expedient to show them that Christology isn't an abstract concept but has its genesis in a God that was known for thousands of years and worshipped by the Jews.

LordReed:
Where did the heresy spring from if they were already hearing the gospels?

Jesus handed over the leadership of the church to Peter, He told him to feed and care for his sheep. What do u think Jesus meant?

Most 1st century Christians were from alien cultures and religion, they were going to attempt extrapolating strange practice into Christianity or misinterpret Christian doctrines.
They needed guidance, teaching, reprimand, training in ensuring they stay in right part and not be led astray.
That's what Jesus meant, and this is why he sent the holy spirit.

“I have much more to tell you but you cannot bear it now. Yet when that one I have spoken to you about comes—the Spirit of truth—he will guide you into everything that is true.

LordReed:
So then whether a book was pseudepigraphal would be irrelevant as a criteria if you going to add pseudepigraphal books to the canon anyway.

Criteria for tanakh is different from the new testament canonisation.
The Jews that compiled the book of Daniel said it was written by Daniel in the 6th century BC.
Ezekiah who lived in Babylonian exile mentioned Daniel in his book as a righteous person.
You may want to question the historicity of Daniel but remember until 1993 most scholars insisted David never existed, them an ancient inscription depicting city of David was discovered.

LordReed:
BTW 3 of the gospels have unknown authors nor does Paul who some of his books were likely written before the gospels barely quotes anything from Jesus' words. If indeed these were all stuff that was being transmitted orally how come Paul's books barely has any touchstones by way of verbatim quotes?

The 3 gospels were made anonymous by who?
The early church knew the writers of the gospel, this wasn't disputed until modern scholars came up until their unanimous claim.

John, Peter and James also didn't quote the Lord in their letters. What does that change.
The audience of these letters already heard the gospel. Why should u tell them again.
The aim of the letters is to explain exegesis and address heresy/controversy in the church.
They don't need to recount the gospel.

Why is this guy's boring, stale and repetitive write up always making front page.
Why's is he recounting life in UK as if it's something novel that most Nigerians are not already aware.
So many jobless people in UK nowadays.

LordReed:
One of the criteria you mentioned was that it was in oral traditions, Gospel of Peter was in oral tradition.

As for it being pseudepigrapha, riddle me this:

Regarding old testament. Christians regard it as books telling the history of the Israelites. The Jews compiled their history in the books.
It's not for me to start disputing the history of a race I don't belong. The old testament is read either as historical evidence or theology interpretation. The later is the interest of christians when it comes to the old testament.
We learn the principles of God as he relates with his elects and then apply such principles to the new testament.
The old testament was already compiled possibly by Ezra 200 years b4 any Christian existed so I really don't see how Christianity wil influence something already established b4 it.

I've read the apocryphal books in the old testament and I don't see much difference in canonised and non canonised. It's basically much of the same Jewish history and their challenges. My favourite is the book of sirach anyway.

Now to new testament. I already dealt with 2 Peter in one of my previous posts. I will check and bring it here, can't repeat myself.

But if we are to go by scholars. Only 13 of the 27 new testament books are accepted as genuine. The authorship of the rest are disputed by modern day scholars.
The funny thing is the number keeps changing. A scholar may wake up this morning and claim another book's authorship is disputed because of some new criteria he discovered.
Every bible scholar must defend his phD by claiming they've discovered something new about the bible. That's the way it works. It's either they publish or perish.
Even 1 Thessalonians that have been agreed by all scholars to be the first authentic letter of Paul is now been disputed as fake by some new scholars.
I don't know about u but personally I will take their work by a pinch of salt.

Anyway, back to 2 Peter, it was a private letter and wasnt well known in the early church period. However Clement of Rome quoted from it in his own letter in the first century AD.
That was one of the decisions that influenced it's canonisation.

[quote author=Maynman post=126582347][/quote]Soooo irrelevant and off point assertion.
Seriously I wouldn't mind condoning your pest like behaviour if at least u bring substance to the argument. At least we all here to learn.
But u....it's like people are talking mathematics then u come along and start talking about heresy.
Always off point.

LordReed:
The gospel of Peter met all these criteria but was still rejected. Tell me why.

None of the things you've said have excluded human judgement.

There's no evidence anywhere Peter wrote a gospel when he was alive. None of the apostolic fathers mentioned anything about Peter writing a gospel.
What the apostolic fathers wrote was that the gospel of Mark is the oral rendition of Peter.
Gospel of Peter started circulating in the 2nd century. No reference was made of it in the 1st century.

Gospel of Peter was a pseudepigrapha

LordReed:
Criteria that were made by men. When one of the criteria was wide geographical use tell me that is not based on feelings.

Criteria based on theological deduction and logical reasoning.
Strict criteria for the new testament scriptures include the books must be written in the 1st century AD by people who knew the Lord or who met people that knew the Lord.
It must have a new Christology doctrine not written in books b4 it. If it's just a repetition of what's already known, there's no need for it to be canonised.

It must not contain legends, fables or supernatural tales that sounds strange to the early church. Whatever supernatural that's written in the book must be well known and established by the early church.

It's pertinent to note that the gospel was initially sung as a hymn or chants in the early church and known to hearts by the early Christians b4 it was written down. So coming up with tales that's strange or unheard of will be rejected.

That's why stories like Jesus talking at birth was rejected because early Christians didn't sing it and books having such tales not included in the bible.

I don't know anything about widespread geographical use. 2 Peter wasn't widespread when it was canonised.

LordReed:
66 books that were selected by men, who excluded other books simply because they did not fit into their theology but were recognised by others.

There were criteria selected to determine what book should be canonised. It has nothing to do with the feelings of anyone.

[quote author=MiddleDimension post=126573354][/quote]Mr Man u just contradicting yourself up and down.

This what u said earlier.

yes, he is married to the church and no one is disputing that. what we are saying is: if he is married to the church, it is first of all a consequence of him being married to you first of all! This is the depth of christian marriage, whuch you do not understand

In this post u claim Jesus got married to myself first b4 the church.
Now u claiming I'm the church.

Which is which. Mr Man drink water, gather your thoughts and give a reasonable response.

[quote author=MiddleDimension post=126573354][/quote]This is what happened in the garden of Eden.


The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh