₦airaland Forum

Deogratiasfx:
It is true. Even if it is confirmed he forged his certificate, the court would still thrash the case against him. No Tribunal nor Supreme Court can remove him from office based on forged certificate.
Jagaban till 2031
Bat Supporters am I lying?

Best answer for agbado people

OkpaNsukkaisBae:
no be me & una go argue abt imaginary all-powerful jesus who was conceived via h0ly spirit, defeated death, walked on the sea, commanded the storm, raised the dead, turn water into wine... Had hundreds of thousands followers of in the then roman empire.


When u read religious books u will see that the 0nly man that came close 2 jesus greatness & achievement was Alex d Great, a man who existed decadeds before holy spirit fvcked virgin mary.


but Alexander's existence can be verified, traced & more importantly we had reputable writers/scholars who gave us an eyewitnese account.

that he came from a poor background is d more reason why scholars shld be interested & investigate his greatness, miracles & achievements.

You are assuming that those scholars believed all that was said about him? Those who believed like Saul and Luke wrote books about him. But you will not accept theirs because you called it religious books.

Let me explain.

Being a low born in a remote village (nothing worthwhile was expected from Galilee), no one would have envisaged who he was to document him while he was still alive.

What attracted interest to him was the testimonies of his followers who spoke about him in such convincing fashion that they were willing to die for it. The trigger for his followers to spread stories of him offcourse happened after his death (and ressurection).

The followers are real people with names. Herod was real. Pilate was real. The chief priests were real. Saul was a real person undisputed. He was already born when Jesus was active. He met with Peter, John and James in Jerusalem.

Denying these simple facts is being hypocritical to knowledge.

BlueRayDick:
Which kind talk be this ?

What did u see him do off the ball? I particularly took my time to watch him yesterday; he was absolutely useless more off the ball than on the ball sef .

When we don’t have the ball his pressing is just shiiit. He was just strolling everywhere ; he’s not got that Gabriel Jesus or Nketiah pressing . Even for him to position and receive long ball when he was moved upfront, he no try.

We should’ve just used that 65 million buy a normal decent striker who can play alone upfront as a striker in a situation like that when we are one man down.

First of all, we need to stop seeing Havertz as a striker. If Arteta wanted a striker he would have signed one or he would not entertain bids for Balogun. Havertz is an AM.

That said, my brother, even I find it hard to know what he adds to the team. But when I look at stats I see different things. He is just like Ozil, poor demeanor but still productive. People love players that hussle (like Sanchez, Martinelli, Jesus etc) but there are players that don't have to hussle and yet are effective.

A player like Thomas Muller came under similar criticism some time ago at Bayern. People questioned his contributions. That's until we now know what a 'raumdeuter' or space tracker is. These type of players don't need to have the ball. They are intelligent enough to open up defenses (when attacking) and block passing lanes (when defending) without having much contact with the ball.

Think of it this way, the overlapping run of a full back that opens the defense which allows the winger to cut inside and score. People see the winger and the goal, what they don't see is that the fullback actually created that chance with that run.

Jodera:
You see this Havertz matter, I don drop am for you.

I don't know whether you're intentionally doing this thing to rile us sha

According to reports, he won the most duels in both our games this season. It's a contribution. Then add that to his role of creating chances by dragging off opposition and also helping the press by shadow marking the two opposite pivots.

These type of off the ball contributions are usually not seen. Only the manager sees it because that's what he asked him to do.

sod09:
You say wetin
You promised us arteta have special plans for him

Havertz is an off the ball player. This must have been why he seem not active even though he contributed immensely.

BlueRayDick:
We no see the Havertz heaight wey spy360 no allow us hear word on top o

As per wetin I dey see for this match abeg no put my name for Havertz matter.

OkpaNsukkaisBae:
even ALexander the Great lived for 33yrs, decades before imaginary jesus was born yet we have proven scholars & writers who gave us a primary historical source abt Alexander d great i.e an eyewitness acct.

give us another excuse

I bet your grannies don't know about Alexander the Great. But he existed and had many books written about him. What was written is that he is the son of Odin abi? You believe that? He was even made a god. This was a man who at such a young age conquered half the world and broke the Persian Empire. But yet little or no body worship him. But billions of people have come to know and worship the poor Nazarene, who was crucified like a petty criminal. If you agree Alexander existed, you would be hypocritical to say Jesus didn't exist.

hopefulLandlord:
Historians generally don't agree that a Jesus existed. What they do is agree that there's a "huge possibility" that a Jesus existed, who would probably have been just another man preacher. That's where it all ends!!

What these Christian apologists then do is play word games and say historians "definitely" agree that Jesus existed hoping you don't question that then use that opportunity to claim historians claim Jesus as described in the Bible definitely existed.

If you claim that Jesus as an ordinary person exists then what's the point? You think those challenging the existence of Jesus are doing so to try to disclaim the existence of someone named Jesus that probably existed then. They're challenging the Jesus as existed in the Bible. A Bible with other stories like talking snakes, talking donkeys and a god so threatened by a tower that he decided to scatter the unity among those building it although he now apparently has no issues with space travel or maybe he does once in a while cuz a Russian lunar shuttle just crashed recently

On what basis then were the hundreds disciples persecuted by Roman if they were all hallucinating at the same time?

If Jesus never existed,
1. John the Baptist never existed and also
2. Pontus Pilate never existed.
3. The disciples were lying and could have owned up instead of facing persecution.
4. There was no need for the Romans persecuting people for someone who was no threat as he didn't even exist.

Since Jesus existed
1. His story survived for 2000years still counting. I bet many people didn't even know about Augustus Caeser of the same era, who had numerous books written about him.
2. His followers were willing to die for what they had first hand experience of, something the threat of suffering and death will not take away.
3. The records about him even from his followers were ordinarily not super hero kind of in narrative or description . If I want to lie about a super hero, I'd say he was unbeatable and undying. I wouldn't say he was crucified unless it's true. I wouldn't say he was born of a stone mason, or that he was flogged, I wouldn't say he ran away from being lynched by a mob.
4. Christianity would not have survived the first one year after his supposedly rumoured death and resurrection. We all forget even our loved ones within a year after they die, how much more a rumoured nonexistent person. A simple evidence would have been to point to his grave. Which the disciples would gladly do.
5. The spread of Christianity would not have been possible. Why would I travel from Jerusalem to Antioch or Damascus just to spread a lie? A lie that would not fetch me any direct benefits.

OkpaNsukkaisBae:
Rome was an empire bro. Xtianity became d popular religion cox it promote the doctrine of "divine rule" which favor the roman emperor.. no questions, easy loyalty, total control.

If that is what will bring peace & prosperity in the empire, fvck it, nobody cares abt d xtians they killed in the past. A state cares only abt her interest

Judaism and even all medieval religions accepted divine rule. That cannot be the basis of what you are talking about. Tell us what led to adoption of Christianity as Roman state religion. Clue: use Google

OkpaNsukkaisBae:
the burden of prove dey ur hand. na u dey make claim say biblical jesus existed in real life.

prove it with evidence.

He gave you evidence, that's Josephus and Tacitus. Yours now is to bring counter evidence

OkpaNsukkaisBae:
I did & ofcox i saw the betrayer/fraudster called josephus who probably wrote for the highest bidder.


are u saying that all the writers/historians/scholars throughout the Roman empire were murdered during the era that jesus existed?

nobody 2 give us an eyewitnese acct? lol

The ministry of Jesus lasted just 3.5years, his entire life was 33years. That's a short time for any scribe to notice him before even deciding to keep any records. The event that actually spread the news about him was his resurrection. Hence, any eye witness account will logically take place after his death. However, there were eye witnesses that informed writers about him. For example, Saul that has been mentioned wrote extensively about him, Saul himself was a Jewish scribe who met with the disciples when he visited Jerusalem. Josephus and Tacitus met with fellow Jews who knew Jesus and they gave their accounts which was actually recorded to spite his followers. What they didn't know was that God used them for us.

BlueRayDick:
I don't know how true it is but I always dread Monday night football, It usually don't end well for us.

But today's own, I'm very much positive we will get a favorable result.

Away to Crystal Palace on Monday is hard.

OkpaNsukkaisBae:
U said that historians & scholars of antiquities have confirmed the accuracy of the letters written by Saul of Tarsus.

tell us d historians & scholars

You mean you didn't click the Wikipedia link I posted?

afrodoc2:
The guy’s post is littered with error.

Firstly Josephus was born about 10 years after Jesus died NOT hundreds of decades as he stated.

Tacitus was also born about 25 years after Jesus died.

Neither of them was a Christian and they wrote at a time the Romans were still practicing their own traditional religion and persecuting Christians, so the part where he asked for the official religion of the Roman Empire is an own goal.

We should not believe 2 respected historians who actually had no reason to support Jesus but still conceded that he was a historical figure, but we should believe you because of “trust me bro” .

Doc, I didn't need to start any argument, I only wanted him to tell me he is an expert is history 😅

afrodoc2:
Think am na.

You create a figure in order for you to dominate the earth then you spend 300 years killing his followers and trying to extirpate them from the face of the earth. Make it make sense.

I can't

OkpaNsukkaisBae:
Josephus account about jesus was a "Secondary Source" not primary historical source or an eyewitness accout. There is absolutely no primary evidence abt the existence of Jesus. The jewish traitor called Josephus was brought as a prisoner of war..gained his freedom, acquired Roman citizen & became a Roman military leader before he started writing abt an imaginary Jesus who lived & died hundreds of decade ago b4 he was born. His sentiments/bias are well recorded.


Abi na Tacitus, just like Josephus he too relied on secondary source. Tacitus was a Roman historian & Senator. Pls what was the official religion of the Roman Empire??

Please tell me, am I expected to believe you or the numerous scholars and historians all over the world who have said he is a real person? Should I believe you or them?

afrodoc2:
[/b]

Then you don't envy yourself.

Trying to debate with that fellow is an exercise in futility.

Josephus and Tacitus who confirmed the historicity of Jesus were not Christians. One was a Judaist and the other was a Roman who worshipped Roman gods. The historicity of Jesus is different from confirmation of Jesus' claims.

It is also very ridiculous to claim that the Romans who persecuted Christians for 300 years before the reigns of Constantine and Theodosious were the ones who created Jesus. . What kind of sophistry is that?

🤔

A001:
Anyone that does an independent research on this issue would realize Jesus Christ is simply a creation of Romans. You don't have to be an Einstein to reach this simple conclusion.

The Romans took the history of a real person, Yeshua (note the 'eshu' at the center; it's there for a key reason), who had existed in the pre-Homo Erectus era and again in the Homo Erectus era. These Romans removed many key details about him and rewrote his history as a white man for their campaign to rule the world.

All the so-called supernatural abilities of Jesus were natural abilities of the human species that existed in those eras. Nothing special. All the accounts of miracles are tricks and illusions, which magicians do routinely in modern times, and dem don cast.

Nothing special about your Jesus. A pure Roman creation.

On a rare occasion, I can use the word "Jesus" here when talking about real humans to avoid unnecessary, time-wasting arguments.

But as a matter of fact, Jesus should be mentioned among other fictional characters such as superman, batman, and co.

The bolded are enough to strengthen my faith. Thank you for sharing this gospel.

BlueRayDick:
Almost all scholars/historians agreed the character Jesus existed. What’s debatable was whether the miracles credited to him in the Bible happened as they were narrated or they never happened at all.

When I was battling with my faith, I did this investigation and found out that he existed. That was a reassurance because I didn't want to base my faith on fables.

I was reassured because if he truly existed then there's a chance that the message is true. Whether that chance is certain enough is a different story.

sod09:
Even kaikai is failing we just don't want to acknowledge it now

Kai hasn't failed yet. We will find out in the next couple of games.

BlueRayDick:
Una don start again

Which one is Mudryk would’ve been better under Arteta ? If a player is failing at basic things like taking a player-on by the wings and putting a cross into the box, balloons rebounds into the air and runs headlessly down the wings …. Shey na coach wan help am ? How ?

Didn’t we see Pepe fail at arsenal right before our eyes just like Mudryk is doing now ? Let Mudryk start getting basic things right first before u start assuming he will do well under Arteta cos we know by antecedents that the moment he starts playing like bozo, Arteta will
Bench his asss and never look his asss again. We saw what became of Pepe na

Both Arsenal and Chelsea saw something that made them go into a bidding war for the player. That thing they saw is called talent or potential. It is that potential that makes me say that he is better than what he is doing.

Hazard left England as a demi god and got to Real Madrid and turned to trash. Without the right environment talent will not thrive. This environment can be internal/personal factors like mental, psychological, emotional, physical as well as external factors like tactics and quality of team mates.

What I look for is the talent, every other thing can managed.

A001:
Lols, so you believe a real person can feed 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread and two fish? Lols, you believe this in the 21st century? In today's information age?

I don't believe that a person can feed 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish. But when it happens, it's called miracle

Psalmistproject:
I'm against the current process that produced the current president, you are the one asserting obi as the right choice

Your write up is mainly speculative. But it makes good logical reasoning. Any link to your previous posts?

mostob:
Any player that join that club will end up flopping. I feel for Mudryk sha... he might be better than what we're seeing now.

Off course Mudryk is better. The problem with Chelsea is lack of continuity. Several coaches within short spans and muddled tactics.

More than half of the squad have never spent one season together.

A001:
Says who?

Josephus and Tacitus

OkpaNsukkaisBae:
There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary account of jesus

Very wrong.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

OkpaNsukkaisBae:
If i ask question now u will start quoting the bible (another fictional text)

The bible itself though contains fictional stories but is also a historical book which have been used by most historians as a guide.

There are many non-biblical references for the historical Jesus. You can check Wikipedia.

A001:
I didn't make any claims. I stated facts, real historical facts backed with science.

All the languages spoken in the world today were invented by some past humans. That's a fact, not a claim. Languages don't just drop from heavens like manna or come from fictional characters like Jesus.

Who is Ifa to you? Let's start from there.

Jesus is a historical figure not fictional.

mostob:
The Kovacic I watched against Newcastle was not the one who played for Chelsea last season. Oh boy!... man is a baller.

He is the same Kovacic that's why Pep signed him. This is the exact point my friend and brother Jodera needs to understand.

Caicedo's debut performance for Chelsea will make one think he is not that good.

Penguin2:
1) A civil case leads to conviction or fine, at least. If it didn’t, then why do people institute a civil proceeding in the first place? What is usually the end product of a civil case?

2) Judgment MUST be registered only when it’s a payment judgment that you are trying to enforce in Nigeria. For instance, your business partner in France runs away to Nigeria after a French Court ruled that he should compensate you with €1million in order to evade paying that money. To enforce the French judgment, you MUST register it in Nigeria. Asides that, that provision doesn’t apply.

3) Did Tinubu show any evidence in court that the Guinean Citizenship was forced on him?

4) The Apex Court ruled on LOCUS. After the election, all parties were now bestowed with locus to sue Shettima.

Stop praying for my ban, face me.

It is obvious that having not passed judgement up till now after the adoption of addresses, most likely Tinubu is guilty. Whenever judgement is delayed, the big man is guilty. This is clear reasoning.

TrebleChamp:
Israeli clubs are allowed to play Uefa Champions League, so Saudi Clubs can be allowed too....

Israel is a member of UEFA. Unless Saudi Arabia wants to register as a member of UEFA it's not the same thing.

Worth watching...

Dr Mahdi Shehu: no hold back


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKBDqx8nPUw