₦airaland Forum

MaxInDHouse:
Jesus never mentioned any name he is speaking with a view to what prophecies regarding his betrayal said that one of his closest confidants will betray him!

He didn't need to.
Even when He was asked by the apostles at the last supper, He didn't mention a name even when it was super clear that He knew it was Judas.

But you are not addressing my question.
When did Judas become a devil? Was it before or after he betrayed Jesus Christ?

Explore2xmore:
Reasonably true but the creation stories were not based on Moses being an eyewitness to creation itself. Some traditional religious view hold that God revealed these earlier histories to Moses.
The alternative critically historical view holds that the stories developed through earlier oral and written traditions and were later compiled into the Torah.
How certain are you that there weren't any books reviewed before the Torah though?

Now apply these arguments to the new testament.
God revealed them to Paul and the other apostles.
Some of them got the stories from earlier oral and written traditions

GracieX3:
Cc Ramdeuter, benalvino3 and DeepSight.

Please, can you explain why the biggest admission scandal in the USA involved overwhelmingly white parents?

Yes, that's very bad and shame on those who participated but what's your point exactly.
The United States is still a majority white country.
What percentage of whites participate in admission scandals. Compare that to the percentage of black mothers that kill their unborn babies, then we can have a discussion.

The Epstein file; How the left sees it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZsEsSKePtA?si=Yh_1-7YYI5VhWjaB

MaxInDHouse:
Through the thoughts and actions not while there is no sin yet!

So you mean that when Jesus said, One of you is a devil, he was not being honest?
Are you saying that Judas had not committed the sin yet so Christ was wrong in calling him a devil at that time
Are you saying that Christ should have said, one of you will be a devil?
Is that your point?

dalitigator:
Absolutely true. Even Judas knew before Christ exposed him. Right?

At the last supper, Jesus Christ clearly pointed Judas out. That was also Judas took the money and agreed to betray Christ.

MaxInDHouse:
John wrote this after all the events not before!

Still that doesn't matter because John was quoting Jesus word for word at that time.
He said, one of you is a devil not one of you will be a devil.
Note, He was specific, He knew one of the 12 was a devil and He was very good at recognizing devils.

MaxInDHouse:
Jesus knew very well that one of his closest confidants will play the devil since that is exactly what the scriptures said before him {Psalms 41:9} so he is closely watching them to know who will be the one that's why he could call any of them Satan or devil whenever any of them takes such step.
Judas used to steal from the money box kept with him {John 12:3-6} that is a sign that the man is spiritually sick when it comes to materialism, Peter is spiritually sick when it comes to fear of men and majority of the twelve are sick spiritually when it comes to racism.
So Satan can seize these opportunities to gain control over the heart of anyone but one thing is certain it's one of Jesus' closest confidants that Satan will use since such a person must lead the Pharisees to wherever Jesus will be on the night of his arrest!

But John 6.71 specifically said Jesus was talking of Judas not Peter or the other apostles and at that time, Judas was already a devil.
So let me get you, are you saying that Peter and the rest of the Apostles were also devils?
Remember, Jesus Christ made it clear, one of you is a devil not two not all of you.

MaxInDHouse:
Jesus told Peter:

“Get behind me, Satan!" Matthew 16:23

Was Peter Satan?

Please explain the relationship?
Are you saying that Peter was the devil spoken about in John 6.70?
Please kindly explain how what you've quoted above show that Jesus did not beforehand know that Judas was a devil.

Explore2xmore:
Moses has the privilege of receiving a tablet/book called Torah. Therein is the difference.

Moses received the 10 commandments. It's not written anywhere that he received a book containing the story of the creation or the story of Abraham.
Please let's be accurate about what Moses received.

MaxInDHouse:
What we need to figure out is whether Jesus chose a devil as an apostle or the once friendly disciple allowed Satan to use him!

Jesus Christ already answered that.
I choose you but one is a devil. He is telling you that He knew He chose a devil.
It is already figured out.
If Judas became a devil much later, then it would be wrong to say "one of you is a devil"
He would have said,
"One of you will become a devil."

MaxInDHouse:
Here John is telling readers of his gospel that Judas is the one who later fulfilled that part not that Jesus knew the person before choosing him.

Where did John state what you are saying.
Instead, he clearly says that Jesus Christ was referring to Judas. Please let's not add to the scripture.
It clearly says,
He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon.


Now, are you saying that Jesus Christ did not know that Judas was a devil?
Remember, Jesus Christ said, one of you is a devil not one of you will be a devil so it's clear that at that time, Judas was already a devil and Jesus Christ could identify him

DeepSight:
Let it sink in. I am done with you.
I cannot continue to have discussions of such seriousness and gravity with one who has been recently exposed in the way you have been, and who refuses to recant from that hideous position he was exposed in.

Oga that's your problem.
You are free not to answer or respond but I will continue to oppose foolishness and falsehoods
You can't escape that one
Cancel culture will not save you.
In fact, you will see more of me whenever you post a falsehood or make a stupid post

Explore2xmore:
One of the most overlooked problems in Christianity is that Jesus himself never wrote a scripture, supervised one, or left behind a compiled body of teachings. He preached in a first-century Jewish oral culture where expectation of the imminent Kingdom mattered far more than preserving written texts. Instead of producing a book, he appointed followers and living witnesses. Even theologically, he presented himself as fulfilling prior revelation rather than introducing a completely new scripture, so the absence of a founder-authored text is not accidental ; it is built into the movement from the start.
What Christianity later produced came afterward and in reaction to circumstances. Paul’s letters were not systematic theology or scripture manuals; they were responses to disputes, discipline problems, and doctrinal confusion inside scattered communities. The Gospels themselves appeared decades after the crucifixion, at a time when eyewitnesses were aging or already dead. The canon Christians now treat as fixed did not descend fully formed from heaven either. It emerged slowly through centuries of disagreement, debate, and church authority deciding which texts counted and which did not.

Your argument seems to be that we shouldn't take the writings in the New testament as the word of God because they were not written by Jesus Christ nor were they written when He was on earth right?

But then, it's the same for the old testament,, it was not written by Jehovah and many of the events were written many centuries later. Example, the story of the creation was recorded by Moses who never witnessed it.

So are you just against the New Testament or the entire bible?

MaxInDHouse:
Jesus answered them: “I chose you twelve, did I not? Yet one of you is a slanderer.” John 6:70

This hasn't confirmed that it must be Judas Iscariot rather Jesus believes the scriptures that it's one of his closest confidants!

[

Actually, the very next verse confirmed it was Judas He was referring to.
Let's read it.

71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Now, what do we learn from this? 2 things.
1. Judas was a devil even before he betrayed Christ.
2. Jesus Christ knew he was a devil prior to choosing him.

Question to you,
From the verses above, when did Judas become a devil?
Was it before or after betraying Christ?

DeepSight:
Does watching the many extreme infirmities, indignities and vulnerabilities of old age not take away in many cases the joy of living a long and ripe life and lead many to question the mercies and intentions of our creator?

A merciful God to you is one that takes away all infirmity, pain and sickness and establishes a perfect world right?

The moment we feel pain or suffer weather in old age or as youths, he is no longer merciful right?

Let's start with understanding your premises

MaxInDHouse:
Please can you quote this in the Bible?

Are you saying this must happen even if Judas Iscariot wasn't a lover of money?

Jesus knew by the actions and of course reading the thoughts going on in the minds of his followers so it could have been any other close associate of Jesus who loves material things.

Yes I can
Let's begin with Christ early in His ministry telling His apostles that one of them was a devil. John 6.70.
So it's clear that Judas was a devil long before he betrayed Christ and Jesus Christ knew this

MaxInDHouse:
The scriptures didn't mention any name so it could be anyone close to Jesus who can lead the Pharisees to arrest this man whose face they don't know.

It couldn't have been anyone. Jesus Christ knew who it would be even before choosing him

dalitigator:
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you". Jeremiah 1:5 (NKJV).

But if John 17 speaks of a predetermined role Judas was playing as shown John 17: 12, what was the exact sin of Judas Iscariot?

It presupposes his actions were out of his absolute control. But why did he cry and killed himself because of doing exactly what he was programmed to do?

Do we now seem to agree with Freud and Carl on the subconscious directing certain aspect of our lives as if it's automated?

What do think?

You make a great point, God certainly knew that Judas will betray Jesus Christ but the question is, was he programmed to do it or was it his choice?

One could argue that God knew it would be Judas who would betray Christ because He knew what Judas was capable of, He knew who Judas was.
Who was Judas?
Let's read a verse.
John 6:70
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

Judas was chosen because he was already a devil. He was the only one capable of betraying Christ.
Now the questions the bible did not provide answers for are,
How did he become a devil?
When did he become a devil?

Institutional racism happens when one race is favoured over another by law. That's the bedrock of racial gerrymandering.
When a voting district is specially caved out for a particular race and made in such a way that other races can't compete.
This is systemic and institutional racism.
It's unhealthy for blacks and for the entire country.

RodgersAkpafu:
this is ridiculous

Yes, everyone that doesn't agree with you is ridiculous.
You boys on nairaland, it's seem you are just photocopies of eachother.
None with original ideas or a mind of his own.
My advice, stop acting like someone else's clone

raumdeuter:
Fairness to Democrats is when they cheat and you continue to look and applaud them

Once you match them, they start screaming

If states with 40% Red voters can have zero red, then why can't the republican do the same

That's why they hate Trump, it's no longer business as usual.
Other Republicans were afraid to be called racist, Trump isn't so they now have sleepless nights

RodgersAkpafu:
How can someone utter such a thing?

that affirmative action = systemic racism


What sort of self hatred will make a black man utter such a word

The real words I wanna use will get me banned again, but that statement IS WRONG

Define systemic racism, let's start from there?
I see you have problems controlling your temper, that's why you get banned.
But I completely understand, most leftist are like that when they come across superior argument.
Lastly, you mentioned self hate, please explain how pointing out the truth amounts to self hate

Racial gerrymandering and race-based affirmative action are forms of systemic racism because they allow government institutions to treat citizens differently based primarily on race. Laws and policies should be colour-blind. Using race in district maps, hiring, admissions, or contracts reinforces racial division instead of moving society toward equal treatment.

These policies can unfairly disadvantage individuals who were not responsible for past discrimination. Judging people partly by racial identity means race is influencing opportunities and political power. The fairest system is one where people are treated as individuals rather than representatives of racial groups.

DeepSight and gang, you argue that welfare spending should not be equated to reparations because it's not specifically for the blacks but in addition to welfare spending, the US has spend hundreds of billions, maybe up to a trillion on black specific programmes.

How is this not better than the Jewish reparations.

A careful estimate would be:

> **The U.S. has likely spent somewhere between several hundred billion dollars and perhaps over $1 trillion (in nominal dollars over time) on programs specifically designed to reduce racial discrimination or improve minority participation since 1965.**

But there are major limits to any estimate because:

* many programs were indirect (contracts, hiring mandates, grants, enforcement, education access),
* and there is no official government total.

Here’s the rough logic historians and economists use:

* Since the 1970s, **hundreds of billions** have been directed through minority contracting and affirmative-action procurement programs alone. ([IZA Docs])
* Federal contracting programs for disadvantaged businesses regularly awarded tens of billions annually by the 2000s and 2010s. In 2008 alone, disadvantaged business enterprises received about **$28.2 billion** in federal procurement contracts. ([IZA Docs]
* One modern transportation-related disadvantaged business program has been estimated around **$37 billion** by itself. ([The Washington Post)
* Beyond contracting, spending also included:

* Equal Employment Opportunity enforcement
* affirmative-action compliance systems
* minority business agencies
* race-conscious scholarship and education initiatives
* urban development and anti-discrimination programs
* diversity hiring mandates for federal contractors

So if you aggregate:

* decades of minority contracting preferences,
* federal agency programs,
* enforcement systems,
* grant programs,
* education initiatives,
* and state/local affirmative-action systems,

a broad estimate of:

* **$500 billion–$1+ trillion cumulative since 1965**
is plausible as an order-of-magnitude estimate.

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/05/28/affirmative-action-dei-trump-contracting/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Trump administration moves to upend $37B affirmative action program"
[2]: https://www.congressionalresearch.com/RL33284/document.php?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Minority Contracting and Affirmative Action for Disadvantaged Small Businesses: Legal Issues"
[3]: https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/econ_focus/2017/q3/research_spotlight?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Affirmative Action, On and Off | Richmond Fed"

What more should the US do for black America?

Most of the systemic racism we have observed has been to favour black America.
Such as
Affirmative action
Racial Gerrymandering

basilico:

🚨 BOOM! Alabama just went straight to the US Supreme Court demanding they THROW OUT the current rigged Congressional map packed with 2 racially gerrymandered Dem seats!

Justice Clarence Thomas just ordered a response by 5PM Monday!

LFG! pic.twitter.com/WABc35Gqvu

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) May 8, 2026

I'm enjoying this. Who thinks democrats will take the house in November?

The US supreme court is bringing an end to systemic racism.
DeepSight take note; racial gerrymandering is systemic racism.
Affirmative action is systemic racism.
We all seek a colour blind society not one that favours one race over the other.

basilico:
I have been a vocal proponent of the gerrymandered for a long time.
Democrats have had the upper hand ,in their strong holds they have done their best to eliminate Republican seats. They did this through state legislature and compliant judges.
I'm republican strong areas they went to court demanding redistricting be redone. In some cases the Republicans drew a map,the democrats countered with one then got a judge to impose the democrat one. This was the case in Georgia, Alabama and Louisiana.

All this is inherently wrong . The spineless Republicans not wanting to be called racist simply accepted the maps which increased democrat house numbers.

The supreme court hasn't blocked the civil rights act.all they did was declare redistricting based on race was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court gave the go ahead to gerrymander based on party politics in 2019. It also ruled that redistricting should not be a court process but state legislatures.

You are right, Gerrymandering has been a tool of the Dems and now they are uncomfortable because it's no longer going their way.

4 reasons why racial gerrymandering is wrong in the United States:

It divides people by race instead of bringing citizens together as one country.
It can make some voters feel their votes matter less because district lines are drawn mainly around race.
It encourages politicians to focus on race politics instead of solving real problems like jobs, schools, and safety.
The U.S. Constitution promises equal protection under the law, and many people believe government decisions should not favor or separate citizens mainly because of race.

DeepSight:
Since you mention kids, I trust if you have a daughter you would not mind such an approach as you advertised being made to her, nor would it send off alarm beels ringing in your head. I am done with you.

You guys learnt nothing. You tried the same foolish cancel culture on Trump since 2016, it only made him the biggest political figure in the US for the last century.

The left made noise over the grab them by the pu**y comment. It ended up electing him to office.
Then they went on the convicted felon rant, he won again.
Now you want to try the same stupidity on me.
How do you even think it will have an effect?

DeepSight:
Since you mention kids, I trust if you have a daughter you would not mind such an approach as you advertised being made to her, nor would it send off alarm beels ringing in your head. I am done with you.

You will be outraged if your daughter comes across a voiceover job but will celebrate when she kills your grand child in her womb.
This is the typical leftist priority.

DeepSight:
Since you mention kids, I trust if you have a daughter you would not mind such an approach as you advertised being made to her, nor would it send off alarm beels ringing in your head. I am done with you.

You mean I should be angry ify adult daughter comes across an advert for the role of an erotic voice actor on YouTube?
My answer,
I would not be angry.
But I would be heartbroken if my daughter decides to murder her baby.

DeepSight:
No mainstream or legitimate advertisement asks for people with a sexually provocative voice openly. None.
And certainly no so called ardent Christian will be putting out such adverts.
And you had the nerve to talk about absentee fathers in America and abortions. Kai.

Others here were spot on that it looks very much like a springboard for romance scams or even potentially human trafficking of some sort!
Its just unimaginable. After all your talking down at the "culture" of black Americans.

You mean YouTube is not mainstream. And you mean only the mainstream media is allowed to operate and everyone else is illegal
Again, you leftists attacked a Christian for not baking a cake for a gay couple and now you attack another Christian for having clients that run an erotic YouTube channel.
Which lane are you on?

I am with my kids, a responsible father unlike 75% of black America.

On the left's scale of preference, being an irresponsible dad is cool but taking up clients that own an erotic channel, that's the line they can't cross. In fact, according to leftist, it's illegal. But killing a human being is the mother's choice.

Do you see your hypocrisy?