₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
Nothing concern me again o!

Lol. Beg am nah.

FreeIgboho:
De rien

My second language is French

Great. Merci beaucoup is my limit.

DeepSight:
You know that is easy for me.

Is it you that I know?
I know you too well bro. If it were another person I would have given the benefit of the doubt but you. Haba.

LordReed:
Dude Samson killing Philistines is not bringing anybody peace. As a matter of fact it is part of the reason they are fight in the Middle East.

I dunno if you are aware that Islam has narrowed the gap in terms of population and is projectied to overtake Christian population. At that point if you are still around would you become a Muslim because their book is more popular than yours?

Popularity is not an indicator of truth.

I have responded above but something else came to my mind.
To determine if the bible was inspired of God or is the work of conspiring men, we have to compare it to other books written by men.
So which book do you know that is over 2000 years old, written over the span of 2000 years by up to 60 authors and has the same consistency, and theme as the bible?
The writers were at different locations especially the new testament and yet reading it will lead you to one central message.
No work of man comes close.
This is the work of God and it is marvelous in our eyes.
If you can produce another book that meets or exceeds all the conditions stated, I will agree with you that the bible is not inspired of God.

FreeIgboho:
Very informative. Kudos

Merci beaucoup

DeepSight:
Just be intellectually honest. He asked you a simple question and you started running and dancing.

This child.
But then, they say humans are smarter than AI. If you are depressed and uncomfortable because you feel I cheated with an AI, oga use your human brain and defeat the AI nah. Unless your brain is .....

DeepSight:
What is so hard in admitting that that was AI?

LordReed your son is not dropping this oh.

LordReed:
Dude Samson killing Philistines is not bringing anybody peace. As a matter of fact it is part of the reason they are fight in the Middle East.

I dunno if you are aware that Islam has narrowed the gap in terms of population and is projectied to overtake Christian population. At that point if you are still around would you become a Muslim because their book is more popular than yours?

Popularity is not an indicator of truth.

There is war in the middle east because Samson killed the Philistines??

It's clear you are looking for every means to change this topic. You blame Samson for the problems in the middle east.

Again, you completely miss the point. Even if Islam overtakes Christianity, it doesn't remove the fact that the bible despite the imperfections of the writers, despite the extreme persecution of the early Christian remains the most influential book on earth. This is proof that it's writers were inspired. The bible was not even supposed to be this powerful. It couldn't be stopped by Roman oppression. Very few books have had such impact.

Yes you final point is very correct, popularity is not indication of truth. So let me ask you, how do you know eternal truths?

Since you can't even recognize eternal truths, I was not even making that argument.
My point here was that despite the flaws of it's writers, the bible remains an inspired work. We can argue if it was inspired by God or not but the wise words of Jesus Christ shines forth here. By their fruits ye shall know them.
The fruits of the bible are beyond anything human. It is clearly inspired.

I can argue that the Quran was inspired but by who?

LordReed:
I started and ended it but you are just going on and on. Matter is over abeg.

I already said we should stop but you are not so keen

LordReed:
Dude will you just stop.

You started the distraction and honestly, I am already tired of it. You are right, let's stop.

LordReed:
LoLz. Dude these are stories every bit as fantastical as any other mythological story. There is nothing in thiee stories that make them stand out nor can any of them be evidenced as real.

Ultimately the point is there is no way to distinguish between your Bible authors who you described as inspired and any of the other popular ancient writings. A number of which were at some point part of the Biblical canon which some of you reject.

Again you are wrong. Despite the imperfections of the writers, the bible will always stand out. It remains one of the oldest text, most widespread, most respected. It has brought peace and healing to the lives of millions. So you waving it off as just any other book is being shallow. It is serving it's purpose. No book written by man is comparable in terms of reach and influence. No book has brought more positive change. That's more than enough evidence that the bible is special.

FreeIgboho:
You really think this accounts for people not being able to remember dead people waking up from their graves and walking around, and all these below?

I am not sure of your point here.
I believe I have already answered. The example I gave about giving record of what happened in your secondary school 15 years ago still stands

LordReed:
The only one being persistent right now is you. I dunno why it's still bugging you after I have dropped the matter. I said I would respond latter, end of matter.

Now you have won
We are now discussing something else. Very brilliant move.

LordReed:
Your reluctance makes me a little more certain it was AI. Not sure why you are reluctant but ok. I will respond later.

Your persistence and insistence to debate the most irrelevant things makes it super clear that you only want to make noise and distract.

LordReed:
I am not trying to change the subject, it just reads like an AI output so I want to confirm. Your response won't change my rebuttal.

You are still determined to switch topics. Remember, each time you make a rebuttal and I respond is time spent so please let's not waste time. That is the least we can do.

LordReed:
LoLz. So how is that different from not being inspired by the god?

Let me give you an example from the bible, Moses was given power to speak to the rock for water to flow out instead, he hit the rock and still water came out.
The Lord works come forth despite the imperfections of men.
We also have the Samson example. His imperfections are so clear yet the Lord used him to defeat the enemies of Israel.

The Lord accomplishes his wonders using imperfect men. He did not need to eliminate the mistakes of men to produce the most published book and to tell the story of Jesus Christ to the entire world.

LordReed:
Wait, did you get this from AI?

Lol.
You seem to have lost focus. Now you want to change the topic and discuss the source of my info.

Oga, we expect better from you. Please go back and address the points I made and stop looking for a way out.

DeepSight:
No, it proves that three of them copied from once source which is well known as Q.

So, according to you, if you and your secondary school friend do not have exactly the same account of something your maths teacher did 15 years ago, it means you both copied from one source, which is well known as Q If this is the way you think, no problem.

LordReed:
Yet you people say it was inspired by the god. You mean the god couldn't inspire them to write non contradictory accounts?

The answer is yes. Even if God inspires, he could still allow your imperfections.

FreeIgboho:
If written by eyewitnesses why are their recollections of things like the resurrection so totally different? These were things they participated in

Trust me, if you and 3 of your friends in secondary school wrote a record of your class from SSS1 to SSS3, we would be reading 3 different records. That the 4 gospels agree more than 80% of the time actually proves the authenticity of the records and writers.

LordReed:
1. It was written between 75 to 100CE. Matthew is said to have died in 68CE. If the timelines are correct then there's no way he wrote it.
2. It incorporates material from Mark, Luke and a possible source Q. Which means this person was a either quite learned or a scribe. None of the disciples were said to scribes or learned.
3. Another issue with the scribal nature of this book is it was written in Greek. The common people at that had no formal education in reading or writing. So how did a first century Jew who was not a scribe write a book in Greek?
4. It no where in the book mentions the name of the author ie it nowhere says this book was written by Matthew.

Objection 1: "Matthew died in 68 CE, but the Gospel was written between 75–100 CE."
Response:
The date range of 75–100 CE is based on modern scholarly estimates, many of which assume Matthew borrowed from Mark and that Mark was written around 70 CE. However, early church tradition — including Papias, Irenaeus, and others — suggest Matthew’s Gospel was written earlier, possibly in the 50s or 60s CE.
Also, dating ancient texts isn’t exact science. If Matthew wrote his Gospel in the 60s CE, before his death (possibly around 68), that fits both his lifespan and the content’s context — especially since Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 CE is never mentioned as a past event, which you'd expect if it were written after.

Objection 2: "It uses content from Mark, Luke, and Q. That implies a learned scribe, not a fisherman or tax collector."
Response:
First, Matthew wasn't a fisherman — he was a tax collector, a job requiring literacy, numeracy, and record-keeping. He would have been more educated than most of the apostles and perfectly capable of writing or compiling a structured document.
Second, using other sources doesn’t disqualify authorship. If Matthew used Mark and perhaps oral or written traditions (like Q), he may have done so to organize and supplement with his own eyewitness insights. Ancient writers often relied on sources — and it doesn’t mean they weren’t the true authors.

Objection 3: "It was written in Greek, and a first-century Jew wouldn’t write in Greek unless he was a scribe."
Response:
While many Jews in 1st-century Judea spoke Aramaic, Greek was the lingua franca of the Eastern Roman Empire, including Galilee. A tax collector like Matthew, who dealt with Roman officials and urban merchants, almost certainly knew Greek.
Moreover, even if Matthew wasn’t fully fluent in written Greek, he could have dictated his Gospel to a scribe or translator — a very common practice in the ancient world. That still preserves his authorship, even if he didn’t physically pen it.


Objection 4: "The Gospel never says it was written by Matthew."
Response:
That’s true — the Gospel of Matthew is anonymous, as are all four Gospels. None of them directly say, “I, John” or “I, Mark.”
However, the early church universally attributed this Gospel to Matthew — and there’s no competing ancient claim for another author. The name “Matthew” is attached to this Gospel as early as the 2nd century, long before modern debates.
Also, the Gospel includes unique details about Matthew’s own calling (Matthew 9:9), and unlike in Mark and Luke, he refers to himself as “Matthew the tax collector” — a humble detail that suggests firsthand authorship.


So while your objections raise good scholarly questions, they don’t disprove Matthew’s authorship. When you weigh:

Early and unanimous church tradition,

Matthew’s background as an educated tax collector,

Common practices like using scribes and sources,

And internal clues in the Gospel itself,

…it’s entirely reasonable — even likely — that Matthew the apostle wrote (or dictated) the Gospel that bears his name.

FreeIgboho:
I believe the letters of Paul were written by him because he had a lot of time durring long imprisonments and because he had to write to budding churches. Also Acts written by Luke and Revelation by John while imprisoned at Patmos - which John exactly though?
Common sense would seem to suggest that books not addressed to anyone were likely not written by the original apostles as they wouldn't have had the time or leisure and there was no compelling reason to write them

Your last statement is more of guesswork than the work of historians or scholars.

Now this will help.
Proving that the Gospel of John was written by John the Apostle

1. Early Church Testimony (External Evidence)
Several early Christian writers affirm that John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee and one of Jesus' original twelve disciples, wrote the Gospel:

Irenaeus (c. 180 AD), a disciple of Polycarp (who was taught by John), explicitly states:

“John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”
(Against Heresies 3.1.1)

Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen also attributed the fourth Gospel to John.

The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170 AD), one of the earliest lists of New Testament books, mentions John as the author.

These sources, written within 100–150 years of the Gospel, are consistent and widespread geographically.


2. Internal Evidence (Within the Gospel)
The Gospel refers repeatedly to “the disciple whom Jesus loved” as an eyewitness (e.g., John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21:24).

John 21:24 says:

“This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and who wrote them down. And we know that his testimony is true.”
This implies eyewitness authorship and links the unnamed “beloved disciple” to the Gospel’s content.

The author clearly had intimate knowledge of Jewish customs, Jerusalem geography, and private events, indicating he was a close disciple of Jesus.

Of the 12 apostles, John is the most likely candidate:

He was part of Jesus’ inner circle (Peter, James, and John).

He was present at key events (e.g., crucifixion) described in the Gospel.

The Gospel never mentions John by name, which fits with modesty or anonymity if he were the author.

3. Style and Theological Themes
The Gospel’s distinct theological depth (e.g., "In the beginning was the Word…" aligns with what early Christians believed John emphasized in his later years.

Similar style and themes are found in 1 John, often attributed to the same author due to language like “light,” “truth,” “love,” and “eternal life.

Pearl1910:
I am the one that's supposed to ask u to do that since u are the one that said reincarnation is nat plausible and it's only low IQ beings that believe in it.
But because I really want answers and for us to learn and not up for aimless, foolish arguments, I now said, okay tell us d alternative to salvation for people that died without Christ after His death, u are now asking me to list why reincarnation is a waste of time.

Can u now see why I said u are just fooling around with vein and aimless rhetoric that leads nowhere and it's best not to engage u because your reality is an illusion. When u wake up we can have a conversation. For now Cheers.

You are confusing yourself. You just told me that you agreed with me and I asked you reason for changing your mind.

But honestly, the person that came up with this reincarnation theory was quite reckless and did not think it through.

Imagine humans going round in circles with no expected end. Learning nothing, gaining nothing, just going round in circles and somehow hoping to find the truth.

FreeIgboho:
The video is saying, and historians generally agree with Lordreed, that those were NOT written by the apostles Mathew and John.
The problem is Paul and Acts. Unless they're saying those also never happened, then they're talking nonsense

Then my question would be, who wrote the books of Matthew, the Gospel of John, Peter, the 3 books of John and Revelations?

Again what are the historic evidence that show that the gospels of Matthew and John were written by some other person's?

Pearl1910:
Okay, let's agree reincarnation is a waste of time and doesn't exist.
So what will happen to all the people that died without coming to the knowledge of Christ. Especially the people that died in this current dispensation after Jesus Died (AD)?
I want to learn

First, list a some of the reasons why reincarnation is a waste of time then we can continue.

LordReed:
Nope, according to the facts on ground.

Oya, highlight your facts

LordReed:
They were not written by Matthew or John.

According to LordReed.

Pearl1910:
You are the one that asked a question, that started all these argument .
U haven't given any superior opinion to mine.
U have also not debunked my stand.
I am not offended.
And I am open to learning if I hear truth.

Lol
I pointed out how disorganized your argument was.
It is not efficient.
Only a very low intelligence God will depend on reincarnation.
But then you refused to learn.
Clearly you are stuck in your ways and not open to learning as you say.
Reincarnation is a waste of time and experience. This method makes past experiences irrelevant.
If the reincarnated being has no attachment or remembrance of the things he learnt in past life, each past life becomes a waste.
Again, to save us from the stupidity of reincarnation, just make the truth available for everyone at their first trial of life.
Your entire system is a waste of time. Only a low intelligence being would choose that route.

FreeIgboho:
Yes I did. The flaw is that they don't claim Paul was also not a real person. The problem with claiming Jesus never existed is the existence of people like Paul!
Maxindhouse and Janosky will like it. Lordreed will love it. tctrills what you think of it?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEcZtMhj4Jw



I've told him that "reality" itself is incoherent not only God



I missed this. How do you mean?



You still think so?

The creator of this video began with a lie. I guess he forgot the Gospels of Matthew and John

Dtruthspeaker:
I have already answered both before

Lol
Ok, have a blessed day.

Pearl1910:
Ok... Ur case is more of a dillusion. No point arguing further with u.

Your are the typical Nairalander always getting offended when you come across superior argument.
You guys need to grow.
Have a blessed day.