₦airaland Forum

AbuTwins:
What does he know about Allah?

Tiny brain!

Kids wey never tear eyes yet!

Many Christian kids did more than these a decade or two ago where are they now?

AbuTwins:
You have no truth! It is clearly a Biblical error!



Jesus said : "In the Days of Abiathar the High Priest". Abiathar there is an error which is supposed to be Ahimelech! Now you agree there was a mistake! Why the strong head before!



And the violation of the law was different in the cases of David and Jesus's disciples.
Jesus' disciples were accused of breaking the Sabbath, while David was not accused but rather put Ahimelech in a difficult position regarding the consecrated bread.

All this were made up for Jesus to seem like a God which he clearly isn't!
What actually happened was the abrogation of some of Moses's law!
It wasn't even the Son of man that was committing the deed but his apostles!

Have a nice day too!

AbuTwins:
It was not in the days of Abiathar the High Priest! It was accurately in the days of Ahimelech the Priest!
This is a biblical inaccuracy!

He became one after his father died and he escaped!

Once again, it was not in the days of Abiathar at all but that of his father Ahimelech!



You sure had a better understanding of English than me!
The Bible was written in English!
Jesus and the disciples were English men!

AbuTwins:
2. David did not enter the house of God to just take bread without permission like the disciples did! He requested for loves of bread which was not available before opting for consecrated bread!

AbuTwins:
Jesus said in the time of Abiathar the high priest! It was actually the time of Ahimelech! Abiathar was never mentioned as high priest during Ahimelech's time.

Show me when the Bible mentions Abiathar as high priest?

Show us where Abiathar had any bread dealings with David?

And show us where David entered the house of God and took bread like the disciples did?

The liar is clear.
Even your disciple Fzmasterz agreed it was a mistake. Here you are being adamant to cover up lies.

Abeg I no time to waste on Mark's error of portrayal of Jesus as an ignoramus or a liar!

SEE THE HIGH PRIEST IN RED BELOW FROM YOUR COMMENT!

AbuTwins:
Jesus said in the time of Abiathar the high priest! It was actually the time of Ahimelech! Abiathar was never mentioned as high priest during Ahimelech's time.

Show me when the Bible mentions Abiathar as high priest?

Show us where Abiathar had any bread dealings with David?

And show us where David entered the house of God and took bread like the disciples did?

The liar is clear.
Even your disciple Fzmasterz agreed it was a mistake. Here you are being adamant to cover up lies.

Abeg I no time to waste on Mark's error of portrayal of Jesus as an ignoramus or a liar!

AbuTwins:
You are late and can't turn this mistake over!
Was Abiathar ever mentioned as a Priest with David and Consecrated bread?
No! Ahimelech was the Priest with bread dealings with David not Abiathar!
Jesus was portrayed to have quoted wrongly!

And even David did not just enter the house of God to take bread like the disciples did. He requested for loaves of bread!
The citation error is much!

AbuTwins:
Jesus quoted David and Abiathar the Priest as regards consecrated bread!

Mark 2:23-27
One Sabbath Jesus was passing through the grainfields, and His disciples began to pick the heads of grain as they walked along. So the Pharisees said to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?” Jesus replied, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need?

During the high priesthood of Abiathar, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which was lawful only for the priests. And he gave some to his companions as well.” Then Jesus declared, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Therefore, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

But Jesus made a mistake as he should have mentioned Ahimelek the Priest who is the father of Abiathar! And more so, David didn't just enter the house of God and started eating! He requested for ordinary bread and when that wasn't available he opted for consecrated bread!

1 Samuel 21:1-6
David went to Nob, to Ahimelek the priest. Ahimelek trembled when he met him, and asked, “Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?”
David answered Ahimelek the priest, “The king sent me on a mission and said to me, ‘No one is to know anything about the mission I am sending you on.’ As for my men, I have told them to meet me at a certain place. Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever you can find.”

But the priest answered David, “I don’t have any ordinary bread on hand; however, there is some consecrated bread here—provided the men have kept themselves from women.”

David replied, “Indeed women have been kept from us, as usual whenever I set out. The men’s bodies are holy even on missions that are not holy. How much more so today!” So the priest gave him the consecrated bread, since there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence that had been removed from before the Lord and replaced by hot bread on the day it was taken away.

Jesus was portrayed to have made a mistake mentioning Abiathar the Priest instead of Ahimelek the Priest who happens to be the father of the former!

honesttalk21:
This is the text from the web page.

The majestic plural, also called the royal plural, is the use of a plural word (such as the pronoun we or us) to refer to a single person. As a type of nosism, the majestic plural emphasizes something or honors someone in a stylistic way. Basically, when a member of royalty, referring to himself, says, “We” instead of “I,” he is using the majestic plural. For example, Queen Victoria, upon hearing a tasteless joke, is said to have replied, “We are not amused.”

The ancient Hebrews used the majestic plural, and some examples are found in the Old Testament. But the construction is not unique to Hebrew. The Latin language also had what the Romans called pluralis maiestatis (“the plural of majesty”), and, as has been noted, English sometimes uses it as well. Other modern languages using the royal plural include Punjabi, Hindustani, Telugu, and Egyptian Arabic (in which the President of Egypt is referred to as “Your Excellencies”).

The effect of the majestic plural is to indicate greatness, power, and prestige. It is normally reserved for use by nobles, kings, popes, and other persons of high rank when speaking in an official capacity or by those of lower rank when speaking of or to their betters.

In the Bible, we find four verses in which God refers to Himself using plural pronouns. The most well-known passage is Genesis 1:26: “Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness.’” See also Genesis 3:22; Genesis 11:7; and Isaiah 6:8. The One God is speaking of Himself in plural form: us and our. This is a perfect example of the majestic plural. God’s divine greatness and transcendence are emphasized through the simple use of pronouns.

The majestic plural is also found in one of God’s most common names in the Old Testament, Elohim. The word itself is plural (the singular is Eloah), and it is sometimes translated as “gods” (when referring to a plurality of false gods). When it refers to the One True God, Elohim (plural) is correctly translated as “God” (singular).

Deuteronomy 4:35 says, “The LORD is God”—literally, “Yahweh is Elohim.” And the famous Shema says, “The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” Again, we have the singular Lord coupled with the plural Elohim, and this time in a verse that is crystal clear that there is only one God. His name’s plural form indicates His sovereign supremacy, His matchless might, and His exceeding eminence.

We carefully note that the majestic plural in the Old Testament was not meant to teach the doctrine of the Trinity. It is simply a linguistic tool that God employed to accentuate His greatness. However, the use of plural constructions to refer to God leaves open the possibility of God’s triune nature. Later, when the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed in the New Testament, the use of the majestic plural fits right in.

God1000:
Will this war ever end? It's been two years since the start of this conflict and there's no end in sight.

If Donald trump wins US presidential election in November this year, he will stop helping Ukraine, Ukraine will be forced to cede some of its territory to Russia in exchange for peace.

God1000:
I have never seen this kind of irresponsible military operation before, Israel is just bombing everywhere in Gaza killing innocent people, they don't even have post- invasion plan, so what happens after Rafah assault?

You don't kill civilians to appear strong, it's an act of cowardice

As for Biden, his hands are already soiled with the blood of innocent women and children, he says one thing to look good and does the opposite

The world is watching, we are watching everything

Quintessence44:
He is not a terrorist lover and you know it.

He just doesn't like to see tens of thousands of innocent civilians and children being slaughtered by Israeli bombs, and you know it.

And because you are a demonic, bloodthirsty vampire, you gaslight him by lying that he is a ''terrorist lover''.

Nbkay23:
It’s no longer news how Dollar is skyrocketing in our Economy Nigeria Today, and the Devaluation of our Naira, well I’ll like to share my own 2percent on the situation.

Considering the fact that Nigeria only spends naira, But the availability of dollars to some, in the economy is Devastating. These are the Big business corps, BDC’s operators and Particularly the Government. The reason for our currency devaluation, here I’ll tell you now..I’m an economist and a part time forex trader, so believe it what I’m telling is true.

The Cbn exchange dollar thru the Bureau d change to the public, the way they do it, is By releasing Dollars to particular registered BDC traders as they claim, Dollars is released to this Individuals to sell to the General public daily, What these people do is, they sell at a particular rate and increase the rate so as to Have some dollars left in stock, By hoarding them, They come back to the bank next day and deposit naira, Saying Demand of Dollars is High, Next day collecting of dollars take place in the Bank again, the bank doesn’t have a choice than to increase the rate cos the rate of return is Low in Value, Definitely business has been done and profit has been made. The issue is Why can’t the CBN put a stop to Street Trading, Aboki’s calling people dollar, dollar on the streets and Devise a Means of Transaction using the Bank for Transparency while Dealing thru the Accounts of the BDC’s, this way you can avoid Laundering of money, illegal transactions and Consumption of Government funds, Most Politicians in Abuja prefer to use the Bureau d change cos it’s a seamless way of Transaction, No one can hold you, No amount is too much, Infact the bigger the amount the Better they friends with you. Street transaction of Dollars is still the same as Spending dollars in the economy. You won’t see other Countries allowing other currencies to be Transferable in the Streets, We have to put a stop to this Menace if we want to save this Country from Collapsing , Using Debts to hold the naira is not the way, Defunding the Banks of Dollar deposits is not the way, Defunding the crypto holders is not even the way, We have to let Transparency and Records take control of the Exchange system, Not in the streets, But banks. Slots can be made Available for Preferable BDC’s Vendors, And Stop Doing Business with the Economy

Below in this picture is a woman walking Pass the exchange Board in Tokyo Japan, You can Visibly see the chart

Expanse2020:
In Proverbs

Come, let us take our fill of love till morning;
let us delight ourselves with love.
19 For my husband is not at home;
he has gone on a long journey; holala..😂😂😂
20 he took a bag of money with him;
at full moon he will come home.”

Expanse2020:
It can't never be adultery Sha..
Since bible said if my friend TenQ no de around his wife can call me to fill in the gap....

kkins25:
Without a doubt, TenQ, you have wrapped yourself in your own arguments that your mind is now entangled and struggling to escape the nuisances that you, yourself, ascribed to words like "tangible" and "intangible."

Simple tell us which Category God falls under, and we can close the windows on this!!!!!

I'll give you props for making your writeup easy to read though. The boldening, underline, and spaces made it easy to follow your line of arguments. My " ADHD,"I mean short attention span, didn't was actually glued in..

gaskiyamagana:
Ok.
Thanks.

gaskiyamagana:
You are free to upload anything about Islam from your fake, fictitious, fabricated and doctored contents and references - all can never be genuine as long they are not from Quran; as incest, onanism , rape and adultery as clearly, obviously and unambiguously recorded in your holy Bible about prophets of God.

gaskiyamagana:
I will continue to bleat it till second coming of your Jesus that you have polluted his teachings with fallacy, fiction, FALSEHOOD, FABRICATION MISINTERPRETATION AND MISREPRESENTATION .

FRANCISTOWN:
😂😂😂😂😂. Oh! That Roman Invented Dude.
He even said "Christ Jesus". 😂😂😂
Did the Bible teach you about the bigbang, abi you no believe the creation story?

gaskiyamagana:
But too good to be reading incest, onanism, porn and adultery about prophets of God in your holy Bible.

gaskiyamagana:
Repetition of justification that Christianity and it followers are romancing with fallacious, fictitious, fabricated, misrepresented and misinterpreted belief, doctrine and teachings about God and His prophets especially prophet Isa (asw).

gaskiyamagana:
Fantasy in the ignorant world of disbelief.

gaskiyamagana:
It seems you have swallowed your ignorant that "Allah established religions"; despite claiming understanding Qur'an more we muslims. This is the reason you are trying to jump to another issue. Your ignorance in that statement always reflected in most of your arguments with fake, fictitious and feeble Hadith and Christianized interpretation of Qur'an to suit your wish as enemy of Islam.
I don't have time to argue with permanently PROGRAMED person as anti Islam because it will be exercise in futility.

FRANCISTOWN:
TenQ . Don't pretend to not have seen my question.

Of which religion are you?

FRANCISTOWN:
Well the thing is, no one knows. I mean the bigbang is still a theory and not a law. No one was really there to tell what happened.
We are only trying to make sense of things based on observations and Friedman and other mathematical equations.

Your question is more like a causality dilemma, the egg/hen paradox.

No scientist in the world can prove whether there were physical laws before the bigbang or whether they were simultaneously created alongside the universe.

Once upon a time, there was a singularity and this singularity was very hot and it was expanding and cooling very fast until it became what it is today. Well, interesting theory from our astrophysicists.

The answer to your question is. No one knows what really happened before the bigbang.

Time is imaginary, so some scientists agree that. Time must have been in existence even before the universe. That's why you see phrase such as "1 sec after the bigbang, the universe was..."

I repeat, no one knows.
Whether there was time, space and physical laws before the bigbang. We can't tell.

But after the bigbang at t=0. We are sure of matter, laws, principles and the continuation of time at t=0 + ∞.

FRANCISTOWN:
Lol! I was expecting this. As usual, the same arguments theists use to support their outlandish claim. 😂😂

Now lemme tell you where many theists lack critical reasoning.

In the grand calculus of the universe. If the level of entropy of the universe started decreasing and time started to move backwards. The space begins to shrink and everything goes back into the single entity before the big bang.
Let's call that single entity A. Alpha.

Now here is where I want to provoke your frontal lobe.

1. We can't establish the fact whether there was any other entity aside A. Alpha.

2. Even if there were other entities. Such entities can never have an established connection or relationship with A.Alpha and it's elements. How do I know this? The single entity A.Alpha exploded into nothingness and it has constantly be expanding.
The expansion of space time could only be possible if it's expands into nothing or it repels it's surrounding entities.

Therefore, anything that would have a relationship and connection with A.Alpha must had been within A.Alpha before the explosion since our universe is independently parallel. As there has not been any statistically significant evidence of any other universe.

Scientists only assume that, since we ourselves are in a universe, and we've seen it. Then if at all any other thing exists outside of our universe prolly other universe(s). Hence the multiverse postulate.
. So, It is erroneous, lugubrious, sadomasochistic, exasperating and the peak of academic embarrassment to assume that any other entity exists outside of our universe as anything other than other universes.




Please state the deductions from the propositions that you called FACTS. Otherwise, it would be a colossal waste of my time talking to you.


Such entity must be beyond time doesn't mean such entity cannot penetrate and manipulate time. Such entity that is responsible for the creation of time must be able to directly penetrate and manipulate it in real time without destroying the universe.

Therefore, this isn't an excuse for being undetectible.




"Must" is a very strong language.
Such entity must not be matter? You are talking like you know that "such Entity" face to face. You are confining the entity to the same rules you accuse atheists of confining it to.
Lol! Double standard De Nada


If such entity isn't made up of matter? Then such entity must be able to cause direct effects on matter. Since the entity is responsible for matter after all.

This is no excuse for being undetectible.


Such entity must be able to penetrate into spacetime and alter it without destroying the fabric of spacetime. If you wrote a software, won't you know how to reprogram some functions without damaging the software?

This is no excuse for being undetectible.



There are things we don't have an idea of what they are but we can see their effects, connections and relationships with other things.

Even if this Entity decided to remain unknown. The fact that it remains uninteractive shows that it doesn't exist. It has no effect on anything.

It is a natural reasoning to know that it is absent.

Lemme ask you a question. How do you, I repeat. How do you know that there is such an ENTITY? Since you've never or no one has been able to detect it. Did you just assume there must be or that entity showed itself to you?

I need your response on this please.

How did your religion fathers get in contact with this so called God if he existed outside of our universe, since even science has not been able to contact anything outside of our own universe?


Brother you are making me laugh.
The fundamental laws are universal laws. They are the laws of this universe.

Everything you wrote up there are things that are supposedly "happening" outside of this universe(outside of the A.Alpha and it's big bang and it's laws). You said before time, outside of matter and before space(These three are outside of our universe).

So my brother, you have not been able to break down any premise. I repeat again that the physical laws remain true for all observers at all frames of reference(When you truly understand this phrase, you will stop believing in the old wives' fables called deities and you will never debate me using physics anymore)


I didn't necessarily mean dragging God into a laboratory. I meant any scientific instrument that has been tested and verified to be absolutely efficient.


Eyyah! But I just subdued your counterattacks.

BTW, of which religion are you?



Later when I'm less preoccupied.



Were you there during the big bang? Did you see any first cause causing A.Alpha?
Couldn't another universe be a first cause and prolly our own universe is just a subset of the first cause universe?
Why must it have to be a God?

If a God could be the first cause, why couldnt A.Alpha be it's own first cause as well? At least none of us was there during the big bang.

FRANCISTOWN:
I'm sorry. Everything you wrote were not needed at all.

Let's leave tangibility aside. Come at atheists head-on and don't loiter around the facts.

Let's get this over with once and for all.

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF ANY DEITY BECAUSE SUCH THINGS DO NOT EXIST.
I dare say deities do not exist. I can bet my two kidneys,my heart and my left testicle that deities do not exist.

FRANCISTOWN:
I may not be able to speak for all atheists but below is the common ground for atheists.
1. The first prerequisite (the fundamental laws of existence sustaining true for all observers at all frames of reference)

• Deities defy the fundamental laws of existence. i.e,
i. They cannot be seen by anyone who is interested (with or without laboratory aids).
ii. They cannot be heard by anyone who is interested (with or without laboratory aids).
iii. They cannot be observed by anyone who is interested (with or without laboratory aids)
iii. They do not have effects on things that everyone can observe, and they are not observable themselves (with or without laboratory aids). Therefore, they are not interactive.
iv. They are not perceptible(with or without laboratory equipments)
v. There is no physical law that supports the possibilities of the existence of deities.
vi. Deities cannot be subjected to any scientific procedure.

These above are what atheists say about deities.

The ideology of the existence of a God is even the most stupid thing ever. Like, what's a God?

gaskiyamagana:
According to your poor understanding misinterpretation and disbelief of the story.

gaskiyamagana:
As usual, and as ROBOTICALLY PROGRAMED to be jumping from one unfinished matter to another to divert from main issue he is incapable of.
From Allah established religions, now to Allah "Father" of muslims as God father of Christians.

FRANCISTOWN:
Not at all. I'm consistent with the definition of tangible.
You are the one who is trying to lead a witness thru projection.
I remember I said it in one of your threads that there are different kinds atheists.
The only thing that is common to all atheists is that we reject the believes that deities exist.

FRANCISTOWN:
What would make anyone an atheist is very subjective. A personal realization. So, atheists don't have a code of conduct or constitutional obligations. As long as you reject the beliefs of the existence of deities. You are welcome.

Therefore, no atheist shoulders the responsibility of defending the opinion of another atheist, unless if he agreed to such opinion himself.

FRANCISTOWN:
If you're really interested in testing my beliefs. You should ask me why I personally reject the beliefs that deities exist.

FRANCISTOWN:
Let's assume(just an assumption) there are real things that are not perceptible by any natural sense or with laboratory aids. Can anyone be sure such things are deities? Evidently No.

FRANCISTOWN:
So whether some atheists believe in tangible or intangible things is not a fundamental ground in the league of atheists.

FRANCISTOWN:
If a God existed. It would never be a topic of debate. A God that needs people to defend his existence is basically not a God. It's more of a fairy.

FRANCISTOWN:
Due to the ambiguity of the word "Tangible". I maintain the dictionary meaning.

FRANCISTOWN:
Having this in mind. Shall we begin proper?

If I agreed to everything you've said about tangible and about what atheists say.

Now, pray, please tell me what you think atheists have done wrong or where you think we are getting it wrong.

This should be the thesis for our discussion.Enchante

FRANCISTOWN:
The only thing I refuse to reconcile with is your subjective definition of tangible as things that can only be measured with regards to mass, dimension and time. This has it's implications.

The moment you tried to solve a challenge, you raised another. You are only viewing dimension in it's spatial extent, physical properties and coordinates and structures of object.
Dimension means many things and different things in different discipline of knowledge. It is different in geometry, it is different in algebra, it is different in computing and in physics.

Even in physics, dimension is used differently in different topics.

Dimensions doesn't have to always be directly proportional to physical properties.

Velocity has a dimension. Velocity is not a physical phenomenon. But the dimension of velocity is equal to the dividence of length by time.

Therefore, abstract things and ideologies also have dimensions.

It is possible to say "This is the height of foolishness". But foolishness doesn't have any physical properties to measure.

I don't even need to talk about the concept of time for time itself will fail me.

Therefore, I cannot agree with your notion. I maintain a neutral position until you can show me one thing that is not truly tangible in any form.