₦airaland Forum

rhymz: My friend, it is you who obviously does not understand what you are blabbing about.
I am not arguing that Paul was preaching about Adamic sin, in fact, that's the crust of the Pauline faith. My argument is that he is the originator of such a belief system. The whole belief system of atonement through death and ressurection was introduced by Paul.
Why do you think he was in constant disagreement with the leaders of the church of Jerusalem, James the brother Jesus and Peter one of the disciples Jesus was promised that he will be the rock on which he will build his church.
Paul's own version of Jesus Christ was a far cry from the prophesied Jewish Messiah, who was considered to be a human with devine powers, a nationalistic hero that will come and save the Jews from foreign(Roman) oppression and establish a strong kingdom that will rule the earth. Paul corrupted the whole interpretations of the Tora and turned Jesus to a salvation-deity whose atoning death by violence was necessary to release his devotees for immortal life, a doctrine he learnt from the mystery religious practices when he was in Tarsus. His corrupted version were all themes drawn from pagan myths such as how the violent deaths of Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dionysus brought divinization to their initiates or adherents.

The biggest advantage of Paul's new religion over other salvation-cults was its attachment to the hebrew scriptures.
Paul reinterpreted the messiah prophesy of the Tora as forecasting the salvation- death of Jesus. This gave Pauline Christianity an awesome authority and advantage that proved attractive to Gentiles( non-Jews who were not born into the convenant) thirsting for salvation. However, his gnostic teachings met with disapproval from the Jewish- Christians of the Jerusalem Church, who regarded the substitution of Jesus' atoning death for the observance of the Torah as a lapse into paganism.
Paul continued to preach his corrupted version at the chagrin of the Jerudalem church elders- James, Peter and John.
He was surmoned to the Jerusalem church and was asked to explain his new theology. At the meeting, Paul hid his true intentions and belief, instead he lied that he was only taking the gospel of Christ to Non-Jews, the Gentiles. He argued that these Gentiles did not need to observe or use the Tora to be part of the Jewish messianic movement. What the Jerusalem church elders did not know was that Paul actually wanted to do away with the Tora even with Jewish Christians.
He was then confirmed in the role of "apostle to the Gentiles," with full permission to enroll Gentiles in the messianic movement without requiring full conversion to Judaism.
However, It was when Peter visited him in Antioch that he became aware of the full extent of Paul's views, a serious rift ensdued between Pauline and Jewish Christianity.
Another meeting was called again and in it, James accused Paul of teaching Jews
"to turn their backs on Moses" (Acts 21:21). Paul ahain denied it and attempted evaded the charge by suggesting that he undergoes a tesdt that shows his observance of the Tora, all in an effort to conceal his main views.
However, his deception was exposed by a group of "Asian Jews" (probably Jewish Christians) who were aware of his real teaching and had seen him outside Jerusalem preaching against the Tora. This led to a protest and Paul fled fearing for his life. That was the last time again he visited the Jerusalem church again.

In conclusion, the fact still remains that Pauline Christianity is actually a paganised distortion of Judaism, as the Christ described in the New testament gospels was plagiarized from pre-Christian pagan cultures of the Middle East and that's where lies all these fairytale of grace and faith in Jesus' death as a salvation pre-requisite you keep blabbing about. I could post you chapters and verses to support my explanation and the fact that he and the Jerusalem Church elders preached different things but apparently, Paul's version seemed to have won the supremecy battle with the help of Rome anyway.

frosbel: So when you cannot argue the points case by case , you rush off to a site or any site for that matter to look for an article that will label him as a false prophet

Why do you find it so hard to argue your case point by point backed up by scripture, why must you always reply on others through cartoons, pictures and articles to do your thinking for you ?

Let me help you a little bit.

Remember God was in Christ reconciling the world back to himself.

"that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation." - 2 Corinthians 5:19

Jesus Christ was 100% full man and not GOD.

Yahweh cannot be tempted, Yahweh cannot die, Yahweh does not say that the father is greater than he, Yahweh does not eat, drink or sleep.

Mate you are jealously holding unto false doctrine.

One thing I do and which God has blessed me with is to examine all church doctrine in the light of scripture.

During this process I have found out that what the majority of apostate christianity believe in largley unscriptural , such as :

1. Immortal Soul
2. Eternal Hell
3. souls in heaven or hell at death
4. Trinity
5. Tithing
6. rapture

etc etc

Read your bible and humbly ask God for wisdom, that is what I do almost everyday and the traditions of men have been totally destroyed from before my very eyes, praise be to Yahweh our eternal father, saviour and redeemer.

mkmyers45: Not surprising...even on NL we have our own Catholic-Protestant mini wars daily

ijawkid: When did I AM become Gods name??

So anywhere or anytime people use the. Expression ""I AM"" then it means they are Yahweh too??

When in d world did the expression "" I am"" mean God or meant exclusively to mean Yahweh??

So if u go for an interview and an employer shuld ask:::: are u ITALO?? And u reply ::yes
"" I AM""......
I think that should make u Yahweh or God...


Can u please tell me the full meaning of the hebrew tetragrammaton??

Tell me.....

And I'll get back to u......

okeyxyz: Really? how's it sick? Is christianity or our traditions against polygamy? Rather, it is you who seem to have no knowledge or understanding of any of the two.

MacDaddy01: I thought Jesoul was a bad moderator until I met Maclatunji.


I didnt know what we had until we lost her. Glad that she is back.

MacDaddy01: Yoruba and french?

Your English accent must be odd

JeSoul: Did Jesus Drink Alcohol? - Religion - Nairaland
https://www.nairaland.com/686684/did-jesus-drink-alcohol

Big brother Goshen how body now?

Ejo reconsider your take on this topic ehn...

---

Uncle kunle, how goes it? what was the name of that thread that went several pages on this topic? I think it was you, Ola, Image and a few others...

frosbel: Modelling certain practices after obsolete Jewish rites is inconsequential and invalid as far as the new convent is concerned.

Our main role model is Christ and we are to model our behaviour and practices after HIM and his life style ALONE.

"For those God foreknew he also predestined[b] to be conformed to the likeness of his Son[/b], that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." - Romans 8:29

Sweetnecta: @frosbel and truthislight: have you guys ever heard; body and soul?


@truthislight: the light source is disconnected and you will see the dimming of the light until the bulb does not have any light in it. light is created when current flows. life as in living is seen as existing because the soul is in the body of the walking about man. when the soul is removed from the walking around man, the body falls flat and dies.

soul is therefore the evidential source of life in the man. the Creator of soul of man is God. the bulb on its own does not illuminate. illumination is sign that current is in it. life of man is equal to illumination of the bulb. current in the bulb is equal to soul in the body of man. bulb unlit is equal to soulless or lifeless/dead body or at best just at contact of sper.m and egg.

But soul and spirit is what we are discussing here. I am saying soul in the spiritual realm is spirit. spirit of man when it enters the body, it is now the soul of the living man. when the soul is detached, you see a lifeless body, whereas the soul is the spiritual body unseen returning to the Creator.

ijawkid: I wonder too....

Besides 1 john 5:7 is a spurious verse that was attached to the scriprtures.....

Deep Sight: Done already. . . . exhaustively. . . . but if you choose to be escapist, no wahala. Like I said, I write not for you but for the third party reader. I am confident that third party readers will draw their conclusions appropriately.

So. . . . .Enjoy!

MyJoe: You finally managed a couple of lines without lieing against me.

But your attempts at wittiness are as ghastly as your idiotic posts all over NL, all irrational and coarse.

And I notice you took your time to think - even read my old posts - before responding. It may be that you are starting to learn the matter of thinking.

**Edited**

Goshen360: Paul told Timothy to drink a little wine for the sake of his stomach? - What kind of wine and why do pray to have the stomach problem that timothy had

Jesus turned water into wine? - What kind of wine? Strong wine? You must be kidding. Get your bible and STUDY, not reading like newspaper.

Jesus had the communion with wine? What kind of wine and why don't you take strong wine to observe the communion? Mtcheww

You guys should stop lifting scriptures just to back up your worldliness. Drinking "Alcohol" is a sin but drinking wine (non-alcoholic) is not a sin......simple!

Sweetnecta: @Frosbel: So the 2 equations above, you got living soul because spirit is in the body. then when spirit is not in the body you have dead body. shouldnt living body be body with spirit in it, instead of saying it is a living soul? where does the soul comes from? shouldnt the opposite of living soul be dead soul, since spirit is the only addition or subtraction with the constant body? Maybe soul is actually spirit?


where did it come from when it does exist? where does it disappear to when it is no more existing?


soul could be spirit you know.


where does the soul return to if it is not the spirit?


is soul not spirit?



what is the definition of soul? you dont know it, i am assuming because you are silent on soul.

Soul: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

plaetton: Are the psalms not poems and songs?
Is it not obvious that the writer or translator was using the word soul in the same manner we use it to say, for example, "my soul hates this or that"?
hhmm.
MR Ijawkid, there you go again with you scriptural reasoning.
lol.

If there is no soul other than the flesh and blood, then when you die, which part of your decayed flesh will go to heaven?

Rich4god: i still dont understand how/why you guys claim that catholics dont read/use the bible... All these verses we have been quoting here is taken from where?

mkmyers45: I just can't understand what the beef is...

mkmyers45: and what is your argurment? Let me ask you this: Where is the first true source of modern christianity?

chukwudi44: That is why he is quoting human^^^^ instead of the bible.


So the books of the bible were not written by humans abi? They all fell down from heaven?

Why you refer to the bible are you not refferring to the scriptural books that was canonised by these same catholic church.why don't you quote any of the other books that were not canonised.

You keep blabbing like the bible has always been there from the begining.Do you that some biblical authours quoted and referred to other books not in the bible.Do you know prophet Nathan wrote a book,we also have books of jasher,ahijoh and enoch quoted and reffered to by biblical authors.

Even the 1 corithians was not really paul's first letter to the corithians.He had actually written to them before that letter but the records have been lost.He also wrote a letter to the ladocieans which is no longer extant

chukwudi44: Which topic? What historical proof have you adduced so far to disprove the canonisation of the bible by the catholic church? You have not been able anwer the questions I posed but keep dodging my questions.

What historical proof do you have to show that the bible was not canonised by the catholic church.You keep shouting bible this and bible that without any knowlege of how it all came about.

What biblical proof do you have to prove that the gospels were written by any of their acclaimed authours? More than 10 gospels were in circulation ,how do we know which of these gospels are genuine.

Who were the early xtians who ran the church in the second,third and fourth centuries

Pastor AIO: You have already gone beyond what is written. The bible quotes Jesus as saying 'this is my body'. You have gone beyond to preach 'this REPRESENTS my body'.

aletheia: The Bible is actually quite unambiguously categorical about this:
Exodus 20:11 says, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.

"All that is in them (the heavens and the earth, the sea etc)" is the Universal Set of all created beings i.e. angels, the elders, principalities, dominions, etc.

obadiah777: Frosbel your answer makes a lot of sense if you look at this verse REVELATIONS 20 VS 6 Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

MyJoe: You are a goat. Now, read well, if you can. I have never used what you call “the F word” in Nairaland. Liar is your middle name. If not, show us where I have. And, read well, again. Using profanities does not, on its own, make someone a bad person. Not using them does not, on its own, make someone a good person. It is only a blind bat with a robot mind, one who is barely literate, like you that will see the non-use of “the F word” as conferring some spiritual superiority on you. You put down people for using “the F word”, but you were the first to insult on this thread, according the owner of the thread. What does that make you?


There is only one person you remind me of. Boxer in Animal Farm.

But it’s hard to imagine you bent over a piece of prose that isn’t The Watchtower or related literature. So you may have to find someone to ask who or what Animal Farm is.

MyJoe: Anytime you put your finger to the keyboard you manifest what an unparalleled fool you are.


According to me? Why don’t you post Luke 10 here?

plaetton: ^^^^^
I dare to say that this issue of moral ambiguity is probably the main reasons early christians were persecuted in Rome.

Rome was mishmash of different religions, so the introduction of a new one would have attracted little attention.
The problem with the nascent christianity at that time, was, the fact that the christians were seen as a group that sought to pervert the strict moral and ethic codes of the society, especially with the forgiveness and slate-wiping allure of Jesus.

The fact that they welcomed into their midst sinners and criminals of all sorts was very discomforting to the roman authorities.
Whereas existing religions,schools of philosophy and brotherhoods opened their memberships to people of high virtue and moral standing, these new interlopers, called christians, were doing the opposite by inviting among their fold,people of low virtue and moral standing.

In time, no, this provoked the ire of the Roman authorities who vowed to stamp out what seemed then, like a bad virus.

rhymz: unfortunately today's Christians base their entire dogma and worship system on the gnostic or heretic teachings of Paul.

rhymz: blame Mr Paul who came up with the claptrap of faith abi na grace without work.
In most of his epistles, the guy was always talking about salvation through believing in the crucifixion and ressurection of christ whose teaching he described as elementary.
“Therefore let us abandon the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to more maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works but of faith toward God” – Hebrew 6:1
In other words, Jesus Christ was yarning opkata all along, he Paul was going to teach christians a higer level of Knowledge about thesame Christ whose teachings he described as elementary.
He described the observance of Judaic Law as dead work i.e actively observing the commandments passed to Moses like Muslims do is irrelevant. Thats the difference between Muslims and Christians. Muslims believe in work and christians damn the work but rather concentrate on believong in the fairytale of Jesus' death story as a way to get salvation. And you wonder why christians know little or nothing about their own religion besides the hogwash their bible wielding show men called pastor spew to them.
See Paul again giving christian the false belief of faith without work:
“For all who rely on works of the law are cursed” – Galatians 3:10 “For no human will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” – Rom 3:20 “For we believe that a man is justified by faith even without works of law” – Romans 3:28
Today's Christianity solely rely on this ideology, that is why truthislite and the other Christian robots can tell others that unless you believe in Jesus saving fron some sin you don't know about, you are condemned for life. They keep defiling every boundary of logic just to make accommodation for their "fairy tale faith based belief system". Imagine somebody trying so hard to convince me that some Jesus died for Me for sins some stranger commited. I send am messege ni?
Whoever the writers of the Pauline epistles is, he was obviously was a gnostic christian, his version of christ was not the version in the narratives of the gospels of Mathew, mark, luke and John. Paul was always talking about a Jesus similar to the god-men of his time. Yet the bible is a book that contains the inerrant words of God.. .bullshit.
What Paul's teaching brought was the excuse for all manner of behaviour to be condoled by merely believing in Christ. You do not have to live or observe any set of moral codes, all you need to do is to believe in Jesus and your slate is clean. Even if you killed somebody before, you dont have to serve any jail term, your sins are forgiven so long as you believe in the christian God.
Take another verse from thesame Pauline epistles and tell me why anyone should be bothered about observing any law or improving one's self:
“To one who does not work (by the law) but trusts him who justifies the ungodly , his faith is reckoned as righteousness” – Rom 4:5

plaetton: ^^^^^
I dare to say that this issue of moral ambiguity is probably the main reasons early christians were persecuted in Rome.

Rome was mishmash of different religions, so the introduction of a new one would have attracted little attention.
The problem with the nascent christianity at that time, was, the fact that the christians were seen as a group that sought to pervert the strict moral and ethic codes of the society, especially with the forgiveness and slate-wiping allure of Jesus.

The fact that they welcomed into their midst sinners and criminals of all sorts was very discomforting to the roman authorities.
Whereas existing religions,schools of philosophy and brotherhoods opened their memberships to people of high virtue and moral standing, these new interlopers, called christians, were doing the opposite by inviting among their fold,people of low virtue and moral standing.

In time, no, this provoked the ire of the Roman authorities who vowed to stamp out what seemed then, like a bad virus.