₦airaland Forum

truthislight: According to you, Jesus never preexisted his earthly life.

If Jesus never preexisted his earthly life and did have an earthly father like we do also, why then is he called the 'SON OF GOD' in the bible ?

Are we not also the sons of God ?

Answer please.

Apatheist: Can't you read?
According to the Buy-bull, Joseph was not Jizz-us father, so Joseph's lineage is irrelevant.

And the Jewish culture is matrilineal, so Mary's lineage isn't relevant.
Get it now?

Apatheist: No, she was not. Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn't help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Numbers 1:18 ; Ezra 2:59 .
Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family.
According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon ( II Samuel 7:14 ; I Chronicles 17:11-14 , 22:9-10 , 28:4-6 ). The third chapter of Luke is irrelevant to this discussion because it describes lineage of David's son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31 )
Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.

You don't even know your buy-bull. Mxm.

There is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;
Also, Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn't have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30)


Just proved you wrong

frosbel: ^^

Thanks for commenting but I think it is only fair that you answer my questions in relation to he article and we can take the rest from there.

frosbel: It has often been said that Mary conceived without a Man and gave birth to Jesus, but I am beginning to doubt certain parts of this story for the following reasons :

frosbel: 1. Jesus was to come from the seed of David which means from the lineage of his fleshly descendants , if God was his father, how could this have been fulfilled.

frosbel: 2. Paul makes not one mention of this supposed miraculous and major event even though it has been established that many of his letters precede most of the gospels, why ?

frosbel: 3. None of the apostles mentioned this in their letters or sermons , why ?

frosbel: 4. The books of Luke and Matthew contain conflicting accounts of this event, why ?

frosbel: 5. Is it not an abomination to suggest that God made Mary pregnant ? I am really beginning to have a problem with this.

frosbel: 6. I have read a lot of articles from Jewish sites and they see this as an abomination and almost laughable, should they not be the ones to know more about this ?

frosbel: 7. No other gospel mentions this story even Mark which is the oldest gospel, why ?

frosbel: Help me please people !

frosbel: Some more scripture to ponder ;

"concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh" - Romans 1 :3

"But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law" - Galatians 4:4

MarkMiwerds: I have everything from the beginning of the Discuss up to Rebuttal of R8 saved in MSWord 2003 format.

OLAADEGBU: The day you understand what our Lord Jesus meant will be the day that the scales would have dropped off from your eyes.

DeepSight: Perhaps because you are an ant and God is the Planet Pluto?

Or perhaps because you are a white blood cell and God is a human being?

Or perhaps because you are a grain of sand and God is the Earth?

Or perhaps because you are a drop of water and God is the Ocean?

You see, it makes no sense for minuscule beings such as ourselves to assert that things bigger than our perceptive capacity, by that reason alone, CANNOT exist.

Martian: Don't mind those two heathens. A"serious person" like you shouldnt be arguing with people without brain cells.
As a spokesman for ants, I totally concur with the last sentence. Im also a "serious person" now, but i dont think the first vibration of reality was a female. It was a transgender vibration. Ask nwankwo, he learned it when he reincarnated as a dog living in a buddhist temple, 1000 years ago. He feels the vibration now and he can articulate beautifully because he's also a "serious person. Kpele, dont mind them jare. Carry on.

Reyginus: I am trying to clarify things for your better understanding. You seem to be answering something entirely different from the question I am asking. Let me still rephrase for you one more time.

When you remove the human brain from a human being and place it in a jar of formaldehyde, will the brain be able think?

Reyginus: if we were to remove a human brain and placed in a jar that still retains the property of its life, could it be possible that this brain would be in that isolation capable of thinking?

omonuan: The bible is not open to interpretation

- 2 Peter 1:20-21:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost. KJV

◄ Revelation 22:16 ►

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book."

Unlike you, I don't do private interpretation of the Bible. I knew one of you would show up to give your own private interpretation of several concise statements attributed to Christ. You appear to be one of those who regularly say that the bible does not mean what it says, it says what you mean but beware of the admonitions.

In the context of the use of Dog to refer to Syrophoenician woman, it is obvious Christ used the "dog" comparison to her. I guess you are proud of Christ using a derogatory term for a woman in need.

I can't help but notice that you've bought into the balderdash that the Jews and Israel are chosen. For a chosen people God sure found one of the most desolate and wretched places in the world for them. He did not even give them water to drink nor peace. The biblical proportion war is still raging till date. So much for being chosen people. Do you really think that Israel was more chosen than Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or U.A.E. not to talk of the good ole USA?

I did not know that Paul was a disciple of Christ and that Christ sent him to the Gentiles. I know that Paul says that it is okay to lie to help Christianity "For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" – St. Paul, Romans 3.7. Paul is a self acclaimed liar.

Paul says to the Colossians: “Do not lie to one another.” (Colossians 3:9). And yet, Paul himself is not committed to truth. Instead, he justifies telling lies to the Philippians: “The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached.” (Philippians 1:18). He even openly boasts of being a deceiver to the Corinthians: “Crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery!” (2 Corinthians 12:16).


It is a truism that Christ said salvation is of the Jews. Do not blame the messenger blame the message.

I see that you are proud that Christ would use parables to confuse people so that they wont be saved. Does it really matter that Jews were also included in his outsiders? That a "savior" would confuse people in order for them not to be saved should be of more concern to you than anything else.

Martian: Pop Quiz.

Which of the following was the first vibration of reality?

a) Male

b) Transgender

c) Female

d) Oneness of infinity as

e) All of the above.

MrAnony1: Would you say that it is possible for immaterial information such as is software to begin to exist without a creative mind bringing it to be?

Think very carefully about this.

cyrexx: This question of origin is the mystery of the ages. A true scientist is not ashamed to say "I don't know" to what he doesn't know. While a religious person will readily give his answers to what he doesn't really know.

To answer your question. I don't know. Maybe further scientific discoveries will shed more light on the true origins of this. Maybe we'll never know.

It's possible that the information was initially written by a more complex creative mind and it's copied generation to generation to be what it is today. The creative mind just happen to always be or it was designed by a greater creative mind. Or the information has always been, just like we assume the creative mind has always been. Nobody really knows.

MrAnony1: That's a fair answer but all I ask is that we must now be consistent.

If you are saying that you don't know if information is created by a mind or not, you must then apply that skepticism to everywhere you come across information.

i.e. You don't know if books came from the creative minds of authors or not, you don't know if websites such as nairaland.com have mindful creators or not, you don't know if the message you are currently reading came from a mind or not.

Maybe further scientific discoveries will shed more light on the origin of information to tell us whether they come from minds or not.


Again as always, I would urge you to think very carefully about the position you have chosen.

loveroftruth: "Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn." (Matthew 13:30).

Image123: If you'd being considerate of the others or made effort to at least skim through, you'd not have referred to or brought this up again.
Humans will judge angels, duh. It ought to be commonsense enough for you to realise that if the Master don't want angels reaping yet, then humans should not. Emphasis on WHEN not WHO. smh

Image123: It's apparently civil only because it is largely ignored by opposing views. i trust the thread champions, they're not that nice. I'm adding this passage to the mix.
Matthew 13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

davidylan: i thought it was quite easy. John 3 is a good place to start. Nicodemus was a good man... but unless he got born again, he was no better than a self righteous pharisee.

Kay 17: At least we can agree Jesus has come to save us from the law?!

Kay 17: You said it all, there wouldn't have been death in the absence of sin.

Kay 17: Hope you realize that men have been condemned because the law (supposed graceful law). Billions have been condemned to eternal hell, it is hard to see the benefit thereof in the light of this. If there was no law, man would be no sinner. The law suffocates, kills and then hangs man inspite of knowing man cannot fulfill it.

Kay 17: If the topic of sin is removed from the themes of Christianity, Christianity is bound to collapse like a deflated airbag. The remainder themes especially 'salvation' will lose meaning. It is with sin man is in trouble with God and the divine forces.

OLAADEGBU: "And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven" (2 Kings 2:11).

My kweshun remains unanswered: When did Enoch die?

truthislight: Well, Jesus said "no man has ascended into heaven".

So, it is you that should be telling us where Enoch went to since you said he did not die.

The bible siad he died, but you say no!

That he Enoch did not see himself dying like other humans does, gradually, that now means he did not die, abi ?

Maybe Moses did not die also.

Afteral, the Jews did not see him die.

That God translate a living person, to you, what does that mean ?

Can a living person be translated and he still remains a living person ?

And, where was he ?

Answer please.

OLAADEGBU: "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God"(Hebrews 11:5)

You have not answered my kweshun. When did Enoch die?