₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
Funny enough, it was that religious knowledge teacher who done it in the end. He started with Samuel and got me with wise Solomon and I've spent my whole life seeking wisdom and understanding storing up wealth where moths can't get at it. And what do I go and do in the end? I gave all my books away and now have bare walls.

budaatum:
Nothing to be sorry about! At least I got to save my sisters from that fake pastor. He used to come to my house, we'd discuss the bible, and he'd go preach what I told him in church on Sunday claiming it's what an angel told him, while informing my sisters I was the devil! We later found out that when he claimed he was on the roof praying he was all along watching porn! He abandoned his wife and daughter in the end and ran off to Ghana, I was told.

budaatum:
More than the text of the Bible itself I daresay. It's like my Quran which also has copious amounts of contextual notes.

fantasy2018:
Catholic Church in Texas Names Nearly 300 Priests Accused of Sex Abuse.

budaatum:
More than the text of the Bible itself I daresay. It's like my Quran which also has copious amounts of contextual notes.

budaatum:
I went to a baptist school but amazingly, it wasn't religion everyday in my days. Worst we had was some old teacher of religious knowledge who forced us to memorise about Samuel and the Kings. Thankfully, he held his once a week class on the groundfloor and we could just elope out the window. And then I go to Nigeria in the mid 90s and the gods are everywhere!

I had to save my sisters from their pastor in the end after he'd stolen my car, raided my account and taken out loans on my house. It took lots of yelling for the Redeem hierarchy to make things good.

budaatum:
Not encouraging, I daresay. Beginning to think one needs religious genes to be religious, and I don't have any. And I think I might have chosen a rather objective rendition of the Bible with the notes and all. One shouldn't expect credible scholars to bullshit one I guess, not after the history they've lived through.

khingTony:
You see, Zombies like you is the problem Nigeria have, but regardless of that, We Must get Nigeria Working Again. Your Lord Buhari is weak, dull, corrupt and incompetent but you still want to place him in a position he's not sound enough to be in, Your heartbreak will start a little over two weeks from today

I just hope you won't patronise the sellers of Snipper and long ropes

dokie:
He is also part of it. Was falana not part of the lawyers that went to defend Buhari in court for not having a certificate?

FearGodinall:
. Every thing about his submission is wrong. When he was tried in CCT,did any body protest for his trial despite the timing, in other word they protested against the process of the so called suspenssion because if allowed will set a bad precedence. Why because any government can trump up charges against any body that's not in their good book. Falana is only emotional to the truth not minding the constitution and its implications.

lonelydora:
You no see 2023? The task is to remove Buhari first with Atiku, then by 2023 we will vote out Atiku with the young contestants

Patrioticman007:
What a deceit our government is peddling!!!
The picture bellow is of a high building over 300 years old in katsina State, northern Nigeria. since it was not built by the missionaries, its not worth mentioning.

The title would have been first missionaries high building in Nigeria.

MeeLan:
Oshiomole isn't a christian, yet the foolish xtians there were providing backup for a lunatic politician who is using them to toy with the name of God!

Dantedasz:
Christians can not even agree on what constitutes the Biblical canon and your are here talking about inspiration.
Why would God inspire a certain Christian sect to say which books are canonical and the same God inspires a different Christian sect to say other books are canonical. Is God inspiring confusion amoung his numerous sects?
Ubenedictus,you and I know the books in the Bible were written by men and were mostly copied and plagiarized from earlier civilisations religious books. There is no inspiration anywhere.

Ihedinobi3:
"Facts" for me to go check out myself? Pray tell, what made them facts? His say-so or yours?

I can imagine the attraction an atheist may have to a discussion about the authority of the Bible but, believe me, you really can't make any judgment calls here beyond the default atheistic stand that there is no "Word of God" since there is no God. All you will countenance here is anything that may help you shore up such an idea. Beyond th[font=Lucida Sans Unicode][/font]at, you will not quite follow the argument.

As for my position, I make a point of duty to avoid complicating discussions unnecessarily because that is how readers are led astray. Science and history can be hard to follow and they are never really the point in these questions. The question here is: is the Bible we have today the actual Word of God? Or is it a fabrication that nobody should trust? If it is the Word of God, then it will not need a lesson in history to prove it so. If it isn't, then no amount of historical debate will make it so. The Word of God must of necessity be recognizable in itself. Or else, it will not be accessible to everyone.

Historical arguments come into play specifically to confuse the issue and make that truth seem like a lie. Of course, I can make one. I did years ago with this same crowd and they made a terrible hash of the discussion. If I repeat the experience here, what will happen will be a constant attack on the authorities each person presents ad infinitum ad absurdum.

That is why I went to the heart of the issue. Apart from the OP here, pretty much everybody else at least pays lip service to the authority of the Bible. That is why I insist on arguing on that common ground.

Ihedinobi3:
It was PastorAIO you saw trying to prevent the thread from tumbling into pettiness? The same PastorAIO that you are double-teaming with here? I have wondered why you appear to have a kinship with an antichristian more than with others who confess the Lord Jesus even if in a different way than you do. But it was just my self-imposed naivete when I deal with people I want to be gentler with.

PastorAIO hates the Bible and everything to do with Christianity with a resoluteness. Yet, you think of him as some kind of a friend? For what reason other than his use of your church's claims to being the true church to attack other Christians? That, sir, is pathetic.

As for the arguments there, to be clear, I don't completely trust any sources the Vatican approves. The Roman Church has a narrative that was developed solely to solidify its claim of exclusive rights to Christ and God. Because of its unflinching commitment to this claim, it has altered history and the Bible itself to try to hold it up. I am certain of this. I have absolutely no doubt about this. It is a fact that I do not consider assailable at all. In other words, you will not succeed at persuading me otherwise.

I am also sure that I will never succeed at convincing you of the truth of that position. Just like atheism, buying into Roman Catholicism takes a deliberate decision to ignore any arguments or evidence to the contrary. It takes the very rare inquirer to actually accept the possibility that Roman Catholicism is a lie, a very deep and entrenched one too.

So, I insist on discussing with Romans on the Bible you claim to believe. You will reject every other authority that may even only seem to attack your favoured position. That is why Father Bokenkotter whose work was not proscribed by the Vatican, whose peers in the Roman Church acclaim him and who is a solid Roman Catholic historian (trained by the Church's own university too) is still not a reliable authority for you because he appears to confound something you cannot afford to doubt.

Why should I believe that what you claim Irenaeus wrote was really written by him if you are so obstinate as to reject even a contemporary Roman Catholic historian whose authority is not even in doubt? If it was, is it impossible that you are failing to understand it as it was meant to be understood? Historical contexts are after all considerably different than contemporary ones.

Furthermore, Irenaeus and others did not write in English. So you are relying on the interpretations of others to get at what he is saying. Do you have a good reason for trusting those others?

Finally, were the Church Fathers inspired? Were they infallible? These, of course, are bonus questions, considering that you believe papal decrees to be inspired and the Pope himself as well as the nebulous idea of the Church Romans have as infallible. Obviously, I do not hold these beliefs. I don't trust Irenaeus as much as I trust the Bible. And I don't believe that the Roman Church and the Pope are what they are claimed to be.

To be honest, Ubenedictus, I really don't see this discussion going anywhere fruitful. I continue to respond to you out of courtesy. I thought you had quit the conversation summarily before and then you returned. But there really is nothing left to be said. Your attacks on the Bible in order to prove that it is whatever the Roman Church says that it is only prove my point. And as long as you insist that the Bible is a creation of the Roman Church, my arguments for its independent authority amount to nothing with you. So, there is no point really. I am not going to believe you, no matter what materials you trot out of the Vatican. And you are not going to believe me no matter what Roman authority I appeal to.

Ihedinobi3:
Free will is the explanation you want.



LOL. The thing your opponent does not want to address is always the thing with which you win. What's new about that? I don't want to discuss history, Ubenedictus, because it misses the point.



You're welcome to disagree all you want. The Bible says what it says. And if your belief that it is inspired does not derive from its own claim to be, it is that much less surprising that you think any human being has any right to decide what God says and what He doesn't.



You are the one saying that each man is the determiner of truth. That only comes from your insistence that it is men who decide what is true and what isn't. You only prefer to have more people making the decision than less. I hold no such sentiments.

I believe rather that the Bible is the Truth independent of any human notions about it. And I hold that each human being is able to tell for themselves whether or not this is so. That is why we each have a free will and why we each have the senses and brains that we have. I have never much liked "faith by committee" too.

Like I said, free will.



Did that merit a counter argument?



LOL


Asked and answered.



You're welcome to your belief however wrong it may be.

Unity in error is not much better than chaos. Even so, any study in Roman Catholic history will uncover enough reversals in interpretation as to leave one spinning. So, no, even if you are all standing together, you are not necessarily all agreed.

I don't see it the same way you do.



If Tobit is, none of the 66 books that Protestants accept is. Go figure.

Rich4god:
All these noise sef...

When the president was busy breaking rules, the judiciary system failed to act. Now that they hammer have fallen on them, they are busy quoting constitution.

Dantedasz:
Oh...it is no longer written under the inspiration of God??
Or some parts are inspired and some parts are not inspired??
Make up your mind.

budaatum:
Oh, I know he's not the only one. I'm in conversation with one who's asking me to agree that the host is Christ!

It's amazing how easy it is to forget despite being clearly stated that, “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments."

PastorAIO:
Without a doubt you would fall into the category of 'those who don't want it', Uben, so you can safely assume that he has been nothing but untruthful since he took you for such.

Ihedinobi3:
I was phrasing it the way Jews say it, sorry about the confusion. The Jews use the word "holy" in that sense as well. But the point made in my comment was that they too act with arrogance toward the Bible pretending to decide what is accurate in it and what isn't, that is, what is to be received as authentic and true and what is not to be.

I wouldn't expect you to agree with me on this and I don't believe there is any actual discussion possible in this matter. I am confident that no human community has ever had any responsibility of any sort to decide (I'm sure that that was the word you should have used) which books are inspired and which are not. I am only to take your word for it that there has ever been any such community. And I don't trust you that much.

The Bible was written by inspired men, all of whom were incidentally Jewish. I have no doubt of that. What I will not accept because I have no real reason to accept it is that the Roman Church had any authority or power to "recognize" the Scripture.

What's with all this "dear"? Do you have a problem typing my name or using a more formal epithet? Please, cease addressing me in that manner.

As for your argument here, Paul often quoted pagan poets and philosophers. Should we enshrine those works as inspired Scripture too and put them in a Canon? I told you that this line of reasoning is unimpressive. It still is.

I won't even bother to explain again how this is a ridiculous argument.

A church claims to have the authority to tell everyone just what is the Word of God and what isn't and you ask me what about it that pains me so? Very funny.

As for your response, I guessed right after all, didn't I? Anyway, I take all my information about church history from the Bible. Every other source is treated very delicately. Therefore, I can't credit your claims here either.

I think that you know that your argument here is ridiculous. For all intents and purposes, if there is just one theme running through multiple writings, they are one subject. It is not always practicable to put one work in a single volume so we may have them in several but they are still considered of one unit. The Bible is one unit so its multiple books will all fit with each other to produce a consistent narrative.

As for the inspiration of Scriptures, I have little interest in responding to deliberate obtuseness. I have already explained on this thread that just as you can tell whether a given bit of literature was written by someone is to look at them or things they have done for clues into their nature, you can look at Creation which itself demonstrates the Nature of God. If anyone accepts the witness of Creation as to what God is like, they will be able to discern His Character in His Writings.

This life is all about free will.



Free will is the explanation you want.



LOL. The thing your opponent does not want to address is always the thing with which you win. What's new about that? I don't want to discuss history, Ubenedictus, because it misses the point.



You're welcome to disagree all you want. The Bible says what it says. And if your belief that it is inspired does not derive from its own claim to be, it is that much less surprising that you think any human being has any right to decide what God says and what He doesn't.



You are the one saying that each man is the determiner of truth. That only comes from your insistence that it is men who decide what is true and what isn't. You only prefer to have more people making the decision than less. I hold no such sentiments.

I believe rather that the Bible is the Truth independent of any human notions about it. And I hold that each human being is able to tell for themselves whether or not this is so. That is why we each have a free will and why we each have the senses and brains that we have. I have never much liked "faith by committee" too.



Like I said, free will.



Did that merit a counter argument?



LOL


Asked and answered.



You're welcome to your belief however wrong it may be.



Unity in error is not much better than chaos. Even so, any study in Roman Catholic history will uncover enough reversals in interpretation as to leave one spinning. So, no, even if you are all standing together, you are not necessarily all agreed.



I don't see it the same way you do.



If Tobit is, none of the 66 books that Protestants accept is. Go figure.

budaatum:
But the Bible is not God. Or is it?

Have we finally moved on to a Quarternity?

Ihedinobi3:
And right there you make the antichristian's argument for him.

Call it what you will. The Bible is the written Word of God. Jesus is the Word of God Himself. There is neither reducing nor elevating happening.

Ihedinobi3:
I think you are still failing to appreciate my position.

I don't believe your historical arguments because they are false. I know enough history to know that they are. But I fully understand that when people have a vested interest in a certain point of view, they will twist everything to serve it. That is why I don't care much for your references and sources.

Just to demonstrate to you that I am not inept with such things: my approach to attacking what I consider as false ideas is to research the point of view of those who hold it and then expose the weaknesses from within. That is why I actually know quite a bit about Roman Catholic history. I used to attack it. You should remember. I do. From 2012/2013. One of my sources then was "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" by Bokenkotter, a Roman Catholic Priest. You and italo, I believe, attacked the authenticity and reliability of that source and tried to invalidate the authority of the author. I am not sure now if Syncan was part of that discussion or not. But I think Pa Chukwudi 44 was also there then.

I am not afraid at all of your "material". If something is untrue, it caves in time under pressure. I just don't really care to attack Roman beliefs anymore. You will also notice that I don't attack atheism anymore either. I just defend against it. That is what I have been doing here too. When you joined PastorAIO, then I had to defend against Roman beliefs as well.

So, in short, I know the material here about as well as any average person needs to since I am not a historian. But that is really beside the point. The point is just that I know that it is obviously ludicrous that any group of humans can have the authority to decide what comes from God and what doesn't when God Himself created each human being with the ability to discern not only His Existence but His Nature. Just thinking about it is enough to show its ridiculousness.

But then the Bible itself makes it clear that it is inspired by God and that the Existence and attributes of God are manifest to all so that anyone who reads the Bible with an honest heart will admit that they are reading the Very Mind of God.

But why would a group hankering after power over all human beings ever admit anything that threatens that power?

Ihedinobi3:
Forgot this comment earlier.

There is no difference between The Truth and the Father's Witness to the Truth.

alBHAGDADI:
Still doesn't answer my question. I asked you to show me a verse that says certain sins can't stop one from heaven, but you haven't. Instead you are showing me a verse about normal death.

1 John 5:16-17 King James Version (KJV)
If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

OLAADEGBU:
Are you also in denial of the holocaust?