₦airaland Forum

salz01:
Yeah but religion is more to that being born as a Muslim or Christian doesn't really matter but what really matters most is for you to investigate every matter and know which is true as the bible says your God is not an author of confusion and Quran also says surely the religion from Allah (God) is Islam but when go through the bible verses very well you meet a lot of contradictions variations and so many unlike Quran because Allah(God) said if not that this book is from us you will have found a lot of contradictions in it.
There is more to this if wanna know you can reply me

Actually Quran has a lottttt of contradictions just like bible

The old testament concept was that after death you go to a place called the land of the dead whether you are good or bad. It is called sheol. It was when isreal was hellenised that concepts of hell started

Check out this movie now you see me. Even with the impressive magic it was known that there were all clever tricks. Prophet tb Joshua claims to sew the future but yet he couldn't predict that his building will collapse. He claims to have the ability to heal but he couldn't heal his injured and dying church members. When I would believe in miracles is when I see an amputee get his hand back or when is see a skeleton come back to life with its flesh attached

johnydon22:
[b]As Earth based life forms we all open our eyes to get familiar with the G-type star that hosts our planet which we know as the Sun.

It provides an enormous amount of energy and support that it is not a joke that we would not be here without it..

Let us quickly run through 10 basic facts about our dear giant ball of Gas and perhaps get to know it a little bit better.


[size=20]1.[/size]THE SUN IS WHITE..

What Yeah some of you might find this unusual judging with the fact that we all see this Star and we know the color it shows us right?

Seriously, it is even referred to as a yellow dwarf sometimes by the Astronomical body..

But in actuality Our sun is not yellow but white, its an average star that appear white in color ..

Light travels in a spectrum of distinct colors (All colors actually).. White is not a color but the combination of all colors or put it in a more correct way.. WHITE is the source of all other colors..

so when this light from our sun hits the earth the earth's atmosphere scatter the light from the sun. The blue wavelength of light is scattered in the atmosphere giving our sky a blue color But the sky is actually colorless except for clouds

The yellow wavelength are longer light wavelengths and so are more visible from the earth's surface giving the Sun a yellowish color from the surface.

The atmosphere is also the reason why the stars far from us appear to be twinkling when we see then at night..

Picture: An Astronaut on a space walk selfie with the white sun and earth in the back ground.. [/b]

This is very informative

handlernoni:
An atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand:
‘You’re a Christian, aren’t you, son?’
‘Yes sir,’ the student says.
‘So you believe in God?’
‘Absolutely. ’
‘Is God good?’
‘Sure! God’s good.’
‘Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?’
‘Yes.’
‘Are you good or evil?’
‘The Bible says I’m evil.’
The professor grins knowingly. ‘Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment. ‘Here’s one for you. Let’s say there’s a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?’
‘Yes sir, I would.’
‘So you’re good…!’
‘I wouldn’t say that.’
‘But why not say that? You’d help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn’t.’
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. ‘He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?’
The student remains silent. ‘No, you can’t, can you?’ the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax ‘Let’s start again, young fella. Is God good?’
‘Er…yes,’ the student says.
‘Is Satan good?’
The student doesn’t hesitate on this one. ‘No.’
‘Then where does Satan come from?’
The student falters. ‘From God’
‘That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?’
‘Yes, sir…’
‘Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? And God did make everything, correct?’
‘Yes.’
‘So who created evil?’ The professor continued, ‘If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.’
Again, the student has no answer. ‘Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?’
The student squirms on his feet. ‘Yes.’
‘So who created them?’
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. ‘Who created them?’ There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. ‘Tell me,’ he continues onto another student. ‘Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?’
The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. ‘Yes, professor, I do.’
The old man stops pacing. ‘Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?’
‘No sir. I’ve never seen Him.’
‘Then tell us if you’ve ever heard your Jesus?’
‘No, sir, I have not…’
‘Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?’
‘No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.’
‘Yet you still believe in him?’
‘Yes.’
‘According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn’t exist… What do you say to that, son?’
‘Nothing,’ the student replies… ‘I only have my faith.’
‘Yes, faith,’ the professor repeats. ‘And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence…only faith.’
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. ‘Professor, is there such thing as heat? ’
‘Yes.’
‘And is there such a thing as cold?’
‘Yes, son, there’s cold too.’
‘No sir, there isn’t.’
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. ‘You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit d own to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest –458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, ‘cold’ is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.’
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.
‘What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?’
‘Yes,’ the professor replies without hesitation… ‘What is night if it isn’t darkness?’
‘You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?’
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. ‘So what point are you making, young man?’
‘Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.’
The professor’s face cannot hide his surprise this time. ‘Flawed? Can you explain how?’
‘You are working on the premise of duality,’ the student explains… ‘You argue that there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but it has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.’
‘Now tell me, professor… Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?’
‘If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.’
‘Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?’
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
‘Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?’
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. ‘To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.’ The student looks around the room. ‘Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor’s brain?’ The class breaks out into laughter. ‘Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain, felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelt the professor’s brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.’ ‘So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?’
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. ‘I guess you’ll have to take them on faith.’
‘Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,’ the student continues. ‘Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?’ Now uncertain, the professor responds, ‘Of course, there is. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man’s inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.’
To this the student replied, ‘Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.’
The professor sat down.
The student was Albert Einstein.

This story had been fully debunked. Einstein I'd a pantheist

Richirich713:

Plz give a scholarly reference to that date , even tho that dates is older than the Masoretic manuscripts.





Guy I'm not sure u understand the argument here, when Jesus said he coming with the clouds, it's got nothing to do with the Transfiguration.

When he says he coming with the clouds that definitely refers to his 2nd coming to judge the world. How do I know that? Cuz he is talking about the old testament son of Man prophecy , that's why the priest accused him of blasphemy.



Again the Transfiguration has nothing to do with the end of time prophecy. U still think that when Jesus say "come " it must refer to his second coming which is false, I gave u other examples where use "come " differently.




Again those passages have again has nothing to do with the Transfiguration, specifically on what Peter Said about it.

26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great (kingly) power and glory (majesty and splendor).

27 And then He will send out the angels and will gather together His elect (those He has picked out for Himself) from the four winds, from the farthest bounds of the earth to the farthest bounds of heaven.

28 Now learn a lesson from the fig tree: as soon as its branch becomes tender and it puts forth its leaves, you recognize andknow that summer is near.

29 So also, when you see these things happening, you may recognize and know that He is near, at [the very] door.

30 Surely I say to you, this generation (the whole multitude of people living at that one time) positively will not perish or pass away before all these things take place.

31 Heaven and earth will perishand pass away, but My words will not perish or pass away.


Mark 13

Richirich713:

Plz give a scholarly reference to that date , even tho that dates is older than the Masoretic manuscripts.





Guy I'm not sure u understand the argument here, when Jesus said he coming with the clouds, it's got nothing to do with the Transfiguration.

When he says he coming with the clouds that definitely refers to his 2nd coming to judge the world. How do I know that? Cuz he is talking about the old testament son of Man prophecy , that's why the priest accused him of blasphemy.



Again the Transfiguration has nothing to do with the end of time prophecy. U still think that when Jesus say "come " it must refer to his second coming which is false, I gave u other examples where use "come " differently.




Again those passages have again has nothing to do with the Transfiguration, specifically on what Peter Said about it.

26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great (kingly) power and glory (majesty and splendor).

27 And then He will send out the angels and will gather together His elect (those He has picked out for Himself) from the four winds, from the farthest bounds of the earth to the farthest bounds of heaven.

28 Now learn a lesson from the fig tree: as soon as its branch becomes tender and it puts forth its leaves, you recognize andknow that summer is near.

29 So also, when you see these things happening, you may recognize and know that He is near, at [the very] door.

30 Surely I say to you, this generation (the whole multitude of people living at that one time) positively will not perish or pass away before all these things take place.

31 Heaven and earth will perishand pass away, but My words will not perish or pass away.

Richirich713:

Plz give a scholarly reference to that date , even tho that dates is older than the Masoretic manuscripts.





Guy I'm not sure u understand the argument here, when Jesus said he coming with the clouds, it's got nothing to do with the Transfiguration.

When he says he coming with the clouds that definitely refers to his 2nd coming to judge the world. How do I know that? Cuz he is talking about the old testament son of Man prophecy , that's why the priest accused him of blasphemy.



Again the Transfiguration has nothing to do with the end of time prophecy. U still think that when Jesus say "come " it must refer to his second coming which is false, I gave u other examples where use "come " differently.




Again those passages have again has nothing to do with the Transfiguration, specifically on what Peter Said about it.

And he said his coming in the clouds with his angels would be in that generation. Before some of them would taste death

OLAADEGBU:
So you don't know and you assert that Dr. Luke got it wrong?



Oh its just that you take your authority from wikipedia instead of the Bible?







Just as I cannot separate you from your words I cannot separate God from His Words. Believing in the Word of God is believing in God you cannot be selective. Jesus is the living Word of God. The written Word of God is God breathed just as Jesus was born through a holy vessel.

Protos as used in Context





The passage says
hautê apographê prôtê egeneto hêgemoneuontos tês
Syrias Kyrêniou , or with interlinear translation, hautê
(this) apographê(census) prôtê[the] (first) egeneto
(happened to be) hêgemoneuontos [while] (governing) tês
Syrias(Syria) Kyrêniou [was] (Quirinius). The correct
word order, in English, is "this happened to be the first
census while Quirinius was governing Syria." This is
very straightforward, and all translations render it in such
a manner.

Nevertheless, what is usually offered in support of a
"reinterpretation" of the word is the fact that when
prôtos can be rendered "before" it is followed by a noun in
the genitive (the genitive of comparison), and in
this passage the entire clause hêgemoneuontos tês Syrias
Kyrêniou is in the genitive. But this does not work
grammatically. The word hêgemoneuontos is not a noun,
but a present participle (e.g. "jogging," "saying,"
"filing," hence "ruling" in the genitive case with a subject
(Kyrêniou ) also in the genitive.

OLAADEGBU:
If you were really sincere in your search for historical accuracy you would have given biblical writers the benefit of the doubt which is normally the case when dealing with other secular works but because of your prejudice against the Bible you and other skeptics assume the Bible is guilty before it is proven innocent. Why don't just say that you don't believe in the Word of God?



I expect critics and skeptics of the Bible to say that. That is why you are called an unbeliever.

Actually when dealing with other secular works I don't give them the benefit of doubt and no sceptic (that I know of) has a prejudice against the Bible. If you were to give religious works the benefit of doubt I would be a Muslim a Christian a Buddhist and a Hindu today.

Say today I just saw a girl who has 6 heads and breathes out fire and is 450 feet tall and lift a mountain with her tongue or if I say I saw Uchiha Madara and sponge Bob fighting in my house would you give me the benefit of doubt. No. For the same reason I can't give religious texts benefit of doubt because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

OLAADEGBU:
What are the two examples protos can be used in its context?



And you believe wikipedia to be your infallible truth regarding your historical facts, no?



When you say we who are the 'we' that established your false conclusions? Please speak for yourself.



I am a Christian and I believe that the original Word of God is infallible and inerrant, that is my presupposition. I believe Genesis 1:1 that says God created the heavens and the earth. If God says it and I believe it that settles it. I am looking for those who start on those premises and work their way back to the answer provided in the Scripture. God is not a man that He should lie. Let God be true and all men liars.

As you see Muslims too have this presuppositions. If the Quran says Allah created the heavens and the earth that settles it for them. They are looking for those who start on those premises and work their way to the answer provided in the Quran. They believe that Allah is not a man that he should lie. They also say that let Allah be true and all men be liars

logoscope:
Pls, I have a question. If Christianity is false, why do the evil ones tremble at the mention of the name Jesus?

If catholicism Is false why do Mary's mere apparitions cure the sick and perform wonders

Richirich713:
U are not wrong about the Dead Sea Scrolls nor am I, since the Nachal Chever scrolls are sometimes classified with the Dead Sea Scrolls.


It's not odd that that the Hebrew word "kaari" is translated "as a lion" since that is a correct translation.

But that's not the issue, the problem is there are 2 variant readings at Psalm 22:16 , some manuscripts say "Kaari" others say "Karu ".

In Hebrew they spelled almost identical, only one letter "length" changes the meaning. I hope u see where I'm getting.

It's a scribal error, one reading is slightly off.

The earliest Hebrew manuscripts(Nachal Chever scrolls) say "Karu" , there are even early Masoretic manuscripts that have "Karu".

U might have seen on the Internet how many jewish sites say Christians corrupted the text, but they won't mention that the Septuagint was a translation done by the ancient jews, and it was done b4 Christianity even existed.

Nachal chever scrolls were written 150 ad.

The transfiguration of Jesus is a story recorded in
Matthew 17, Mark 9, and Luke 9. The first problem is that
these Gospels place the transfiguration at different times.
In Matthew, it occurs after Jesus
made the prediction about his second coming. That might
make it seem reasonable to think that it was a fulfillment
of the earlier prediction. However, Mark and Luke place
the transfiguration event before Jesus made spoke the
prophecy. Laying aside the obvious discrepency in timing,
we can say for certain that an event occurring before a
prediction is made can’t be fulfilling the prediction. The
“prediction” wouldn’t be a prediction at all.
The preceding verse (verse 27) starts off the description
of Jesus’ coming by saying he would come “in glory” with
angels to dole out judgment to “every man”. That is not
what happened in the transfiguration stories.

. Some try to make it work
by separating verse 28 from the preceding verse so that
the two verses talk about different “comings”. This is a
baseless tinkering with the passage in order to make a
doctrine fit the scripture. The same Christians who do this
will accuse other of taking verses out of context when
they disagree with an interpretation. Yet, this is exactly
what they do here.

Transfiguration Luke 9
Prophecy of end time Luke 21

Transfiguration mark 9

Prophecy of end time mark 13


WHAT NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS BELIEVED
“Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to
our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has
spoken to us by his Son…” (Hebrews 1:1-2)
“Now these things happened to them as an example, but they
were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of
the ages has come .” (1 Corinthians 10:11)
“And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and
good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit
of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as
you see the Day drawing near .” (Hebrews 10:24-25)
“Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that
antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come.
Therefore we know that it is the last hour.” (1 John 2:18)
“Do not seek a wife. This is what I mean, brothers: the
appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those
who have wives live as though they had none, and those who
mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who
rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy
as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the
world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present
form of this world is passing away .” (1 Corinthians
7:27,29-31)
“ The end of all things is near …” (1 Peter 4:7)
These passages show that these New Testament writers
did believed the apocalypse was very near. They were
clear that they were living in the last days when Jesus
was to return in the clouds and bring about the end of
the world as they knew it.
“For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we
who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will
not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord
himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command,
with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the
trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we
who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with
them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will
always be with the Lord.” (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17)
“ We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed “ (1 Cor.
15:51)
“…the coming of the Lord is near . … the Judge is standing
right at the door.” (James 5:8, 9)
The writer of these passages tells those he was writing
to that Jesus was coming in their day. He recognizes that
some believers had already died causing concern about
the fulfillment of Jesus prediction. He reassures his
readers that they would not all die before Jesus comes.
He tells them that believers who have died will be
resurrected when Jesus returns. Upon his
arrival, resurrected believers and those who are still alive
will be instantaneously transformed into immortal beings
and raptured up together to meet Jesus in the sky.
Note his consistent use of the word “we”. The writer was
obviously not speaking of Christians in some distant
future, but of believers in his day including himself. There
is no good reason to read “we” as if it refers to Christians
alive thousands of years in the future.

Richirich713:
A reasonable explanation is that the census was started during the reign of herod the great but was only completed and finalized at the time of Quirinius, this could be supported by the fact that Archelaus messed up Judea and was replaced by Quirinius, who was brought in to fix a lot of the problems cuz but Archelaus.

Also the word translated as governor can refer to a wide range of Roman positions and does not necessarily mean governor.

The census obviously couldn't have held during the time of herod reign as Judea was a client state. Before 6 C.E. Judaea was a nominally free kingdom, not a
Roman province. Having sided with Augustus in the civil war
that established him as emperor, Judaea was granted a
favorable treaty assuring relative independence. This is
proven by the coin evidence that Judaea continued to be
governed by its own kings and rulers, not Roman officials,
until 6 C.E., and extensively confirmed by Josephus and
Cassius Dio. Though such "allied kingdoms" were kept
under a tight leash and informally controlled and meddled
with, all evidence regarding the legal and political practices
of Roman emperors in the first century and before confirms
that these states were not subject to direct Roman
administration, taxation or levies. That was, in fact, the very
point of not annexing them as provinces: not only to reward
friendly states (and thus encourage other states to be
friendly), but to avoid the headache and expense of taking
over a region that was already pacified, subservient, and
paying sufficient dues.
Therefore, it is historically impossible that a Roman census
was conducted under a Roman provincial governor when
Judaea was still an allied kingdom. But it was typical and
logical that immediately upon annexing a new territory a
census would be taken of it. This was necessary to begin
direct taxation and levies. So when Josephus describes
Archelaus being removed from office, then Judaea being
annexed to Syria and placed under the Roman command of
Quirinius and his prefect Coponius, and then a census being
conducted for the specific purpose of taking account of
what Archelaus had left them, this description makes
complete historical sense. In contrast, no other
hypothesized "census" scenario makes any historical sense
at all.
As Josephus reports, and as all logic and precedent entail,
Judaea was not being directly taxed by Rome nor
administered by Romans before the year 6, and therefore
there would be no purpose for Augustus to order a census
there (Luke 2:1 ). Since forcing such a census on an allied
kingdom in violation of its honor and its treaties would be
such an astonishing and devastating insult contrary to all
known precedent, there is no way it wouldn't have been
noticed by historians like Josephus, nor any reason the
Romans would undertake such a pointless and dangerous
task. They would have nothing to gain by it, and plenty to
lose, and Augustus was not so reckless as to think
otherwise.

Luke's choice of
vocabulary is somewhat imprecise, using a word that can
refer to many different positions of command. Seizing on
this, inerrantists argue that Luke meant "when Quirinius was
holding a command in Syria," and not "when Quirinius was
governing Syria." But stretching the word like this requires
ignoring the grammar. Luke says "of Syria," not "in Syria,"
and thus he could not have been referring to some
command in Syria but only a command of Syria. Even if we
ignore Luke's grammar, the only real "command" anyone
can find for Quirinius is a war he fought in Galatia, probably
between 6 and 1 B.C.E. But there is no logical way Luke
would refer to a census in Syria by referencing a war in
Galatia, and no one would ever write or read "governing
Syria" as meaning "fighting a war in Galatia." Unless Luke
was a profoundly stupid man, or erred in his historical facts,
he would have named the actual governor of Syria who
oversaw a census in Judaea, not some unrelated officer in a
faraway province.

Richirich713:
He never dealt with it, he reinterpreted it to avoid Jesus. He went against his predecessors who said it speaks about the Messiah.




Guy the Masoretic Text Dates to about 1000 AD , the Masoretic manuscripts are dated 3rd nd 4th century and while the Septuagint Dates before Jesus by over 100 years.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest Hebrew manuscripts, and they say pierce.





Was this retaining wall part of the structure of the temple?



Who said he was talking about the end of the world?

"And he said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with powerr.'" Mark 9:1

"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.........2 Peter 1:16-18




I don't know much about Bahai, so I will have to look in that, as for Nostradamus I think that people misinterpreting his writings, for eg many thought he said the world ending in 2012. And I'm not sure what u mean of virgin mary.

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His
Father with His angels, and will then repay every man
according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of
those who are standing here who will not taste death until
they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. “ (Matthew
16: 27, 28)
“Behold, I have told you in advance. So if they say to you,
‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold,
He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them. For just as the
lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west,
so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Wherever the corpse
is, there the vultures will gather.
But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun
will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the
stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens
will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will
appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will
mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the
clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will
send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will
gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end
of the sky to the other.
Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has
already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know
that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these
things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say
to you, this generation will not pass away until all these
things take place. “ (Matthew 24: 25-34)



“Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with
great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels,
and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from
the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven.
Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has
already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know
that summer is near. Even so, you too, when you see these
things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door.
Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until
all these things take place… “ (Mark 13:26-30)


In these passages Jesus is explicit about his return. He
said that he would return riding the clouds with angels to
judge the world and that with the sound of a trumpet he
would send his angels to gather his chosen ones from the
Earth. This would be no secret, invisible or “spiritual”
event. Instead, the whole world would see him in the sky
just the whole world sees the light of the sun. This was to
happen some time during the generation of those to
whom he was speaking. To make it clear to his
listeners that this event would not be in the distant future,
he told them that some of them who were there listening
to him would still be alive to see it.

“But Jesus kept silent and the high priest said to Him, “I
adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are
the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have
said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see
the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and
coming on the clouds of heaven. “” (Matthew 26: 63, 64)

Richirich713:
He never dealt with it, he reinterpreted it to avoid Jesus. He went against his predecessors who said it speaks about the Messiah.




Guy the Masoretic Text Dates to about 1000 AD , the Masoretic manuscripts are dated 3rd nd 4th century and while the Septuagint Dates before Jesus by over 100 years.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest Hebrew manuscripts, and they say pierce.





Was this retaining wall part of the structure of the temple?



Who said he was talking about the end of the world?

"And he said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with powerr.'" Mark 9:1

"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.........2 Peter 1:16-18




I don't know much about Bahai, so I will have to look in that, as for Nostradamus I think that people misinterpreting his writings, for eg many thought he said the world ending in 2012. And I'm not sure what u mean of virgin mary.

Psalm 22 is not even part of the dead Sea scrolls. The word "kaari" is in Isaiah 38:13 - "I
reckoned till morning, that, as a lion, so
will he break all my bones: from day even
to night wilt thou make an end of
me." (KJV) The exact same word is
translated there as "as a lion". Isn't odd
that they would translate that word kaari
to "as a lion" EVERY OTHER PLACE IN
THE BIBLE, but here, in Psalm 22, they
translated as "they pierced"? If you don't
believe me, get a KJV study Bible or a
concordance and look it up for yourself!


The wailing wall is not part of the temple. U are right.

Annunaki:
That's the big mistake you are making, Christianity is bbased strictly on the teachings of christ and his apostles as recorded in the new testament. The old testament is a different religion(Judaism) so I will not accept it in criticising christianity. Let me remind you that the bible was not canonised till the fourth century AD and if the catholic church had decided then to exclude the old testament from our canon of scriptures, we will still have christianity today.

But u don't realise the old Testament is Judaism when your pastor is collecting tithe and offering from you

Richirich713:
U know that this interpretation came about by Rabbi Rashi (1040-1105). The ancient jewish sages( 2nd-6th century) All said it spoke of the Messiah.




Again following a modern jewish interpretation, the
Septuagint a Greek translation written about 200 years before Jesus says pierced.

The oldest Hebrew scrolls says pierced also.

Also even if it said lion it's no problem.






Guy I'm not looking to debate u on the prophecies.

To u prophecies can't come true, so no matter what I say u will reject it and take the other road. For eg. If I were to provide u with evidence that the Gospels were written before 70AD. You would reject it mainly because the gospels have Jesus making a prophecy of the destruction of the temple in 70AD.






Rabbi Rashi

Rabbi Rashi actually dealt with this and said it is israel

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_53

The Hebrew scrolls say as a lion and not pierced. They bear more weight than the septugaint which is the Greek version and they are far older than the septugaint.


I know the gospel of mark was written from probably 66 to 70 ad. He said no stone shall be left unturned but the wailing wall still stands. After talking about the temple his disciples then ask him when all this shall take place. He then talks of the end of the world and his coming which he said would happen in their life time. This prophecy has failed woefully. 28 Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will
not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in
his kingdom M

Let me enlighten you even bahullah of the bahai faith made predictions that came to past. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahá'í_prophecies The virgin Mary is said to have made predictions which have come to past. Nostradamus made predictions which came to past.
If the bible has 100 prophecies of which only 1 is false that automatically proves that it is not the word of God.

You would Reject it if I tell you census of quirinius took place at 6ad because Matthew says Jesus born at the time of herod while Luke has him born at the time of census of quirinius. King herod died at 4bc while the census of quirinius took place at 6 ad. A gap of 10 years

Richirich713:
U know that this interpretation came about by Rabbi Rashi (1040-1105). The ancient jewish sages( 2nd-6th century) All said it spoke of the Messiah.




Again following a modern jewish interpretation, the
Septuagint a Greek translation written about 200 years before Jesus says pierced.

The oldest Hebrew scrolls says pierced also.

Also even if it said lion it's no problem.






Guy I'm not looking to debate u on the prophecies.

To u prophecies can't come true, so no matter what I say u will reject it and take the other road. For eg. If I were to provide u with evidence that the Gospels were written before 70AD. You would reject it mainly because the gospels have Jesus making a prophecy of the destruction of the temple in 70AD.






Rabbi Rashi

Rabbi Rashi actually dealt with this and said it is israel

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_53

The Hebrew scrolls say as a lion and not pierced. They bear more weight than the septugaint which is the Greek version and they are far older than the septugaint.


I know the gospel of mark was written from probably 66 to 70 ad. He said no stone shall be left unturned but the wailing wall still stands. After talking about the temple his disciples then ask him when all this shall take place. He then talks of the end of the world and his coming which he said would happen in their life time. This prophecy has failed woefully. 28 Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will
not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in
his kingdom M

Let me enlighten you even bahullah of the bahai faith made predictions that came to past. The virgin Mary is said to have made predictions which have come to past. Nostradamus made predictions which came to past.
If the bible has 100 prophecies of which only 1 is false that automatically proves that it is not the word of God.

You would Reject it if I tell you census of quirinius took place at 6ad because Matthew says Jesus born at the time of herod while Luke has him born at the time of census of quirinius. King herod died at 4bc while the census of quirinius took place at 6 ad. A gap of 10 years

donnffd:
I say the cup is Green

You Infidel how dare u say the cup almighty is green when it is a fact that it is red. 100 years ago people wrote in a book that the cup is red therefore it is red

Richirich713:
•

Ps Why do u believe he existed ?, I ask, cuz u said earlier that there is very little historical evidence for his existence.

I emphasized on the little historical evidence because when one looks at men like Alexander the great there are lots of historical evidence for his existence but why is there so little for this God man.

Richirich713:
•Isaiah 53 predicts the Messiah suffering.

•Psalm 22:16 predicts him being pierced in hands nd feet.

•Daniel 9 gives us a time line when the Messiah will appear ( 1st century).

There are hundreds, if u combine them only Jesus matches the prophecies.

Ps Why do u believe he existed ?, I ask, cuz u said earlier that there is very little historical evidence for his existence.

Isaiah 53

Citing a number of Biblical verses that refer to Israel as
the "servant", many of them from the Book of Isaiah such
as 49:3 He said to me, "You are My servant, Israel, in
whom I will display My splendor." Jewish scholars,
and several Christian scholarly books, like Revised
Standard Version Oxford Study Edition Bible, The Revised
Standard Version tell us that Isaiah 53 is about national
Israel and the New English Bible echo this analysis.
Judaism, teaches that the "servant" in question is actually
the nation of Israel . These scholars also argue that
verse 10 cannot be describing Jesus. The verse states:
10 he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days
Taken literally, this description, is inconsistent with the
short, childless life of Jesus.

Isaiah 53 , or Isaiah 52:13-53:12, taken from the Book of
Isaiah , is the last of the four Songs of the Suffering
Servant, and tells the story of a "Man of Sorrows" or
"God's Suffering Servant".
Jewish scripture in Isaiah 52:13 through Isaiah
53:12 describes the servant of the Lord as the
Nation of Israel itself: "My Servant..." ( Isaiah 53:11 ), "...
a man of pains and accustomed to illness ... " (Isaiah
53:3 ). "The theme of Isaiah is jubilation, a song of
celebration at the imminent end of the Babylonian
Captivity ". Judaism sees this passage, especially
"God's Suffering Servant", being written over 2500 years
ago, without a reference to the king Mashiach . Jewish
teaching also does take note of the historical context in
which God's Suffering Servant appears, particularly
because it speaks in the past tense.


Psalm 22

The Masoretic text. The authoritative Hebrew text reads as as lions they are at my hands and feet.it says nothing about piercing.

Daniel 9


Let us begin with the classical
interpretation. Historically, Protestant
Christians have maintained that Daniel's
seventy weeks begin about 458 BC with
the decree issued by Emperor Artaxerxes I
in his seventh year ( Ezra 7:7 , in the context
of Ezra 7 ) authorizing Ezra to rebuild the
Temple and Jerusalem (Ezra 9:9 ). [49] The
seventy weeks end with the ministry of
Jesus and the founding of the Church.
During the final week of Daniel's prophecy,
the Gospel is preached only to the Jews
because of the "strong covenant" that
Jesus the "anointed one" or Messiah made
with the Jewish people. The seventieth
week begins in the fall of 26 AD with
Jesus' baptism by John and the beginning
of his ministry to the Jews. It culminates in
the spring of 30 AD with Jesus being "cut
off" at the Crucifixion. Jesus' atonement
on Calvary did thereby "finish the
transgression," "put an end to sin," "atone
for iniquity," and "seal both vision and
prophet" (Daniel 9:24 ), thus rendering
"sacrifice and offering" at the Temple
obsolete. Finally, the seventieth week ends
in the fall of 33 AD with the martyrdom of
Stephen and the conversion of Paul and
Cornelius. At this point the mission to the
Jews ends and the mission to the Gentiles
begins. [50]
The advantage of this theory is that it
interprets the 490-year period in a
straightforward way, and it has more-or-
less plausible starting and ending points.
However, it does have its problems. To
begin with, the classical Christian theory
does not provide a plausible explanation
for Daniel's clear distinction between the
seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks.
The classical interpretation also ignores
the obvious parallels between Daniel
9:24-27 on the one hand, and Daniel
8:9-26 ; 11:31-45 on the other. Actually, all
three passages unmistakably describe
Antiochus Epiphanes committing a
desolating sacrilege or "abomination that
makes desolate" at the Temple and
bringing normal Jewish sacrifices to an
end for about three and a half years (cf.
Daniel 7:25 ; 12:6-7,11 ). Daniel 9 places
this event at the end of the seventy weeks,
and the other two passages place it at "the
time of the end." The "abominations" of
"the prince who is to come" in Daniel 9 are
to be understood in the light of the
unspeakable blasphemies of Antiochus
Epiphanes described in the other two
passages (cf. also Daniel 7:8,20,25 ).
To make their scheme work, adherents of
the classical Christian theory must
interpret verses 26 and 27 as references to
the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The
problem here is that the fall of Jerusalem
lies thirty-seven years outside of the
seventy-weeks scheme. Since "desolations
are decreed," the Romans under General
Titus, "the people of the prince who is to
come," were to "destroy the city and the
sanctuary" of Jerusalem in 70 AD, long
after the seventieth week is over, to punish
the Jews for their murder of their Messiah.
This is an awkward and arbitrary leap.
Another problem with this interpretation is
that the Hebrew word here translated in
verse 26 as "destroy" is shakhat. In its
various grammatical forms, it only means
to "mar," "injure," "spoil," "ruin," "pervert," or
"corrupt." This can easily refer to the
trashing of Jerusalem by Antiochus
Epiphanes, but not to Titus' razing of
Jerusalem and its Temple to the ground.

If only you choose to believe there is a red cup you have nothing to lose but if you don't believe in the red cup you will suffer in hell perpetually.

The ways of the red cup are not the ways of Man.

Richirich713:
Plz name me a book more studied than the bible.



Guy there are hundreds of prophecies of the Messiah in the old testament, put them all together and u will see only Jesus matches the prophecies.

And what makes u conclude he didn't exist?

I'm very sure u not reading what the historians are saying, cut if u were u would recognize that Jesus existence is accepted by practically every historian today.

I didn't say Jesus didn't exist and pls show me any prophecy about Jesus .

timonski:
Newton, a much smarter than you are, believed in the bible and its miraculous claims.
So like a said, you have no arguments.

I am hallucinating or have I just the most stupidest argument from a xtian. Any way if that's how you base your arguments therefore by default the bible is wrong because Einstein says so.

Best selling doesn't imply most studied. It's the best-selling not because people want to read it but because it gets pushed on them. In hotels . Churches. Schools. Etc.

It also has no single prophecy about Jesus and about you saying that he is the most influential man that is just messed up as there is actually very little historical evidence of his existence.

Best selling doesn't imply most studied. It's the best-selling not because people want to read it but because it gets pushed on them. In hotels . Churches. Schools. Etc.

It also has no single prophecy about Jesus ( or anything else) and about you saying that he is the most influential man that is just messed up as there is actually very little historical evidence of his existence.

KingEbukasBlog:
Quotes and works of ancient men are also contained in ancient books .

I said ridiculous ancient book which is the bible. The most stupidest book of all times

KingEbukasBlog:
God is uncaused - one of His many attributes that science has failed to grasp . I've watched many Youtube videos that have asked what if there is nothing beyond our universe - that's BS science trying to avoid a conscious uncaused cause .

And please the flying spaghetti monster joke (if that's what you guys call a joke ) is dumb and overused . Your attempts to always exempt God in developing theories will always be futile , accept the truth and deal with it

You say God is un caused because your ridiculous ancient book tells you so.

winner01:
This is a follow-up to https://www.nairaland.com/2844591/there-ever-nothing-1#41684736

If there ever was Absolutely Nothing, there would still be Absolutely Nothing today. Since there is something (you, for example), that means that Absolutely Nothing never existed. If it ever did, you wouldn't be here reading this right now. Absolutely Nothing would still be here.

So there was never a time when Absolutely Nothing existed. Therefore, there has always been something. But what? If we go back to the very beginning, what was the Something that must have existed? Was it more than one Something, or just one? And what was it like, judging by what exists today?

Let's explore the quantity issue first. Let's call into mind again our large, pitch-black, sealed-off room. Imagine that there are ten tennis balls inside the room. As far back in time as we can go, there was only this: ten tennis balls.

What happens next? Let's say we wait an entire year. What's in the room? Still just ten tennis balls, right? Because there is no other force in existence. And we know that ten ordinary tennis balls -- no matter how much time passes -- cannot spawn new ones. Or anything else for that matter.

Okay, what if there were six tennis balls in the room to begin with? Would that change the situation? No, not really. Alright then, what if there were a million tennis balls? Still no change. All we've got in the room is tennis balls, no matter how many there are.

What we find out is that quantity is not an issue. If we go back to the very beginning of all things, the quantity of the Something that must have existed is not what's important. Or is it?

Remove the tennis balls. Now inside the room is a chicken. Now we wait a year. What's inside the room? Just one chicken, right? But what if we started out with one hen and one rooster in the room? Now we wait a year, what do we have? A bunch more chickens!

So quantity is important, IF inside the room are at least two things that can produce a third thing. Hen + rooster = baby chick. But quantity is not important if we're talking about at least two things that cannot produce a third thing. Tennis ball + football = nothing.

So the issue isn't quantity so much as quality. What qualities does the Something possess? Can it bring other things into existence?

Let's go back to our chickens, but let's get very exact, because such would be the case in the very, very beginning. We have a hen and a rooster in the room. They are in different parts of the room, suspended in nothingness. Will they produce other chickens?

No. Why? Because there's no environment to work in. There's nothing in the room except the hen and the rooster. No air to breathe or fly in, no ground to walk on, no sustenance for them to live on. They can't eat, walk, fly or breathe. Their environment is complete nothingness.

So chickens are out. Chickens cannot exist or reproduce without some sort of environment. With an environment, they could spawn other chickens. And with an environment affecting them, maybe they could -- though it seems absurd -- change into a different kind of chicken over time. Something along the lines of an otter or a giraffe.

So we've got a room with no environment. Therefore, we need Something that can exist without an environment. Something that doesn't need air, food or water to exist. That disqualifies every current living thing on this earth.

So, then, what about non-living things? They don't need an environment, that's true. But then we're in the same predicament we were in with the tennis balls. Non-living matter doesn't produce anything. Let's say, instead of ten tennis balls, you had a trillion molecules of hydrogen. Then what happens? Over time, you still have a trillion molecules of hydrogen, nothing more.

While we're talking about non-living matter, let's also consider what it takes for that to exist. Ever heard of the Supercollider? Years ago the government embarked on an experiment to create matter. The Supercollider was miles and miles of underground tunnel through which atoms would travel at supersonic speeds and then smash into each other, in order to create a tiny particle. All that for the tiniest, most microscopic bit of matter.

What does that tell us? That our illustration of the ten tennis balls is not nearly as easy as it sounds. It would take an AMAZING amount of energy just to produce one tennis ball out of nothing. And nothing is all we have. The room has absolutely nothing in it.

So here's where we are. The Something that existed at the beginning must be able to exist without depending on anything else. It must be totally and fully self-sufficient. For It was alone at the very beginning. And It needed no environment within which to exist.

Second, the Something that existed at the very beginning must have the ability to produce something other than Itself. For, if It could not, then that Something would be all that exists today. But Something Else exists today. You, for example.

Third, to produce Something Else -- out of nothing -- requires an incredible amount of power. So the Something must have great power at its disposal. If it takes us miles and miles of corridor and the most energy we can harness, just to produce the tiniest particle, how much power would it take to produce the matter in the universe?

Let's go back to our room. Let's say we have a very special tennis ball inside the room. It can produce other tennis balls. It has that much power and energy. And It is completely self-sufficient, needing nothing else to exist, for It is all there is. It, this one tennis ball, is the Eternal Something.

Let's say the tennis ball produces another tennis ball. Which of the two will be greater, say, with respect to TIME? Ball #1. It is the Eternal Something. It has always existed. Ball #2, however, came into existence when produced by Ball #1. So one ball is finite with regard to time, the other infinite.

Which of the two will be greater with regard to POWER? Again, Ball #1. It has the ability to produce Ball #2 out of nothing -- which also means it has the ability to unproduce (destroy) Ball #2. So Ball #1 has far more power than Ball #2. In fact, at all times, Ball #2 must depend on Ball #1 for its very existence.

But, you say, what if Ball #1 shared some of its power with Ball #2 -- enough power to destroy Ball #1? Then Ball #2 would be greater, for Ball #1 would cease to be, right?

There's a problem with this. If Ball #1 shared some of its power with Ball #2, it would still be Ball #1's power. The question then becomes: could Ball #1 use its own power to destroy itself? No. First of all, to use its power, Ball #1 has to exist.

Second of all, Ball #1 is so powerful that anything that can possibly be done, can be done by Ball #1. But it is not possible for Ball #1 to cease to be, therefore it cannot accomplish this.

Ball #1 cannot be unproduced, for Ball #1 was never produced in the first place. Ball #1 has always existed. It is the Eternal Something. As such, it is existence. It is life, infinite life. For Ball #1 to be destroyed, there would need to be something greater. But nothing is greater than Ball #1, nor ever could be. It exists without need of anything else. It therefore cannot be changed by any external forces. It can have no end, for It has no beginning. It is the way it is and that cannot change. It cannot cease to be, for BEING is its very nature. In that sense, it is untouchable.

What we see is this: the Something at the very beginning will always be greater than the Something Else it produces. The Something exists on its own. Something Else, however, needs Something to exist. Therefore, Something Else has needs. It is therefore inferior to Something, and will always be so, for the Eternal Something has no need of another.

The Something might be able to produce Something Else that is like It in some ways, but -- no matter what -- Something Else will always be unlike It in other ways. The Eternal Something will always be greater with respect to time and power. Thus, the Eternal Something cannot produce an exact equal to Itself. It alone has always existed. It alone can exist independent of another.

wanna explore more about the eternal something?, go here; https://www.nairaland.com/2844622/there-ever-nothing-3#41685324


source; www.everystudent.com

You are contradicting your first premise. Why can't the first cause be the big bang. Why can't the first cause be the flying Sphagetti monster. Why is God exempted from having a cause

TheAgba:
SuperCollider

Don't you think ? If you made an example with a super collider in reference to atoms in motion in other to create another (if possible) , making use of balls don't you think the ball 1# should be in motion ?

If the ball 1# isn't in motion ,how did it create ball 2# ? Where did it get its energy from ? Your assumption of a self sufficient power to create for ball 1# isn't in line with the balls you had talked about.

Why do you think of a self sufficient ball ?

I can also infer that the universe is self sufficient.

Your explanation is in the sense of matter . If a thing gives out energy , the total amount of its initial energy is less than its final energy.

If your ball 1# creates ball 2# then its total energy is not the same . It reduces and then to a point when it is even with ball 2# it may not be able to transfer more energy . It may at a point cease to posses energy as it may transfer it to the neighboring surrounding.

It is difficult to think of a ball existing just like that or a ball existing of its own .

Ever heard of vacuum fluctuations. Particles appear and disappear in a vacuum that has absolutely nothing.

vikkeee:
Good afternoon nairalanders....
Today in church during the sermon, the pastor said something about the tower of babel and my mind began to work.
I was thinking, because according to the bible, the people were building a tower that would reach the heavens meaning God could be seen if anybody reached that so he caused confusion among them.
Today space science has made it possible for man to cross the sky(heavens). So how come our scientist have not seen God? Is it that the "heaven" that the tower of babel builders were planning to reach is different from our "heaven" today? Or did God change base?
Happy first sunday of the year!

Yahweh made a fuss about the tower of babel but he does nothing about the burg khalifa