₦airaland Forum

ettybaba:
Edo people are known for 3 things prostitution, juju and distortion of history.

can you elucidate

tintingz:
Where did scholars agree that the book of act is reliable?

Arthur is more of legendary figure than historical figure, many of what can be collated about king Arthur are more of folklores, I'm not saying he can't be historical.

King Arthur is a legendary British leader who, according to medieval histories and romances, led the defence of Britain against Saxon invaders in the late 5th and early 6th centuries AD. The details of Arthur's story are mainly composed of folklore and literary invention, and his historical existence is debated and disputed by modern historians.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur

I've made my stance clear many times, you are the one going strawman.

Ok, it's not a Christian blog but authored by a Christian.

Ok, Alexander and Jesus falls to the same category, I've read both Alexander and Jesus historical fact, Alexander life and dates are well documented than Jesus.

Why should I rely on the existence of some figures that are debated?

I'm not wrong, I've provided sources for these figures.

Lol, before scholars report an event, they need to examine the reliability of the sources, what are you saying dude?

Have you work in a media company before?

We have get over the person of Jesus, we are now talking about the magician Jesus, why are you going back again, was this what my previous response all about?

i know it when the game is over, i am not interested in unnecessary argument. i have pass my message. i have even given you more than what you should know. bye mr thintingz who never wanner accept he is wrong, remember this is my second time with you lol

bumb

sonmvayina:
Nah....
He was written into existence much like Harry Potter, by the Romans, basically to make mockery of the God of the old testament. The God of the jews, hence the reason why they super glued it to the back of the Jewish scriptures...

Reason : to fulfil Daniel 7:25.

you are the most funniest person so far, you wanted to disagree with the personhood of jesus and you are still using biblical report.... how funny is that?

[quote author=tintingz post=65911961]The two widley accepted historical fact of the Jesus are that of John the Baptist and crucifixion.

The Roman letter only mention "Christus" who was sentenced to death and Josephus who talked about John the Baptist. Every other sources are not reliable, historians agree little in the new testament account are reliable.

what is your argument here here Mr titinngz, there is consensus agreement that the biography perfectly fit the description record inn the Gospel of act

Arthur is more of legendary figure, Arthur stories are more of folklores according to historians, Alexander stories is like that of Jesus also, the person of Alexander existed but there are myths attached to him(like the Alexander romance).

even after so many hours , this the flimsy excuse , you can come with, Arthur is not just legend , he is also an historical figure, i do not dispute about myth, my dispute is about the personhood of this historical figure we can discuss about the myth attached to them later . it seems you like the back and forth argument. stay focused

The Jews sees Jesus as false Messiah, he's just like every other false Messiahs they have encountered just that he's more damaging and popular due to Roman involvement in creation of Christianity!

I'm not arguing about the existence of personhood of Jesus but the biblical magician Jesus, all what he claim he magically performed are false as no independent evidence talk about it.

then why are you still instinting that the personhod of jesus do not carry much weight than that of king Arthur or Alexandra the great which i have provide multiple evidence

You're quoting from a Christian blog issokay.

this is a false accusation, all my quote were back up by scholarly report and not from any christian blog, in fact my experience on nairaland made me realized atheist do not trust Christian blog and therefore i have stay away from it. so tell me you are accusing me wrongly. or better show your atheist friend the christian blogs i quoted it.if not i will tell you to your face you cannot be trusted

Anyways, Arthur is more of a legendary firgure, Alexander and Jesus falls to the same category but I will tell you Alexander has more weight than Jesus existence.

this is a flimsy excuse without any iota of evidence

For the fact that the existenceof these figures are debated, shows they shouldn't be rely on.

you are repeating the usual mistakes , just accept you are wrong, i have throw more than convincing element to buttress my point, it is left for you to do as such

Book of act is not a reliable source, scholars are still finding the actual people who wrote these accounts

it does not need to be reliable, if the message found in them appears the same with scholarly report, then we can say it is trustworthy.

As for your second part, the Jewish literatures reject Jesus divinity, there are no archaeological fact to show Jesus performed some wonders, no element is found yet.

you did a very poor reply , your response earlier were better than this . many jewish historian and roman historian in antiquity agree that that the personhood of Jesus exist

Dalaman, Divinlly inspired, simply means a supernatural force cause a person to experience a creative desire right, so let look at the element i made mention which perfectly include instinct, emotions, gut feeling , common sense and experience .and all these are perfectly included in all religious or many books . so my i agurement here is the major element i made mention were divine and not by human... or can you prove where this elements were gotten from? we can start with it......i call you because i still can go along with you

darkchild64:
I can not speak on his behalf but I guess it is from things happening around him

this is not a logical option to start a debate... so i am off your hook...

macof:
Well good for u to see me as that. Thats not my Problem

Oh! Ok nice, Im primarily involved in Isese for historical research, when I need an Osun indegene's knowledge I might hit you up

ok

darkchild64:
vaxx there is nothing like derailing the topic all I wanted to know is whether you believe that Yahweh inspired the bible,your answers are incoherent first you said all books are divinely inspired and that includes the bible,then I asked who you were referring to when you said "God" and you said Olodumare

So in essence you are saying that "God" which is Olodumare inspired Hebrew men to write the bible stating that Yahweh is the only true God and that anyone that doesn't accept Jesus would rot in hell,and at the same time inspired Mohammed to write the Koran saying that Allah is the only true God and anyone that doesn't accept him would perish
You are indeed confused

spoon feeding you will be the last thing i will do

darkchild64:
you find it difficult debating with me ?
lol

dude you said ALL books as in All books are divinely inspired even Sam Harris' books ?

should we begin then?, where does sam harris got is inspiration from?

CuteMadridista:
that's shocking! I'm also guessing its another dishonest bullsheet slipped into our history by the Abrahamics

sincerely to be honest with you, there are similarities between isese and abrahimic religion

macof:
if so that's good. But u talk as if you are a novice.

Lati Ilu wo l'e ti wa?

i cannot see you much more than that. anyway i am from osogbo

CuteMadridista:
Honestly I've NEVER heard a Yoruba claim Oduduwa is from middle east let alone "most Yoruba" themselves as used in OP

which part of NIGERIA do you have your primary education? i am sure not southwest

macof:
You sure like redirecting the tempo

What do you know about Nok to just claim oduduwa was from Nok?

most of what i know are embedded in that links. go through yourself and find it. i will not spoon feed you.

CuteMadridista:
The problem here, I think, is that you set the bar for something being "Divinely inspired" so low that it became meaningless or at least that's how I see it as your explanation of divinely inspired means almost anything, dare I say everything is divinely inspired

cutemadirdista, not to derail the topic, create something like this question and give me a mention...

macof:
stop reading too much internet articles and learn isese first hand, directly from people you can interact with. I can get you in touch with a few .

Nothing else to say at this point

i was brought up in isese,so i am not just a convertee, it is what i do at home are in here erding. Anyway stop assuming what you yourself cannot defend.

darkchild64:
If "ALL" books(I would assume you mean holy books) were divinely inspired then that means that Yahweh, Allah,Krishna,Zeus e.t.c simultaneously exist.
And if that is the case Christians would go to the Christian heaven and simultaneously be in the Muslim hell,Muslims would go to the Muslim heaven and simultaneously be in the Christian hell

Bro with all due respect your statement that "ALL" books are divinely inspired does not make sense

then i found it difficult debating this with you, even when i said hamlet, written by Williams shakespare is divinely inspired. you still do not get the logic , i am passing.

darkchild64:
besides when you say "God" which one are you referring to is it Yahweh, Allah,Zeus,Brahmah,Olodumare or Amadioha ?

lol. olodumare... i do not want us to to derail the op, you can ask me this question in a topic similar to it next time, i will surely give you a convincing example.

macof:
I know very well. And you just ran to assume oduduwa came from nok? What do you know about Nok?

You did not know and if you did, you will not ask this question.... this link explain better. take your time and read. http://originalpeople.org/the-nok-civilization-of-nigeria/

macof:
I've already given you enough reasons why the background or should I say basics of isese is not a religion. What you might see people practicing religiously is their doing. Not everyone has to devote their lives and worship an Orisha

You came talking about one person worships sango and has a certain concept, another Osun and has a different concept...how does that correlate with what I'm saying??

Smh. I'm tired of spending time on the same topic. If you want isese as a religion, fine it can be if you make it. To me it is not...simple!

what are you saying?

macof:
Nok ko. Inoki ni

Ife traditions are clear, Oduduwa came from oke ora

Do you know what comprises NOK civilization... do a little assignment on it before you attack the op

darkchild64:
vaxx I have only one question to ask you

DO YOU BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS A DIVINELY INSPIRED BOOK ?

All book are divinely inspired, but this books were writing personally by men with this major ability, common sense, instinct, personal gut ,emotions and self center interest.... Since all this element are categorically gotten from GOD and not by human,THEN we say it is inspired. hamlet written by Williams shakespare is divinely inspired.

macof:
Smh. I don't like going back and forth

Isese is religion to you because you have created religion out of it...it's not to me ...simple! I even ignore most of the mysticism and concentrate on the history

Simple logic...no need for back and forth

What question?

check my earlier chart with you,you just said you just said no need for back and forth argument which i absolutely agree

which mysticism fall into my definition,am sure you have go through my contribution here, do i in anyway sound superstitious? per the bold, this is uncalled for, your inability not to see it as a religion from my position of argument does not mean you are more right than i do and likewise the same apply to me. we can only settle it through clarification, which we are doing now. if you found my line of reasoning strange , you can ignore bro....using the word smh is absolutely a foul statement. NO one is going forth and back with you.

Daviddson:
I didn't say you're the one who's an atheist. Check the other one.
All the same, there's nothing like being a traditionalist; there's no religion by that name.

if that will suit you, i am a pagan

[quote author=tintingz post=65904633]

The historians have made it known to us there is no physical and archaeological evidence of Jesus existence, in historical reports you should know this is part of what makes informations valid, this is just like in journalism (the 5 W's and How).

If you followed my conversation with wirinet, you will realized i made mention of a romann historians writing giving
the factual historical evidence for Jesus when narrating the biography of emperor Claudius, in which the name christo apper, and this name clearly fit the discription of biblical jesus according to the book of act. besides jesus Nazareth history is both long-established and widespread, as you yourself support the wikipedia report that historians of antiquity all agree that personhood of jesus christ exist, Within a few decades of jesus supposed lifetime, he is mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians, as well as by dozens of (Christian writings) which i know you will not take as evidence. but what of the roman and the Jewish historians,can all of them be lying? if you admit not to strong , Compare that with, for example, King Arthur, who supposedly lived around AD500. The major historical source for events of that time does not even mention Arthur, and he is first referred to 300 or 400 years after he is supposed to have lived or that of Alexander the great, that i am presently dealing with winret. The evidence for Jesus is not limited to later folklore, as are accounts of Arthur or the evidence of alexander account that has got missing.

Who, what, when, where, why, how are what makes a report valid, in Jesus case even in the Bible it lack many of this, Jesus birth-day is not even in known.

The roman and Jewish historian cannot be lying at the same time, there must be an element of truth in their statement. bible inability to state jesus birthday does not not mean the evidence it put forward on the personality of Jesus cannot be trusted, at least we can rely on some other means like where he was born , the season of that period etc.

If archaeological evidence cannot be provided on where(the site) Jesus performed all his magical wonders in front of thousands then how do you expect me to believe what the Bible claims?

interesting, there are actual archaeological evidence that buttress biblical report of Jesus biography, the archaeological report of the pilate council was unearthed and also the chief priest Caiaphas tomb was also discover, all this were well documented in the bible, and to also add to it which is not directly from the bible, ''there have been claims that Jesus was a great-grandson of Cleopatra, complete with ancient coins allegedly showing Jesus wearing his crown of thorns. In some circles, there is still interest in the Shroud of Turin, supposedly Jesus’s burial shroud. Pope Benedict XVI stated that it was something that “no human artistry was capable of producing” and an “icon of Holy Saturday”(from Luke johnson a scholar at Emory university and http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/directory/simon-gathercole from university of cambridge.

however, It is hard to find historians who regard this material as serious archaeological data, however. The documents produced by Christian, Jewish and Roman writers form the most significant evidence available which has more weight than that of king Arthur or Alexander the great,these abundant historical references leave us with little reasonable doubt that Jesus once lived and died. To me the more interesting question is and which goes beyond history and objective fact – is whether Jesus died and lived or perform the wonders associated to him according to the bible

And secondly, there are many people who have claim to be Messiahs or prophet and have been killed or died, and "christus" might just radonmly found in a Roman letter, so which "christus" was the letter actually referring to?

There are Messiahs claimants, this is the reason Jesus existence is very shaky but we can't deny a person of Jesus probably existed tho.

i just refer you to the book of act in the bible, the letter actually perfect the description of the christus which actually perfect that of biblical Jesus. so can we work on the second question now....the wonders associate with Jesus cannot be determined by history or actual objective fact, so what evidence will you likely agreed upon that will substantiate the biblical wonder perform by Jesus?

[quote author=wirinet post=65902738]

There is a huge difference between the historicity of Alexander and that of Jesus. Numerous people including contemporary authors and generals wrote extensively about Alexander the great, the problem is that they were all lost. Remember the great library in alexandra was complete destroyed.

yes they were all lost, so how can we now depend on the information available? are we working with faith?

How else did you think Arrian of Nicomedia was able to write consise biography 500 years later?

i postulate he may also depend on hearsay as you rightly put the case of the available evidence that buttress the GOSPEL of act

He had the original sources of course. He could not have dreamed up the biography of Alexander the great. One of the most importance source as cited by Arrian of Nicomedia was the writings of Ptolemy I Soter, who was a general that fought beside Alexander and went on to rule Egypt. Alexander's influence was felt all over the ancient world, from Macedonia to Persian all the way to India.

this is your own assumptions, any evidence to back it up that Arian of Nicomedia historical position on Alexandra the great is nothing but the truth? per the bold, was the influence of Alexandra felt during Alexandra reign in those country you mentioned or after so many years of Alexandra departure or death ? your answer will buttress my next reply

Alexander the great had physical evidence. There are many coins that date to his period with his head on it. There are also numerous busts and statues of Alexander, some that survived till today.
In the case of Jesus nothing, all the roman Catholic could come up with was a shroud that was said to have been used to cover the crucified Jesus and the shroud retaining the physical features of Jesus. The shroud had been proven to be a 12th or 13th century fraud.

''There have also been interesting archaeological discoveries as well bearing on the gospels. For example, in 1961 the first archaeological evidence concerning Pilate was unearthed in the town of Caesarea; it was an inscription of a dedication bearing Pilate’s name and title. Even more recently, in 1990 the actual tomb of Caiaphas, the high priest who presided over Jesus’s trial, was discovered south of Jerusalem. Indeed, the tomb beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem is in all probability the tomb in which Jesus himself was laid by Joseph of Arimathea following the crucifixion''. According to Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University.

Chikita66:
She is so beautiful. I like her.

Do you actually knows German address car with the word SHE. some even their car to their child. what a people

Otedollaryen:
The sokoto penpe part got me laughing though.

Sokoto penpe is a knicker.

lol, you remember that poem

Daviddson:
Tintingz and Vaxx, both of you need Jesus Christ. There's no much difference between you both. One of you is a staunch atheist while the other is an agnostic or something similar.

please, i am not an atheist, be careful of your labeling, i once told you i am a traditionalist. and thanks for you opinion. it is welcome.

tintingz:
Almost all historians agree a person of Jesus might have existed or existed but they don't believe the biblical magician Jesus existed as there are no evidence for it, the evidence to prove Jesus existed isn't sufficient, just two widely accepted fact.

The historical reliability of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable.

Most scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and that, between one and three years later, he was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Cc vaxx

That is a good evidence buttressing the personality of Jesus personhood by wiki.... AT LEAST THERE IS CONSENSUS AGREEMENT

tintingz:
Here is what i posted.


https://www.nairaland.com/4398649/why-should-not-bother-debate#65869691


https://www.nairaland.com/4398649/why-should-not-bother-debate#65866028

The emboldened part as answered your question, what else do you want to hear?

Then i interpret you well, YOU accept Jesus evidence as a personality is undeniable but the the wonderful biblical performing Jesus is a myth..

Good, tintingz , so what evidence will you likely suggest that will validate the the truer nature of wonder performing Jesus according to the bible? or what will make you accept that the wonders perform by Jesus according to the bible is also undeniable?

tintingz:
Have I not answered this, like three post of mine.

I do not get your view, is like you accept Jesus as a person is real but the wonders bible claim he perform is not real. that is the way i understand your answer. i wanted to be sure if i am not misinterpreting you. so be specific and not that kind of go in circle analysis.