₦airaland Forum

I thought the haliburton case spans 3 countries and most of the court cases were in the US, since Haliburton is a US company. Maybe it the case is stalled in Nigeria because is impossible also to translate American english, with all those gonna, gonna, meen, nigga, etc and the difficulty in translating Labor, color, soccer, etc.

It is also difficult translating the court papers from Germany with all the vagner, heinz, etc.

What of Dragons? Do you believers in angels believe in fire breathing, flying serpents with wings. Because stories of Dragons are common place in the east, it is also very popular in the west (Europe), the Bible even mentions them.

Krayola, yes i understand what you are saying that archeological findings cannot tell us about specific events. What the poster is trying to say is that there is no archeological objects to collaborate the stories of the bible; like we have not seen Jewish settlements in Egypt or Egyptian records to prove Jews were taken slaves by the Egyptians, no settlements on Mount Sinai to prove the Jews settled there, No temple of Solomon that was said to be the most magnificent temple in the world. No ruins of the tower of Babel. Nothing.

Eaglebabe:
Jesus died for me and l love him so much.There is no greater love than this,that a man should die for a crime he never committed that l might live.Oh how l love him

This is one of the cardinal doctrines of Christianity i find very amusing. They claimed Jesus died for them and yet they are separated by different time frames, locations, races and cultures. They said he died for a crime he did not commit but in reality, was Jesus innocent of the charges against him? Because the hearing accorded Jesus was much fairer than what you will get in today's Nigerian Judicial system.

He was accused (by false witnesses) in front of the scribes and elders ( first court of law)of blasphemy (that he said he is able to destroy their holy temple and rebuilt it in three days), in stead of pleading "Not Guilty" when asked he committed further blasphemy by blabbing nonsense about the son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven. This angered the scribes further and they pronounced him guilty.

Then he was taken to the final court of law ( the governor) and was accused of proclaiming himself king of the Jews (in contravention to Roman Laws). Instead of pleading not guilty again, he affirmed the accusation by saying "thou sayest". But Pilate the Governor thought that this man is not serious but only a comedian, because no sane man can challenge the power of Caesar to appoint and confirm kings and Governors. So he sent him to Herod, their local king, but again instead of Jesus to defend himself, he kept mute. So he gave the judges no other option than to pronounce him guilt as charged. Even the scheme by a sympathetic Pilate t free him did not work as the people opted for the Barabbas the armed robber instead of Jesus.

So Jesus was sentenced and crucified according to laid down laws. Less important people would not get that degree of fair hearing under Roman law.

If only Jesus had known and hired my Good friend Deep Sight, he would have gotten him acquitted of all charges.

That is why i do not understand when people say he was innocent of the charges.

mavenbox,

I am ashamed on your behalf on your sense of ethics and morality. You might as well support exploitation of the strong by the weak, because that is what is happening. The psychologically, intellectually and socially strong are exploiting their weaker brethren and you are here clapping for them. So you do not think getting people to believe that blessing of their chequebook  in order to obtain business prosperity is criminal, and it is even worse getting them to sign away their bank account with threats of financial failure. I am sure you cannot condemn yahoo yahoo boys who promise mugus oil blocks(prosperity) only to fleece them dry, or an hypnotist who instead of helping his patient's overcome their problems, get them to su.ck his cork.  Start justifying them also.

aletheia:
Really impressed by the equations and all --- but wait a minute!  
a. Your first assumption was wrong
b. Your second assumption is also wrong
c. The two wrongs make you doubly wrong --- not right.
d. You are talking about displacement here. Different from the volume of water needed to cover the object.
e. Everest is not 3 times higher than the average ocean depth. The height of Everest is 8848 meters, the average ocean depth is 3790 meters. Do the maths.
And you accuse christians of pseudoscience. Shame on you.  
[img][/img]

Wonderment shall never end. Did you take any maths at all in school, or you faith has beclouded your neo-cortex.

We are talking about water covering the whole earth to a height of about 8,900m and you are talking about water being immersed in a pyramid. I am talking about volume of a sphere because the extra water would fill additional radius of a sphere and you are calculating volume around a cone. Is your earth's surface now a cone or a square around a cone?

If Everest is not approximately 3 times higher than the depth of the ocean, why not tell us the actual figure.

Let me redo the calculations using your figures;

Average ocean depth = 3790m[b] below sea level[/b]

Height of Everest = 8848m above sea level = 8848 + 3790 from bottom of ocean =12,638m

Ratio of ocean depth to Everest's height = 12,638/3790m = 3.335m

So the actual ratio of the height of Everest in relation to the average depth of the oceans is 3.335 meters.

Please you might need to retake JSS3 maths.

Mr Redsun, it gladdens my heart that some of my people are beginning to ask questions about the true nature of the universe and our place in it. Most of my brethren are satisfied with the spiritual insight laid long ago by ancient men.

Now science says nature abhors a vacuum, but i say it abhors stasis more, nothing is stationary. Everything is moving relative to some other bodies.

The earth exhibits numerous motions. Relative to you position, the earth is stationary, because we are all exhibiting the same movements together.

Relative to the sun, the earth is exhibiting two main kinds of movements;

1. It is spinning on its axis(rotation) once every 24hrs, meaning those at the equator is traveling in a circular motion at 1,670km/hr (speed of sound is 1,236km/h)

2. It is revolving around the sun (revolution) once every 365.25 days, meaning we are traveling around the sun (while spinning) at about 108,000 km/h, which is about 10 times the speed of sound.

Then relative to our Galactic centre, the solar system including the earth is revolving around the centre of the milky way galaxy once every 200 - 250 million years at a speed of 900,000km/h, which is close to 90times the speed of sound.

Then our galaxy is moving within our Local Group of Galaxies which consists of about 30 other Galaxies at a speed of 1,080,000Km/h.

You can read up further here http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/earth/Speeds.shtml

Reverting to 16^th century latin

Fontis of sanctus phasmatis aequora

Chrisbenogor:
^^^^^free fluid mechanics lesson
Mr lecturer kwesion sir, are we to assume that the fluid is a newtonian fluid?

Ansar student, the fluid is spiritual fluid. It has not mass and so cannot contribute to the total mass of the earth, also it does not kill plants as all plants can respire and photosynthesize immersed in it and its keeps at room temperature even at 8,900m above sea level.

Next kwesion

Deep Sight:
Are you seriously suggesting to me that massive siesmic shifts cannot rearrange the entire water configuration on the planet?

That is exactly what i have been saying, Seismic activities can only rearrange the water configuration and in fact also the land configuration. It cannot cause the water configuration to cover all the world's mountains.

Deep Sight:
AND NO - I am not talking about the amount of water on the earth. I am talking about its placement.

Its placements should means shifts in the distribution of land and water and not water taking over all the lands.

Deep Sight:
When i talked about siesmic shifts did you consider ocean-bed contraction which must be virtually apocalyptic if occuring on a large enough scale and which must squeeze the oceans upwards as available space beneath the deep contracts?

What is ocean bed contraction? We know some parts of an ocean can raise or fall due to seismic activity giving rise to tsunamis, But to suggest that all the ocean beds around the world contracting is something else. That would mean a contraction of the earths mantle and probably an implosion of the earth itself.

Deep Sight:
And yet this is just one little suggestion from an ignorant non-scientist such as myself.

I repeat: i dont give two hoots about any flood: but i am amazed that you dare claim absolute knowledge of all the possible geological configurations that could occur on this planet.

You must be omniscient.

Nobody is omniscient. Science works by looking at suggested hypothesis and eliminate ones not supported by current observation and past data, and investigate further plausible data that supports the hypothesis. Your hypothesis on planetary implosion being a possible cause of Noah's flood is faulty and can be confidently discarded.

On reading my earlier assumption that Noah's flood added 3 times the volume of water to the earth because water rose to three time the ocean depths, i realize i was dead wrong as volume calculation does not work that way.

The formula for volume is 4/3 x ^pi x r³

So volume increase with the cube of radius. So the increase in volume should be 3³ (since Everest is 3 times as high as the average ocean depth),  which is 3 x 3 x 3 = 27.

So Noah's flood would need 27 times the normal volume of water to cover mount Everest.

The problem i have with Christians is when they try to rationalize their beliefs using science (pseudo-science). If they stick to their beliefs and say events in the bible is beyond science and is in the area of the spirit, i would not argue with the Noah's story, the Jonah story or even the Joshua asking the sun to stand still for three days story. But i get upset when they attempt to scientify their beliefs.

Thanks Mazaje for adding this into the Mix.

So how were Noah and his crew plus the Animals able to survive at over 8,900m above sea level, since there would be insufficient oxygen. You cannot climb to the top of Mount Everest without an oxygen mask.

Deep Sight:
Point well taken. But i insist that you are still being limited in presuming that nothing at all could cause such a deluge.

Can you state with certainty that you posess ALL knowledge about ALL possible configurations of the earth's systems.

Have you considered what massive siesmic shifts could do to the sea level worldwide?

Are you not aware that exactly such massive seismic shifts are supposedly the cause of the disappearance of the fabled land of Atlantis?

Sienmic shifts. Can you say with certainty that massive movements of the land under the sea are not able to change global sea levels?

You know i dont give any hoot about any flood, i am just appalled that people can be so presumptuous as to think that they know all the possible configurations of anything that could happen on earth.

You are being exactly presumptuous.

If not for the respect i have for you, i would not have bothered responding further. You are groping in the dark looking for explanations to explain the impracticable as is style of Olaadegbu and Noetic. Then you annoying close your case with " you do not have all knowledge, so you cannot dismiss my theory".
The proposed Noah's flood is said to have added almost three times the volume water  to the earth's surface and i asked, where did the water come from and where did it go thereafter, and you mentioned seismic shifts. Do seismic shifts create water and make water disappear? Please read up on terms before you throw them into an argument.

Seismic shifts can never change global sea level, it can only change the topography of the area experiencing the shift , making some areas go below sea level or raising others above sea level.

O i forgot, about atlantis. The continent of Atlantis is Just a fable with no scientific backing whatsoever. It was only ever mentioned in a single sentence by Plato. No other person - archeologist, geographer, geologist, historian or scientist ever even mentioned it. (except a few spiritualists of course).

There is no evidence there was a continent between Africa and South America

If i was more disposed, i would have calculated the exact extra volume of water needed to cover Mount Everest, the extra mass it would have added to the total mass of the planet and attempt to predict how such an increase in mass would affect our relationship with the gravitational attraction of the sun and the moon

Deep Sight:
No i neither believe nor am interested in any flood at all. I was just throwing in a suggestion about the potential volume of ice in the world. . .

Now i can fault you on one ground at least. You make a calculation of the ice in the world today.

How do you know what amount of ice was stored up 5000 years ago. . . can you say with certainty that you know EXACTLY what the earth's water cycle was like 5000 years ago?

Address that!

Cheers. . .

I did not base my calculations on the amount of ice in the world today, i made the calculations based on the total amount of water - solid water (ice), liquid water(water) and gaseous water (water vapour) on earth, which is a constant. Water on the earths surface changes states  depending on temperature, so if the earth's temperature lowers, then more ice would accumulate at the poles and the water in the oceans would reduce resulting in lower sea level. But if the temperature increases and all the solid water (ice) at the poles melts, then the water in the oceans would increase, rising the sea level by 61m. Even if all the Gaseous water in the air condenses (which is a practical impossibility), it would not raise the world sea level significantly.

Please tell me u understand the basic logic. At least i know you posses the ability to think beyond pre-programed notions.

noetic15:
1. You have not established why the flood would require extra water. your submission is based on the assumption that 1.36 million-trillion of water as found on the earth is not sufficient to cause a global flood based on the present state of the earth. your assertion and assumption is false. First we know from biblical submissions that the earth at the time of noah was a glorified village without the development it presently has. Given the state of the earth at time of noah there was enough water to flood the entire earth.

It seems you do not assimilate what other people write before responding with your pre-recorded response. I have told you again and again that the total volume of water on earth is constant since after the formation of the earth and all the free hydrogen combined with all the free oxygen to form water. If you want to increase the total volume of water on earth, you will have to manufacture it by bringing  in free hydrogen and free oxygen and combine them.

noetic15:
2. u ignored the point made by citing seeding. The seeding technique that manipulates rainfall is a testimony to the other limitless techniques yet unknown that can manipulate rainfall.

Seeding does not manufacture H₂0 from O₂ and H₂, it only changes the state of Gaseous water (water vapour and clouds) to liquid water. I honestly cannot explain this any further. If you still do not get it, then too bad.

noetic15:
3. if u claim that there was a global flood. . .where was the boundary of the flood? how was it determined? Good u asked. . ,  .  Genesis 6:14-16
14Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

15And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

16A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

Thanks for the verses, now let me do the conversion to units i could understand;
1 cubit = 0.51562metres from http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_meters_in_one_cubit

Therefore the dimensions in metres is 154.686 length, 25.781 breadth and 15.4686 height.

In comparism the legth of the Titanic was 269m, breadth was 28m and height was 10.3m

Given this dimensions it is impossible for the ark to accommodate members one family not to talk of all the species of animals on the planet then.

noetic15:
what stops plants from surviving?

Except you are talking about spiritualism and faith, and not biology. Plants cannot survive underwater. See the satellite images of Acheh before and after a tsunami posted by Viaro to see it the plants affected by the tsunami survived ( and the area was submerged for only a few days)

noetic15:
I would love to be educated. . . . why not list them out.

your question is based on the premise that there was a need for extra sea water. . . no there was none.

How can the total volume of water on the earth's surface triple without the need for extra water coming in?

noetic15:
We understand by scientific injunction that rain falls by water held in the atmosphere by means of precipitation. We also know that rain is created by a process called seeding.
Rainfall is also HEAVILY dependent on the temperature prevalent at the said season. Given the three notions above. . . . .the possibility of a flood filling the earth is amazingly alarming.

What has seeding have to do with the total volume of water (ice, liquid and gaseous) on the earth's surface. As i stated earlier the total quantity of water on earth is constant.

noetic15:
Also when u consider that seeding is a new technology used in advanced countries. . . . it begins to highlight the limitless possible sources of rainfall our limited understanding cannot gasp.
and why is it impossible for the biblical account of the water drying up to be impossible?

Seeding is used to condense water vapour in the atmosphere into liquid water( rain), it does not manufacture water from its constituent elements.

noetic15:
did u bother to check the size as stated by the bible?

Please can you educate me on the exact size of the ship?

noetic15:
please read the biblical account before making submissions. . . . the bird that was let out eventually found a tree to rest on. . .implying that plants survived the flood.

I want you to explain how plants could survive being submerged in water for so long.

Deep Sight:
You apparently have not considered all the water locked up as ice in the north and south poles, glaciers, etc.

A partial melting alone, of Iceland, Greenland, or antartica is sufficient to produce more water than you can possibly imagine.

Deep Sight you understanding of science is a far cry from your grasp of law. Also reread my post above concerning the ice caps. The total melting of all the ice on the earth's surface would raise world sea level by 61 metres see http://www.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm ( sorry, i mistakenly said less than 5m). That is still a far cry from 8,900m required to cover mount Everest.
Also are you telling me you believe the " Noah's global flood hypothesis".

OLAADEGBU:
Merry Christmas to our Christian friends, happy Hanukkah to our Jewish friends, and to our atheist friends, good luck.

It is alright to wish your atheist friends Merry Christmas and a happy new year. Christmas is a universal Holiday (except in some Muslim countries) and  people have been celebrating the 24th and 25th of December before Christianity. Also the new year is universal.

We (your atheist friends) also wish you a Merry Christmas (tone down a bit on the merriment though) and a very happy new year.

noetic15:
I disagree with your position here and would like for u to educate my ignorance concerning the submissions above.

1. the explicit biblical language that supports a global flood CANNOT be excused on the premise of linguistic deixis. The biblical narrative was clear about a global flood.
if the flood was not global, then it means that biblical chronological analogy of man traced to Adam is not true? who then is the father of all men?
your assumption that the flood was not global is probably based on the assumption that the entire earth was was as developed as it is now. . no it was not, it was simply a glorified village.

2. God's intent was NEVER to eradicate or expunge sin from the world. This is because sin was NEVER manufactured in the first place. sin is a product of disobedience. disobedience is a rational choice by humans. . . . . .as such we have to pay the consequences of such sin. "The soul that sinneth will die". the purpose of the flood was to punish the souls who sinned. u simply overcome sin by living by the commandments of God.
There is nothing in the statement of Jesus that suggests a local flood. . . except u are infering a nihilant meaning here.



your submission above summarises your position on the flood IMO.

1. There is NO scientific notion that dismisses the case of a global flood. . all we have are assumptions that hold no credibility since the evidences are not allowed to speak for themselves.

2. The statement in bold is disturbing. That statement limits the ability of God. . .are u a xtian?

There are numerous scientific notions that dismisses the case for a global flood. One i have already put forward that no Christian is ready to answer is, Where did all the extra water come from?

The average depth of the oceans today is approximately 4km. For water to cover mount Everest of almost 8,900 m or 8.9km, we would need almost twice the quantity of water we have on the earth oceans today. Now the total amount of water on the earth is constant, and hydrological cycle is relatively stable, meaning water from the oceans evaporates and later falls back on earth in the form of rain and snow. The snow sometimes accumulates in the frozen ice caps of Antarctica and arctic. Even if all the snow at the ice caps should melt, it would raise world sea level by less than 5meters. So where did the extra water come from?

Also after flooding the world, where did the extra water disappear to. Since water cannot leave the earths surface, where did the water go.

Also these people do not understand the shear quantities of species on the earths surface. The total number of species of birds known today is about 9,000. The approximate number for insects is over 750,000. And a guess of the total specie of mammals is about 3,500. Snakes number more than 2000. And we have not even added the hundreds of thousands of animals that have gone extinct.
So how is a single ship able to cater for the shear number of animals? Even the titanic was only able to carry 2,340 people.

Then there is the question of how the animals were able to feed and drink water. Maybe extra rats and lizard was brought along to feed the cobras. and extra goats were brought in for the two lions. What of hygiene, how were they able to answer the call of nature.

Then what about the plant? why do you people not provide answers as to how Noah was able to preserve plants, because the flood would also wipe out plants.

Let me add more questions;

To all Atheist, Agnostics, Deists, Theists ( including Christians); If the gods, Tiw, Thor and Saturn did not exist, why name the days of the week after them. Isn't that a good enough substantiation of their existence?

What of Gods Janus, Mars, Juno, etc, if they are myths, why continue to name the months of the year after them

davidylan:
1. We know what atheism is about - a cowardly way of refusing to take moral responsibility for your life.

2. We know why you "despise" christianity . . . (funny since none of you ever despises islam, scientology or sango worshipers) its because you hate the moral discipline it forces on you. It has nothing to do with what christianity has done to you.

David are you serious? Atheists refusing to take moral responsibility for their life?. Are you playing with paradoxes?.

Because that statement applies to Christians than any other world view. It is a cardinal doctrine of Christianity not to accept responsibility for ones actions. The cardinal doctrine which i find absurd, is that once you are born again, you are no longer responsible for your sins, Christ by dying on the cross has carried all our sins - past and future, you only need to ask for forgiveness and your are as white as snow. The only problem is that the cycle of since and asking for forgiveness is limitless.

They also have numerous other catch phrases to escape taking responsibility for their own actions. Like;

1. The devil made me do it.
2. The flesh is week.
3. It is the will of God.
4. I was guided by the holy spirit.
5. The devil is a lair.
6. We fight not against flesh and blood but principalities.

And hundreds of others.

Most moral people i have come in contact with are either Atheists, Agnostics or liberal Christians and Muslims. The religiously fervent Born again Christian or fundamentalist Muslim almost always end up being morally bankrupt including most of your General Overseers, pastors, and reverends.

Even if you study the world corruption index, you will find a direct correlation between corruption and degree of religiosity of the countries.

tpia,

You behaving like the typical modern day pentecostal  Christian fundamentalist. Trying to fit established scientific facts into your beliefs using lies and deceit.

tpia.:
1. Human footprints have been found interspersed with dinosaur ones.

Does that sound like Genesis? I doubt you've ever read the book or you wouldnt ask this kind of question.

Is this a scientific fact or fallacy. Point us to the research that says dinosaurs were living with humans. Is that the findings of hundreds of universities around the world or as a result of one creationist from interpreting the bible. You should also add that men climbed  Carboniferous trees of 360 million years ago.
I think you watch too much flintstones

tpia.:
2. I keep pointing out I dont know when Noah lived and the tectonic plates and land movement during continental activity, not the dates, are what I'm focusing on for now. I'm saying its entirely possible continental drift happened during Noah's time, or soon after.

If you do not know the period Noah lived, others knew. Theologists from time immemorial had been able to calculate the approximate period using the Genealogies provided by the bible, because there is a detailed genealogy between Adam and Lamech (Noah's father), and there is nothing to indicate that the period inbetween is 1 million years.

You talk of Tectonic plates and continental drift as if you know what you are talking about. If you have an idea of what continental drift is you will know that given the very slow rate of the continental drift takes place, 10,000 years would not show considerable drift. So you to insinuate that  Pangaea split and separated during Noah's  time and the continents have reached it present positions today is beyond absurd.
You must be a Para-geologist 

tpia.:
3. Where in the articles did you read there were no humans during one of the continental drifts? The write ups discussed environmental changes, not humans. You chose to draw your own conclusions about humans from that.

It is widely acknowledged in academic circles that humans came into the scene 6-4million years ago. That time the continents were very similar to the position they are in today.

tpia.:
Its widely theorized humans crossed into north America through the Bering Straits. That land bridge is no longer there today.

Yes, the reason the land bridge from Asia to America (bering Straits) is no longer available is not due to your super natural continental drift but due to a rise in sea level and melting ice as a result of the end of the last ice age.

It is disheartening for people who abhor science subjects and run to embrace art subjects in secondary school, suddenly become science experts in adulthood and shoot down well established theories and conclusions from the tops science professors in the world.

Toneyb,

You need to brush up a bit on your astronomy. Our star - The Sun which is an ordinary star is Over I Million times bigger that the earth. Some Red Giants are over 100 times bigger than our own sun.

I am also surprised that some people still choose to believe 21^st century B.C assumptions over 21^st century A.D science, that stars are points in the dome of the firmaments and might fall someday.

Deep Sight:
^^^ Under the known laws and assumptions of physics, that is. . .

Given the vastly unknown and undeciphered mysteries of the universe, i would not be so bold as to positively assert any cosmic event to be "impossible."

We cannot hide under the unknown to perpetuate all kinds of scientific and even logical fallacies. How can a start  Plummet into a small planet like earth. Even if we suspend the laws of science and allow a star to leave its position in a galaxy ad then venture into our sun's gravitational pull, the combined effects of the gravity and radiations of the two suns would have quite a devastating effects on all the planets, and not a star plummeting into a planet. Our solar system would be termed a binary  star system, and such systems do not allow for stable planets.

mavenbox:
@mazaje: Are you saying that a distant star or another planet cannot be shaken off course and plummeted into the earth, regardless of the fact that it is larger than this planet, earth?

Let me help Mazaje here. The simple answer is no!, it is not possible for a distant star to be shaken off its course and plummet into the earth. For a planet, it would be impossible for a planet to escape the gravitational attraction of its parent star and start traveling to our own star.

Arguing with Mr Olaadegbu is like arguing with a man who watched part one of a story and then went blind and  deaf but not dumb immediately. It is impossible to explain to such a person that there is part 1, part two and even part3 of the story. So you will find out that most people do not want to engage in a fruitless exercise of arguing with Mr Olaadegbu on his  preconceived notions no matter how absurd they are.

Let me waste some time analyzing your statements

Before you begin to sniff for holes in the nativity story I will suggest that you look at your own backside that has been exposed by your assumptions.

* Who told you that their were three wise men from the east?

Matthew 2:1-2

1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

About the number 3. In my opening post, i said the popular nativity story said there were three wise men, not that the bible specified the number 3. But it is logical to assume that since the wise men brought 3 separate gifts, they would have to be 3, meaning each person brought one gift. But if you say the wise men were ten as against popular belief, you will have to provide the reason why. Maybe 3 people brought one gift with one wise man not bringing anything.

* Where did you get the idea that the wise men came to the manger where Jesus was born?

Luke 2:7

and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Luke 2:12

12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

Luke2:16

16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.

Are you saying that Jesus was born in a inn ( since we are told that all the inns were full), and then brought to the manger for the wise men to look at?


    * Who told you that Jesus was a baby when the wise men came to the house?
see the above bible verses especially the bolded "babe"

This is not evolution theory were you are allowed to speculate and assume, these historical facts.

Please whip out your dictionary to differentiate between historical facts and folktale

Get your facts together before you send people on a wild goose chase.

Why don't you do us a big favour and present the facts

A lot of people have been taking the nativity story forgranted assuming what is not accurate.  The fact that shepherds visited Jesus in the manger has been confused with the wise men (how many was not stated) who visited Jesus in the house when Jesus was about two years of age.  Folks just take it forgranted that they know the story and go on to make spurious claims that they have found holes in the story.  The earlier we read the scriptures meditatively the better it will be for us and our generation.

Mr Olaadegu, you make me laugh. So you have split the story into two. You set Matthew's nativity story two years after Luke's. But does the bible support your theory? lets examine it a bit further;

Reread Matthew 2:1-2 again as quoted above, and tell me if the verse says the wise men from the east visited Jesus two years after seeing the star.

Now for other matters arising from your two years theory;
1. Are you implying that Jesus was born in a manger in Bethlehem ( as there are no room in the inn), and the family stayed two full years in the manger or were able to get an inn, still in Bethlehem, so that the wise men could visit them before they fled to Egypt (as written in Matthew) OR went  back to Nazareth (as written in Luke) ?

2. Luke said that After Jesus was born, he underwent all Jewish rituals of circumcision and all before going back to Nazareth. Meanwhile Matthew said Jesus and his family fled to Egypt to escape Herod

3. Is it possible for the King of Israel under roman rule to carry out such genocide of killing babies 2 years and under without the knowledge and permission of Rome? Because there no record whatsoever of the genocide outside the bible.

4. Are you implying that the wise men saw the star at Jesus's birth and followed the star two years to find him or that the star did not appear until two years after Jesus was born.


My personal opinion is that the Jesus story was modeled after Moses story, maybe to ensure acceptance by the Jews.  They even placed Jesus in Egypt, when we are not told Joseph or Mary has any root in Egypt.

REALKINGSON:
In satanism,there is no going back.A (spiritual)satanist is one who sold his soul to satan after performing some blood rituals.ogaga.am i wrong?@abuzola.d'nt you think that for the fact that satanist do not hate or attack muslims proves that maybe you're in the same path with them?@all christians.if i havent learnt anything from nairaland,i've come to know 1.that there is one almighty God,whose name is JEHOVAH/YAHWEH and his son JESUS CHRIST!2.He is in emnity with satan.3.the bible prophecies are true(satanists use d number 666)4.we're in the end time.This is time to KEEP IN WATCH.

My brother, are you a repentant satanist? because you know the inner secrets of satanism even better than the chief satanist himself - Ogaga. How do you know the blood rituals the satanists perform and how they perform it.

Then clarify further the properties of this JEHOVAH?YAHWEH and how he was able to beget a son (and not a daughter).
Then finally explain to me what they use the 666 number for?

About us being in the end times, they have been saying that even during the time of Jesus, why do you not just help us with a calender date.

mavenbox:
@wirinet: for once you disappoint me. I used to see you as someone who does accurate background research before making posts on Nairaland. The Man who is NOW called Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God, came as the Son of Man, and there is evidence of his existence, even by non-Christian historians and authors. I am too lazy to type a lot right now cos I am busy but I will copy and paste from a site that summarizes my[b] voluminous pages about the HISTORICITY of JESUS[/b], which, fortunately is a course I took in theological school. It deals with the authenticity of Christ's existence as the Son of Man, as the Last Adam and the Second Man, in HUMAN FLESH.

The disappointment is mutual, I had always respected your deep analysis of Christianity from the theological angle. But i was disappointed that you are not different from My Olaadegun, you just type in a query into Google and then copy and past from a website without even digesting relevant issues and then incorporating your own personal opinions. You do not even bother to check to see if what you copied and pasted contradicts your arguments, as done in this case.

And your are right that is called laziness.  

The Bolded part is the fallacy is the century,  or is it the last 20 millennia?, How many pages of historical books has even the mention of your Jesus out side the New Testament. Any historical mention at all are referenced from the Bible or followers of Jesus and not the personality of Jesus itself.

mavenbox:
And if you think the article above was biased, read from Wikipedia, the world's most comprehensive growing encyclopaedia (by common belief and acceptance)
The Wikipedia article is by far very comprehensive, but if you still want me to post from my personal notes, i will return to do that when I have some time to waste.

I know wikipedia can be quite resourceful but i do not think one can base all his arguments from wikipedia arguments, because the articles are can be posted, edited and updated by anybody. So the articles most of the time reflect the personal opinions of the contributor.

Even this article you rely so much on has a Caveat, right in the middle of the page;

This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

Now lets analyze your quote;

http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html
Question: "Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ?"

Answer: Typically, when this question is asked, the person asking qualifies the question with “outside of the Bible.” We do not grant this idea that the Bible cannot be considered a source of evidence for the existence of Jesus. The New Testament contains hundreds of references to Jesus Christ. There are those who date the writing of the Gospels to the second century A.D., more than 100 years after Jesus' death. Even if this were the case (which we strongly dispute), in terms of ancient evidences, writings less than 200 years after events took place are considered very reliable evidences. Further, the vast majority of scholars (Christian and non-Christian) will grant that the Epistles of Paul (at least some of them) were in fact written by Paul in the middle of the first century A.D., less than 40 years after Jesus' death. In terms of ancient manuscript evidence, this is extraordinarily strong proof of the existence of a man named Jesus in Israel in the early first century A.D.

The above statement is neither here or there, and full of contradictions. You talk so glowingly of ancient evidences without  providing any. You said that at least a few of the epistles were written in the middle of the first century AD, and then in the same breadth say less than 40yrs after the death of Jesus, which should be put at around 73AD. So 73 AD is now middle of the first century AD. Also if some of the epistle of Paul was written in the middle of the first century, when were the remaining epistle written? Also are you inferring that the Epistle of Paul were written before the Gospels? Please provide proofs of your assertions.

It is also important to recognize that in A.D. 70, the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground. We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.

Please furnish us with evidence that written evidence of Jesus was available before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Considering that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44)

Again this quote is very dishonest. The writing were dated at AD116 and was was referring to superstitions of the people and not to the fact of the story itself. If youd id not cherry pick what  suit your argument you would have noticed that he called this superstition of "the Christians", Mischievous and evil.

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats, He was [the] Christ, he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”

If the alleged reference to Jesus by Flavius Josephus is not relevant, why use it in the first place to support your argument. On further reading of the complete passage, you will find out that the passage was not even referring to your Jesus of Nazareth. It was taking about another Jesus who was a brother to James and the son of Damneus. Unless you now say that Jesus alleged father is no longer Joseph.  Jesus was a very common name then, so the talk of any Jesus does not imply your own Jesus.

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

This is very laughable. First all Thallus writings are in the realm of speculation as original writings of him survived. Then even the reference to darkness which he himself called an eclipse of the sun had no reference at all to Jesus or the crucifixion. Finally. Thallus was said to talked about the sack of Troy in 109BC, Cronus the Titan and the war of the Titan against Zeus and a lot of other Greek myths. S why harp on the crucifixion of Jesus which Thallus made no mention of, and leave out the details of Greek stories he was actually narrating.

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

You above quote is only stating the obvious - the fact that early Christians worshiped Jesus and not a proof of a personality called Jesus.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

You people clutch to any straw appears to float your religion. He is actually what Sanhedrin 43a of the Babylonian Talmud says;

On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! - Ulla retorted: Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a _Mesith_ [enticer], concerning him Scripture says, _Neither shalt though spare, neither shalt thou conceal him?_ With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government for royalty [i.e., influential]. Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni, and Todah.

Does this Jesus bear any resemblance to your Jesus?

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

This also talk of Christians and not a historical Christ.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.

This is the writings of this Mara Bar Serapion

   What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given[3]

Read it properly and see if the writer was talking about your Jesus.

Pastor, you are now turning davidistic. How can you know what is in the mind of every atheist? Yes given that some "former atheist" like Banom hinged their brief stint with atheism on anger directed at God for not saving his father, how can you use that as a template for others.

Me on the other hand, i have never been angry at any God, Christian, Muslim or Ifa. I just cant make sense of all the religions. It is as simple as that.

mavenbox,

I am sorry to disappoint you. I am on my way out now, but i will respond when i get back and after reading your sources.

I have copies of translation of Flavius Josephus writings,and it had been acknowledged, even by biblical scholars that those quotes in reference to Jesus, were fraudulently inserted at a much later date. I am sure you know that, so i was surprised you still added it to support your arguments.

Anyway be back later

sauer:
There has never been APOSTACY in atheism, since it's not a religion, but only an opinion. I just had to attack the poster's sudden "conversion"
BTW, how much voice had he in the atheist circle on NL before he was stopped on his road to damascus?

To know his real religious leanings before "his road to Damascus", read his previous posts. Just click on his user name and click "show the Previous posts" at the bottom of the page.

The Traditional story of the birth of Jesus was that he was born in a manger in Bethlehem on their way to be counted in a census, because all the inns(hotels) were filled. Immediately after birth, three wise men from the east, lead by a moving star, brought in gifts of Frankincense, myrrh and gold for the child, and then left.

Now lets see what the Bible says;

Matthew 2:11
And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshiped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.

Matthew told us that the parents of Jesus went to Bethlehem to fulfill what was written by the prophets and not because of any census and did not tell us why they were in the house.

Luke 2:1-9
1And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

2(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David

5To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

6And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

7And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

8And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

9And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

Luke on the other hand told us that Jesus was laid in a manger after he was born because the the inn (hotel) was full. So it was not specific Jesus was actually born in the manger.

But Luke story has some problems;

Since the Romans were taxing the whole world, could they not be taxed in their town of residence, why the need to go to Bethlehem just to pay tax?

If Joseph is really from the house of David in Bethlehem, why did he have to stay in a hotel? What happened to his family and his family house. And why did he not meet any members of his royal family in Bethlehem to help him out?

How come Mary was able to give birth to a child in an ordinary stable in the dead of winter, without any mid-wife or doctor?. Under such circumstances, it would be difficult for mother and child to survive the delivery.

How come we were not told if they were actually taxed, as that was the principal reason of braving the cold to come to Bethlehem in the first place.

Who owned the stable they were said to be staying, and where were the horses that should be sheltering in their stables, because this is the middle of winter.

How come in the same country we have shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night, in the middle of winter. Both Shepherd and flocks would freeze to death.

Mark and Luke on the other hand did not have any story about the birth of Christ, they began their stories with adult Jesus.

So which are we to believe? was Jesus born in a house or in a Manger?

mavenbox:
@Topic: Jesus may not have been born on December 25th. Personally, I give God thanks for the birth of Christ each and every day.

Let me give you an illustration: when we celebrate the "dead soldier" on the Armed Forces Remembrance Day a.k.a Veterans day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrance_Day on November 11th, and old Mrs Adamson remembers her father that died bravely defending his country during World War I, does that mean the man died on November 11th? In his family, each and every day they remember him, but ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY, the programme of events have been set aside to honour him

@wirinet: I have read a lot about Easter and Christmas practices and pagan similitudes and origins thanks to the early Roman Catholic Church, but does it nullify the fact that Christ came? I guess if I was a historian in Christ's day, I may have taken extra effort to document the exact day but since I was not; I am content with the fact that he came. The date is rather trivial, sorry.

All these stories that Christ came is not correct. Are you aware that a personality with the name "Jesus Christ" had never existed in the history of the world?. The name Jesus Christ is just a title - a Roman title. The parents (supposing we believe the story in the Bible) could not have "Christened" him Jesus Christ at birth.

mavenbox:
[b]God does not kill. That is a dirty job that satan does, [/b]although God can use the circumstance of satan's killing to his own advantage.

Let me ask you, Ogaga, as I have done before although you skilfully evaded the question: Does darkness exist? Does cold exist?

The answer is no. Darkness is the result of the absence of light. Cold is a result of the absence of heat. We study light, we study heat. We can't study cold, we can't observe darkness.

Whenever man or any part of creation raises its head against God in rebellion, it is like a spiritual bloodless COUP: God's sovereignty is not acknowledged so the devil is allowed to claim it as his territory, and then he does whatever he wants there, which often involves killing. Then people will start screaming that God killed people. God does not kill people. Rather, God, in his love, has through time always showed men how to do things so that they don't fall on the wrong side (like the darkness side of light, or the cold side of heat) and get killed, oppressed or destroyed by the devil. Man never got it right, so God sent His OWN Son as a lasting solution to the problem.

Now you may make references to wars and Israel's conquests: but isn't it clear that it was necessary for Israel's survival in those early days? The devil was trying to snuff Israel using its enemies so that by the time Israel ceased to exist, the prophecy of Jesus' Birth would never come to pass. It was attack - the best form of defense. And God did not do any killing in that case. The Israelites did, and the devil allowed the killing of the israelites' enemies: all the people he was meant to be protecting: people that were serving him diligently. On the contrary, God protects His word above His own name: When he promises protection by His covenant and you stay in the Covenant, nothing will happen to you.

The bolded part are outright lies and not supported by the Bible. Read Gen 19:23-26, and you will see how God physically destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah without any help from Satan, even lot's wives was killed. I hope you do not tell us that it was the devil that killed lot's wife.

What about 1 Chronicles 13:9-11, where God killed a man called Uzza's, just because he touched the Ark of the Covenant while preventing it from falling down. what was devil's concern there in the whole episode.

Then there is Acts 5:1—11, where God killed Ananias and Sapphira just because they sold a piece of property and decided to keep back part of the proceeds (I wonder why "Nigerian men of God Had not used this example to have their followers sell all their properties and give everything to their church). Was Devil involved?

In fact there are to many stories where the God of the Bible due due its short temper, killed many people or whole communities directly, without the knowledge of Devil.

I honestly see the hands of IWU in this draws, because mere chance cannot explain the reason that Nigeria is always in the same group with Argentina in every world cup Nigeria qualifies for. Also how can our group be identical with that of USA 94 with the exception of Bulgaria. No wonder the same teams keep winning the world cup again and again. Watch our for INEC type refereeing at the world cup.