LordReed:


I don't like generalisations either but I don't see how it makes an atheist fake.

Atheist aren't fake, and I know there are real atheist, but few, especially in a place like Nigeria where many can sell their convictions in exchange for goodies and solution to problems.

I know when a man has a conviction whether is for or against what I belief is a different issue. But a man with a conviction can be trusted anyday, at least, we will know what he is known for.


But not these ones we find on NL daily, who are disturbed by varying life challenges and drew their unstable conviction under the umbrella of laziness, social pressure and localized view of things.

They see the new found love (atheism) as an avenue to showcase their past disappointments.


Like I pointed out last time, it's as if most of the intelligent and dutiful Atheists on NL have been converted even though you disagreed partially, but if that isn't true, then I can conclude they have moved on or taken the back seat to give space to the wannabes of these days.

Whatever the case, all I can see is that the holds is giving way gradually and it shall be.

Firefoxy:
As an ex-Christian who has had more encounters with Christians, and since Nigeria is a predominantly Christian society, my main focus is on Christians. This article is merely pointing out the hypocrisy and “insanity” of “religious people”.

CHRISTIANS ON OTHER RELIGIONS/BELIEFS:
Christians want to be able to say things like, “there’s only one true god and other gods are fake” in reference to other religions, or “only a fool believes that there’s no god” in reference to unbelievers, but the moment Christianity is criticized, you get checked because you have no right to “disrespect” their religion. They want to freely express their beliefs and even shove it in your face with or without your consent, while condescending you the moment you express yours. They have the right to destroy shrines, to stand at every corner of the road, harassing people in the name of evangelism, but the moment one says that they don’t believe in any kind of religion or god, they’re crazy. If and irreligious person saying that god doesn’t exist is disrespectful to your religion, then you saying that god exists is disrespectful to their unbelief. But of course, the logic doesn’t work like that.


CHRISTIANS ON MORALITY:
Of course they’d also prioritize their moral values above other peoples. They’re the first to call a girl names, slut, ashawo, olosho, undeserving of respect the moment she dresses in a way that doesn’t align with their morals. They have demonized sex, especially for women, as their god requires. I stand to be corrected but there’s literally no part of the Bible that states a woman should be disrespected if she doesn’t dress a certain way. Even though Nigerians Christians have collectively agreed that certain things which are not in the Bible, like white weddings, are not a part of their religion. So why then are people expected to look a certain way, or have a certain sexual lifestyle before they’re deserving of respect? “Your body is the temple of god” is a phrase that can be interpreted in several ways, and Christians have only ever used it to justify their insulting and disrespecting other people. They don’t care about diversity. They’ve created a route that they believe everyone must follow, and if your dare to divert from the route and try to express yourself differently, you must be condemned. They want everyone else to also stick to the status quo. The hypocrisy and toxicity of this cult is unmatched.

CHRISTIANITY AND THE LAW:
They also use their religious beliefs to justify the most insane and illogical laws, even though they’ll constantly condemn the sharia law for existing. Is that hypocrisy or is that hypocrisy? There’s literally no logical argument for why people of the same gender having sex should be a crime apart from the fact that Yaweh doesn’t like it. A group of people are constantly harassed, insulted, killed for simply existing, and their existence is a “taboo” and nobody cares what is happening to them. After all, they can just “choose” to not have that sexuality if they want to be respected. Religious people emote nothing but sheer bitterness and wickedness.

CHRISTIANITY AND MISOGYNY:
They’ll constantly demean women too, desperately trying to put them in a place, of course because god say so. While many women would pretend that Christianity supports equality, it’s all just a hollow excuse. Now Christian men believe that they have a right to a woman, she also owes them her “virginity” even though they can live their life however they want. This woman also must be submissive to him whether it’s in her nature or not, whether she likes it or not. While submission isn’t a bad thing, it cannot be forced, because then it becomes a bad thing. Let’s not even go into Leviticus as a whole, because according to Christians, the Old Testament no longer applies, even though that’s where they get the statement they use to justify homophobia or other forms of hate.


We’ve given religious people too much power over us, and in many cases it’s necessary if we want to survive, and at the end of the day, they’ll point fingers at you and call you the bad guy, the crazy one.

@LordReed
Do you see another one? This is the third in succession.

A man who hasn't walked pass his community nor see sun beyond his localised horizon claiming to know how ALL CHRISTIANS in Nigeria think and act. I guess he just want to feel good.

If you tell him now that he is generalizing, he will ask me to prove it to him, or show him where.

A man which conviction is based on generalization never have any conviction to start with.

Like I have always said,

the ONLY lifeline atheism and irreligious have on Christian Faith is power of generalization. Atheism, especially those in Nigeria won't survive a minute contest when the ability to generalized is removed from their discussion on Christian faith.

To me, I know there are only very few atheists in Nigeria, most of those who claimed to be atheists are only birthed from confusion of false biblical doctrine, disappointments on wrong expectation from God and inordinate desires to be rebellious.

They plenty on NL here camouflaging as atheists.

budaatum:


Hmm. I think you are in error in condemning his unbelief.

If he believed a serpent truly spoke to Eve, I put it to you that he wouldn't understand anything at all, and would be like a naked ignorant enslaved Adam, naked in a Garden of Eden.

I guess that is what he believed.

And actually, I ain't judging him, I am only pointing him to the fact that his current decision is based on wrong knowledge.

Sirsesan:


It is the combination of omniscience and omnipotence that contradicts free will.

God's omnipotence means that he had the power to design the world such that every human would make any particular set of decisions every step of the way. By designing the world the way he did, and having the foreknowledge of every single one of the trillions of trillions of decisions that would be made based on each detail of design, god necessarily determined (and effectively decreed) every single one of those decisions that every human would make. The only way he could not have is if he temporarily restricted his own omnipotence and/or omniscience at the point of creation. There seems to be no credible theist who has provided evidence that god turned down either of those characteristics.

[The bible doesn't support any claim that God tone down his omniscience ability for FREEWILL. Is like shifting the goal post when a goal is about to be scored.]

I feel you aren't explaining this within the confined of the scriptures. If you do then you are doing it in isolated theology. The scriptures must not be taken as abstract knowledge where you pick a word or text and give it an isolated meaning from its surrounding explanation and by extension the whole book.

Hence to give a meaning to such concept as omnipotence from Bible perspective you must put it within the explanation of other concepts taught in the scriptures.

For example, you can't teach God's omnipotence outside his being a Just and Righteous God. If you do, then you will only end up with illogical explanation and abstract theology which I have seen in many response here.

The same Bible that you pointed to in speaking about God's omnipotence, same told you God is Just and Righteous hence, they must be put together to identify the true attribute of God.


Your explanation of God's omnipotence from the scriptures left other undeniable attributes about God in the scriptures. Hence, you won't arrive at the scriptural answer.


Few of the several questions a Bible student will ask in handling the concept being discuss will include.

1. Can the one who desire to exert his omnipotence always be a Just one at the same time?

2. Can a Just and Righteous God also insist on his omnipotence in all thing?

3. Can you love and still stands to exercise your omnipotence at every given opportunity to the one you loved?

These and much more are critical questions to examine before you can come to conclude on the concept of omnipotence as taught in the scriptures.

officialmario:
A Nigerian lady known as Marrgarritah on Twitter has come out to narrate how she gave a Pastor a fake name as the name of her boyfriend only for the pastor to start seeing visions of the fake name that did not exist.
According to her tweet, she did it intentionally to test to the authenticity of the pastor’s prophecies who claimed he could see “visions” of the future. She said in her tweet:

“I remember giving a pastor a fake boyfriend’s name, and he suddenly ‘saw’ that his mother would be wicked to me. That i need to pray very well so she can like me.

“Asked my mother later why the pastor couldn’t “see” that I gave him a fake name,” she narrated.

Nigerians then came on to the comment section, having had similar encounters, to express their different experiences on the subject matter.

She isn't different from the Pastor though. For her to have conceived in her mind things like this (giving names to Pastor to pray). It obviously shows that she is part of the scam problem.

A scammer and a scammee must exist before we can have a scam.

Most times, a scam is the presentation of what a scammee desperately crave for even when advised against it, she will not take heed.

alphaNomega:


These are the men of God hupernikao follows, fake people with fake stories from fake books.

E Pèlé Sir.

I know you have been sold dummies many times and been lied to. It is obvious in your views and Bible education. But you see not everyone was or stayed under such shackles.

I know it has a great effect on you though you think you are free from it.
But try know this that the effect is still affecting how you see things and others, that means, even though you feel you aren't no more there, they have sown a seed that can last eternity in you. A wrong seed that yet informed all you do.


All your exposure to this scriptures have been affected and all your conviction against the scriptures today is still driven by the fake doctrine and scam you were exposed to.


With this, you can't actually say, you have been freed from this shackles since you are still driven by its negative effect on you.


The good news is, there is help. You can be helped. To be able to see right, think right and act right about the scriptures.


You don't have to belief the scriptures, that is a personal choice but at least let your unbelief be driven from a point of understanding of the scriptures and intelligent reading of the scriptures to show you are a honest person.

This is what is missing and it shows much in your words and thoughts here.

alphaNomega:


In your bid to misinterprete a fake Bible story, twice, you have refused to answer the question. I am limiting our discussion to this one case in the garden of Eden story because I know if you do not understand this one, you sure as hell cannot understand the rest of it.

I would not stop you from believing a book that says a serpent spoke to a woman in a garden and a donkey spoke to its rider. You are the one with a childish intellect for believing such a book.

You are still in the same condition. You are a bad reader.. And I am not surprised the state you are now with your unbelief. It's a product of very poor reading and erroneous doctrine.

I am sure you read animal farm book and still chat up George Orwell asking him what does he mean by horse talking.

You should know how you will feel if you ask such question in public. Like I told you in my first response. Don't loose your literacy education when reading the Bible.

Don't read "God rest" and be looking for his mat or bed

Don't read "God visited them" and be looking for the Toyota car or his itinerary.

Don't read "serpent said" and be searching around for a snake that can talk.

These are product of poor learning and education.


But I am not surprised. When you read an ancient book with a millennia mindset, this is what you become.

Someday you will ask, why there was no rocket in the Bible but horses for war.

You need proper scolding to get your literacy mindset back.

MaxInDHouse:


Of course God is not interested in the way you pronounce his name but we must be aware that he has a PERSONAL name that's what matters.
For instance some call him Yehowah, Lehova, Jehovah, Jèhófà but we know that it's the tongue that differs the name is the same.
Just as the name Jesus, Jesu, Yeshua, Yesu is not disputed when mentioned!

So he is not interested in the spelling and pronunciation now? Even when you call him a name that doesn't exist in any language? Jehovah wasn't Jew, that's not what Moses got. Jehovah doesn't exist in any language, it was coined out from a language. But you said God isn't interested in that but interested in why it was used as Lord.

Okay nah.

alphaNomega:


This is why you like difficult and confusing things. Sufferhead life. It is people like you that make life difficult.

I guess this is the reason you ask questions like someone in children church. The reason you enjoy story than the wisdom behind it. You just needed someone who will rub your back and give you moonlight story. You need to grow beyond that. Life isn't in such stories but wisdom.

alphaNomega:

After all this front and back explanation, you still did not answer the simple question sincerely.

Let me ask you again Sir, in case you forgot the main question while explaining irrelevant things,

So are you telling me it was not a serpent that spoke (according to your Bible) to Eve in the garden of Eden? It was something else?

It's still the same problem.

Having answered you twice, you still can't read properly to see. I guess you were taught to use pictures than read words. Thus is why your mind is filled with a serpent because all you seems to understand is to watch it as movies or story book.


Let me help you here.

Firstly, you need to develop the attitude of reading well. It comes from determination and will prevent you from open disgrace. You must read and read properly. As it stands now, I will advise you to always read a paragraph 3 times before moving to the next. This will help you to know how to read well and comprehend.


Secondly, stop looking for yes or no answer. You can leave that for nursery students. It's kids that ask yes or no.

Can I take the milk dad? Yes or No?
. That's how kids talk.

For you, you need to to seek for explanation to know how things are and works. You need to stand in knowledge not in stories. This is how you will improve.

It doesn't represent you well that I have to be answering one question 2times and yet you still can't read it.

Now, go and take up your Bible, calm your mind, open to Genesis 3, get a Strong concordance and trace how Moses used serpent all through his writing. Also take out time to read the Bible not what the remnant of wrong teaching in your mind.

You will be fine if you do the above well and twice.

haddeylium:


I won't say you're misinformed because you only reply based on the much you know.
Yes! You're right, the letter J wasn't invented untill 1600 in English modern language but

Can Jerusalem be the Jewish holy city if the letter J did not exist in the Hebrew language?
Isn't the pronunciation of 'Yehousa' as Jesus hypocritical?
What about Joshua, Jeremiah, Jacob? They're are all Hebrew names.
Have they been altered as well?
That's is what is called Translations. A letter is just a pictorial symbol of a human vocal sound.

That's a lame and baseless excuse to desecrated God's word by removing his own name as the Author of his book

You are actually the one who don't understand what you are saying. And you contributed to the desecration. You corrupted the name and yet think yours is correct but others aren't.

What you wrote up there just confirmed that if we have to follow your argument of confirming God name through spellings then even Jerusalem, Jeremiah etc will all be wrong names. You are the one who proposed this J to be part of God's name. It was never part.


I don't have issues with the usage of J, which of course is not part of Jewish consonant. But you were the one who want to box God into Jehovah because you felt others are wrong. Hence I let you know that even the name spelling Jehovah is corrupted if we go by your explanation. Hence your explanation will also make Jerusalem wrong. It was never called Jerusalem until recent, go and check your jews lexicon well.
But you tried to justify your own corruption.

So, my point is.

Using lord for Jehovah or yahweh or yhwh isn't the issue but your understanding of the word and your heart. But since you want to tread that line, I gave you to poser.

descarado:

It's women that empower these people. Look very well at a man who is serious over church. His eye dey near the tithe and offering boxes .
A young girl will start taking prayer and church serious while in higher institution or after college.
1. Pray to get good posting, find husband, born sharp sharp, born boy for those that have problem with it, that no jezebel will see her husband, that no village people will see her family, that her husband continues to prosper irrespective of what he does for a living, that her children grow well, girls will marry good husbands, born and doing well. money for school, most importantly, that her son is a man( you know what I mean). The list is endless. They will continue till grandchildren or great grand. They no dey tire

But I noticed that at a certain time, the prayer points will shift from the husband entirely.


Shout out to all our mums. They are the real slayers and legends.

Ahnie, you got to embrace it, no running away from it

This is too myopic. NL is on internet not a village where you glorify ordinary local or community exposure.

alphaNomega:


So are telling me it was not a serpent? It was something else?

Simple question. Simple answer.

Simple answer is what makes many fail exams of life. Bible don't just answer questions, it answer by explanation. Hence an answer to a Bible question without explanation is as dangerous as gambling in an objective exam questions.

So, you ask if it's not a serpent.

I guess I provided enough answers in my previous post to you.

Serpent are symbolic of character in Moses days.

Observe Moses wasn't the only writer or writing that survived the ancient near east culture of Mesopotamia. There was a way they wrote and communicate wisdom.

Serpent was used in their culture as symbolic when communicating. The same way as tortoise was used in several African folklore to explain ancient wisdom. This was how the ancient communicate wisdom.

A man call a Wiseman in ancient world is one who make use of his environment and things around to unravel wisdom and events.

Hence you will see this a lot in Moses writing.

Gen 49:17 KJV -
Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward

Here he used serpent to represent a man. A figurative expression. That was how Moses wrote as a Wiseman in his days.

So, if you read the Bible together you will find out yourself that the serpent in Genesis 3 is simply the devil.

So, read again that account of Genesis 3 for proper explanation.

MaxInDHouse:


Well Micah has solved the problem:

For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever. KJV

For all the peoples will walk, each in the name of its god, But we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God forever and ever. NWT

The above is what God's prophet wrote in the Bible book of Micah 4:5

And if Jesus could lay so much emphasis on the name of His God {John 17:6, 26} it means something very significant is tied to knowing God by a unique name not just titles along with the usual way others refer to their Gods!

May you have PEACE!

And then the corrupted name, abi? Or did God give Jehovah as his name? Did Jesus ever use the name Jehovah? Even Moses, did he ever use Jehovah, J consonant? Vowels sound? Or you have corrupted the name?

haddeylium:


God himself explained the meaning of his name to his faithful servant Moses. When Moses asked about God’s name, Jehovah replied: “I Will Become What I Choose to Become.” (Exodus 3:14)

Rotherham’s translation renders those words: “I Will Become whatsoever I please.”

So God can become whatever is needed in order to fulfill his purposes, and he can cause to happen whatever is required with regard to his creation and the accomplishment of his purpose.

I have asked you a simple question which you haven't answered. Is God name Jehovah. Was that the name he gave Moses? Is there J in jews consonant, what of the vowels?

Have you not altered the name yourself?. Or you feel the misspelling doesn't matter?

Like I said, if the word Lord hasn't been used that would have given more credence to the concept of trinity you seems to negate.

achorladey:


I am only making you see the point haddeylium was trying to pass across. My own response to his original post shows the title of his thread has no foundation to stand upon. Since he said knowing the personal name of God is fundamental to having relationship with God then I have asked him where in the scripture did Jesus himself call the name?

The one and only scholar the organization haddeylium belongs himself said Jesus never for once called God by the name JEHOVAH so me I am still waiting for him to tell me the basis of the thread knowing fully well that the relationship Haddeylium has with his earthly father was never based on calling his father by name in the first place.

Okay. Great. Sorry for the oversight.

Crystyano:



Hello

I just want to ask if you're doing fine

I hope there's still hope concerning what we discussed


I'm even thinking of what to tell my brother because he wants me to assist him too

I will reach you by tomorrow.

MaxInDHouse:


Joshua, Jonathan, Jeremiah, Jonah, Jehoshaphat, John , Jesus, James were never pronounced like that because the original Hebrew language doesn't have the letter "J" so if we are using those names today nothing makes any difference using JEHOVAH as the personal name of our own God!

This isn't the focus. You can are trying to justify using a wrong name for God if I am to follow the line of thought of the OP and his fellow.

So if Jehovah is corrupted name, not what was given, how come it is used and allowed in the OP as God's name but see other names translated as issue.

Like I said, trying to decide doctrine by spellings and name pronunciation is an effort in futility. Doctrine is not premised on that. But if we want to go that route, there are many evidence to proof that wrong as above.

Vickyvice:
d issue is that if they hadn'tn't removed it from Bible, u will have to start asking questions about Trinity belief, since Jehovah refers to only one person, who would be clearly different from Jesus.imagine if u and your dad are engineers, professors, and your dad's name is Rex and yours is Michael, and somebody comes asking for the engineer, who lives in the house, how will they know who he's asking for? If they hadn't removed it, you will easily know that though, there are many gods and Lord's, to Christians, we have only one God, Jehovah, and one Lord, Jesus. They are different and seperate, just like both of us are physically different.. read Psalm 83 vs18, where d God himself make am totally impossible for the name, Jehovah to be removed from bible, where it says that "you alone whose name is Jehovah". It's in all Bible's. Apart from this verse, most, infact all other places u see "lord", it is supposed to be Jehovah. Remember that Bible also makes us know and understand that the title "Lord", father, reverence can rightfully be addressed to both God himself, Jesus and even man too

If you really understand that concept, you will know that what you proposed above will just beautifully and exactly affirm trinity and removed all doubt from your heart.

haddeylium:


You don't get it, do you?
Nobody cares if that God's name written the same way it was in Hebrew language.
JOY in English and AYO in Yoruba are spelt differently but they have the same meaning. That's translations.
God's name can be translated in whatever language only if it carries the same meaning bad it is in the bible.
They soiled God's word by removing his name and replacing it with title

So what is Jehovah in your language. What does it mean. Name of God? Nah so.

alphaNomega:


Genesis 3
King James Version
3 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


Your post shows me you don't read your Bible, you wake up every Sunday, put on your best clothes, go to church and press phone or fall asleep.

Now your assignment, read Numbers 22:21-39 for your Bible story of a talking donkey.

you are very funny. So bold with ignorance.

So in your mind now you have read the Bible. Moses a prophet of God was telling you story by moonlight. A very shameful pity is what religion turned how you reason to.

---

So when you read animal farm by George Orwell you didn't have issues with animal talking, right? You understand his writings that he was passing across messages using the character of animals to pass across message. But not that he was affirming animals talking.

But when you pick Bible, reasoning is suspended to know that serpent is symbolic of a character. What you saw was animal talking. Very bad education.


Bro, a basic rule of interpretation of any book is not to loose your basic literature training when reading any literature writing.

Don't see " He kicked the bucket and die" and start shouting how can a bucket kill someone.

That is what you just did with your interpretation. You have lost your basic education of literature writings.

---

Bible is written with human language hence you will find man's literacy, usage of words there. Don't loose your normal reasoning.

What you gave as interpretation up there is the dummy you were sold that led you to where you are now (unbelief).

---

Now pick your Bible and start reading properly.

Read the Genesis account again, with how Moses used serpent in other places in his writings. Also reading well. The book of Revelation gave you a clue of who the serpent is, but when you read every book as love letter from Simbi you won't see the truth but disfocus.

---

With this, You will not be different from the same religious people who sold you a dummy of interpretation of real snake talking as your unbelief is also premised on this lack of understanding the scriptures.

Now, you will be the one who now need to start reading the Bible as a literate person even if you don't believe what it says. But don't read like someone who have issues understanding how writers can skillfully use words to convene wisdom.

You failed woefully here. And this is the plight of many as you. Your unbelief and disbelief was because of false teaching you were exposed to hence you aren't different from the one who also stand in belief through false interpretation.

Though the effect is in opposite direction, you both derived your conviction from same basis (false doctrine)

achorladey:



What's the issue?

To validate his point, title of his thread and validate the point that all other Christians apart from their religious organisation are false Christians for removing the name from Jehovah from the Bible and using it as opportunity to set up TRINITY.

Is Jehovah in the Bible to start with? Is that what what was written in the Bible. Do you have Jehovah as a word in any original writings. Let's start from there if you want to be picking spellings, translations and it's usage.

haddeylium:


Nice point
Many people are not aware that God has a personal name because it has been replaced with title like LORD in many of these modern bible based on the biased discretion of those translators under the influence of their doctrine.
It's so misleading that when people encounter the word 'LORD' in their bible, they won't know it's referring to Jesus' father 'JEHOVAH' and they ignorantly attribute it to Jesus t
In support of Trinity

When you go this track of examining names as correct only when it's written in the very language, you may end up shooting yourself in the leg after all.

Vickyvice:
putting the name Jehovah, in it's rightful place in d bible, nullifies the false teaching of Trinity. Except for Psalm 83:18 which makes it impossible for the name to be removed, cos it directly/specifically states that he alone bears the name Jehovah. All or most places u see Lord in d bible, it's supposed to be Jehovah. This person is separate from Jesus and is referred to as Almighty God and greater than Jesus. Granted, he, just like Jesus, and even man, share some other names/titles, such as Lord, Father, eminence, Judge etc, but the Name Jehovah can't be shared.

You guys just have a way of rolling trinity to every discussion. What's the issue.

alphaNomega:
Science does not need you to believe for it to be true or not, so you have to remove that "believers" of science part from your post.

For example, "The earth is not flat", whether you believe it or not, this statement is true.

Unlike some religious text that requires you to believe a snake was talking to a woman, or a donkey was speaking to a prophet.

Which of the text told you to believe a snake talking to a woman? Which? If this is what you were taught, you have been sold a dummy and your conviction outside the texts today is based on erroneous teaching you were made to believe. Hence, what you hold today as true, is most likely not true.

Tobedated:
Yes that right free from religion i can't believe i believed in that shit for a long time i hope others to find a way out it just sad that i can't convince my family what a pity

Thank God you knew and confessed you were under religion before. There is difference between being under religion and being under the truth of God's word. I know your plight. The truth is, everyone under the shackles of religion will someday leave religion and receive the light of God's word.

Yet there are few who the stronghold of religion has successfully derailed and claimed to have left God because of this afterwards. Actually it's from dark to dark, just a change of direction. False teaching in the name of Religion share so much in common as Athiesm especially in Nigeria. They are driven by same ideology, but in opposite direction.


Hence, I am glad to tell you this, that there is the truth of God's word you were never exposed to, even though you have been exposed to the Bible under religion. I pray it surely come, even though it may tarry, the light will come.


Let me copy my distance Brother MaxInDHouse.

John 8:32

sonmvayina:


All these are just your opinions..

Show me where one prophet said GOD was going to impregnate another man's wife to sire a son that would be offered As a sacrifice for sins? Amos 3:7 says God does nothing without first revealing it to his servants the prophets..

Isaiah 53 is talking about a suffering servant not a son. There's no crucifixion ands resurrection, ascension or second coming...it is about a servant that is suffering because of what was done to him. And 8 times prior to 53 Isaiah already told you the servant is Israel. Read 41:4-10 and45 1-10.

God already provided a solution to the problem of sin. All he demands is a contrite hearth and a broken spirit. Repent and forsake he will forgive no animal or human sacrifice was required or necessary...

Or are you now God's adviser?

If he says confes and forsake, I will forgive...what makes you think that is not enough for him?

So my friend you better get out that idolatry and learn the Laws of your creator and keep them.. and leave Jesus for the romans..

I am not sure you are ready for Bible discussion. You have shown the signs already. When you cant stay on a single point you raised and conclude its examination before jumping to another. It simply means you are either not ready or just don't know what you are to say.


You told me to point you to where man as sin offering is mentioned by a prophets. I showed you, the Genesis of it and also pointed you to Isaiah. Your feedback is to jump into another unresearched claim.

If this is what you want to do, you can count me out. I appreciate people who holds a conviction they can defend not looking for how to be jumping from one claim to another. It is such unserious jumping that has birthed many confusion today.

So, if you want to discuss. Talk on your first claim.

The sin offering, the offering of the firstborn. Is it alien to the OT? No. I have shown you text to my claims, show me yours. This is not about zigzap movement, let's have an intelligent communication here. Thanks.

Bacteriologist:



Great.

Let's talk about Genesis.


1. Genesis 6:19 God commands Noah to bring 2 of every kind of animals, clean or unclean. You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.


Yet in Genesis 7:1 he is to take either 7 or 7 pairs of each clean animal, and (presumably) 2 of all the rest.
The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth




2. God created man and woman at the same time.

Gen 1:27
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.


God created women after men.

Gen 2:21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.



There are many more contradictions in Genesis alone. But I only took the effort to write these two. Just to see how you will respond and if you'll be worth conversing with.

Have you read the Bible well and understand what it says? This is the basis of our discussion. I will want you to confirm to me first that you have READ the Bible well and UNDERSTAND its teaching and can confirm its false or contradictory.

I am not working on hear say or online reading.

Kindly confirm this first.

sonmvayina:


God only gave us laws to follow and obey. If we sin, by breaking the laws. He has also provided a solution for us to get back in his good books. None of which involve human sacrifice...read 2nd Chronicles 7:14.

Show me one prophet of God that said anything about God sending his son as a sacrifice for sin? I will wait.

I TRULY HOPE YOU WILL READ THIS WELL BEFORE RESPONDING.


Firstly it depends on what you referred to as sacrifice. But I will leave that terminology for now.

But observe this very well. That there is no single text of the NT that was not built upon the law and the prophets. No single text of it stands on its own. The writers and speakers were students of the law and the prophets. All they wrote were read from the scriptures of their days (Genesis to Malachi).

Hence any concept you see in the NT can naturally be explained from the OT. It simply means that the NT writers were only explaining what Moses and the prophets said all through their times.

Have this at the back of your mind. Because it's central to how you will study even the OT.

---

Now to your question.

The doctrine of the firstborn or son or firstling isn't strange to OT, as I have pointed out to you, that the events of the NT are mostly fulfillment or explanation of the voices and practices of the prophets.

That word, firstborn, was taken from the Hebrew word bekora. It's referred to as firstling, birthright etc. It's a word that is more of purpose than position.

1. Abel offered bekora
2. Abraham was to offer his bekora, his son. Isaac was called his first and only son even though he had Ishmael.
3. In Esau and Jacob we saw the importance of the firstborn position as Esau sacrificed his for food.
4. Moses instructions on offerings, spoke of what must be offered. He instructed it to be the firstborn, firstling.

I can go on and on.
Those instances I pointed you to speaks about things. Moses was a prophets, hence, his words are symbolic.

Abel was called a prophet, his actions are symbolic of the future.

Same as Abraham's offering.

---

Secondly, I saw your presentation and argument on Isa 53. And you argued that the prophet was referring to Israel. I will leave that argument for another day. But the point here is, if I follow your explanation. That means God did actually offered Israel as a nation to suffer for all. To die for all.

Isa 53
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.


So, if I am to go by your argument in Isa 53, then the offering for sin was a nation. That's even more than a single person. Bear in mind also, that Israel was referred to has "my son". The bekora of God. And offered for sin. All these pointed to something ahead.

---

In conclusion, the doctrine of offering for sin via the firstborn was first seen Genesis, in the law, and in the prophets.

These formed the foundation of the NT writer and served as the prophecies fulfilled in the NT in christ Jesus.

As prophets of God in the OT, they only use events, words, teachings, laws and actions to show God's plan ahead of time. Hence, they are prophetic in nature. The reasons they are called the prophets.


We may not be able to exhaust this here but, I will conclude by saying that, a proper reading of the OT will definitely point you to only one thing: Christ the savior.


And I hope you truly read this for discussion and not turn to abusive strategy common here.

LordReed:


There is nothing to Lord over, this is a semi popular joke so this isn't my first time seeing it.

Well, since it's a joke, I am still laughing at him since then.

sonmvayina:


Read my thread

https://www.nairaland.com/6766026/jesus-serapis-truth-finally-revealed

I have read it. I stopped reading after the first 8 lines which are inconsistent with history.

The right up stated that Jesus was "created" starting from council of Nicea. My single poser to you earlier fault that completely and am sure the whole writeup was built on that faulty ground.

Followers of Jesus existed before Nicea council. The conveyor was a follower of Christ. Documents existed of followers of Christ. Hence, pointing to 3rd century as the beginning of "Christ" is an activity of trying to console a troubled mind.

You will need to do your research and again and very well in this to have better evidence.


I also discovered you honor the law of Moses and the Prophets. Then I wonder how you haven't seen Christ in their words. He was the voice of the prophets. The faith in the writings of Moses and the songs on the lips of the psalmists.

LordReed:


My understanding of the OP is that it's tongue in cheek humour, not meant to be taken as serious claim.

A very smart waiver for him.
A good confirmation of the Lord before the Reed

But let him always add a caveat, that he is a joker and know nothing about what he's saying. That will settle our issue with a smile.

Workch:
You won’t get a conversation from me if you don’t discuss the Mary virgin birth.

It’s as simple as that dude. You can cry all you want

I won't respond to you again. You only speak of what you don't know.

You claimed to have read the Bible, I challenged you to start a discussion on that, you want me to be the one to do it for you.

This is second time I have told you to go and do your research and study properly before coming to public space and disgrace yourself.

Don't ever think it's everyone that was exposed or carry around the erroneous doctrine that birth denial, faithlessness and disappointment in you. No, there are people who dedicate all their life's searching daily to know more on what is the truth and why is the truth and can present their conviction even to the best of atheist in this world.


Put that behind your head next time you want to criticize or write a post about the Bible.