Image123:


But you think so most. Is placebo effect likely God, you say it's impossible.

Oh oooh! You catch am well well.

Typical Atheists double standard.

What is good for the gander the goose miust be stopped from having it.

,

SIRTeee15:


I'm not here to discuss John 1.1 but what 2nd temple Judaism understand by the word logos in their language- Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek or Latin.

I hope you know that logos can be used in different contexts. So, saying you don't want to discuss John 1:1 which is the only place the logos was used to designate Jesus as a manifestation of God, shocks me.

Now let's talk about the Aramaic bible called Targum, the same Aramaic bible used by Jesus in the 1st century AD.
Now in the Aramaic bible, whenever God appears in person, like when God appeared to Abraham or Moses, the term memra (Aramaic for "word" ) is often used instead of 'the LORD', especially when referring to a manifestation of God that could be construed as anthropomorphic.
E.g instead of saying 'The LORD appeared to Abraham', it will read 'memra (the word) appeared to Abraham'.
THAT IS LOGOS.
This showed the Jews believed in the manifestation of the 'WORD' appearing as a person and being God.

Interesting. I did find that the Aramaic bible you speak of were translations done in an attempt to revert the hebrew bible to Aramaic and not the first iterations of the bible as you insinuate.

Writing down the targum was initially prohibited; nevertheless, some targumitic writings appeared as early as the middle of the first century AD. They were not recognized as authoritative by the religious leaders. Some subsequent Jewish traditions (beginning with the Babylonian Jews) accepted the written targumim as authoritative translations of the Hebrew scriptures into Aramaic. Today, the common meaning of targum is a written Aramaic translation of the Bible. Only Yemenite Jews continue to use the targumim liturgically.
---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targum

<sub>This aramaic bible use of the word memra stem from the understanding of the Jews belief in what is the word of God. They understand it to be an active force proceeding from God with a life of it's own.

In the Targum, the Word or Memra is doing, being, and acting as God and yet we see that he is also with God, a distinct essence apart from Him.

And the Memra (Word) of the LORD said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light by His Memra (Word). A (Genesis 1:1–3; Targum Neofiti)

In fact, the Memra is the one who rested after all his work:

“On the seventh day, the Memra of the LORD completed his work which he had created, and there was Sabbath.” (Genesis 2:3; Targum Neofit</sub>

In Hebrew, the places you mentioned used "Messenger of God."

This is the Christian understanding of TRINITY-
manifestation of God in more than one person. This evidence and belief is shared by old testament scriptures and 2nd temple Judaism. All this before anyone was ever called Christian.

The original Christians wouldn't understand what you're saying. They didn't know anything like Trinity. They mostly didn't speak Greek either, and mind you, LOGOS as seen in John 1:1 is purely a hellenized concept. Other instances of Logos tally with the hebrew equivalent of the word except in the case of John 1:1.

And this is the same JEWISH belief John wrote about in his gospel by letting us know memra became flesh and dwelt among us.
That is the origin of the concept, my friend, a deeply rooted Jewish belief from the Old Testament.
It wasn't any extrapolation from the Greek or Roman ideology.

Whoever wrote the book of John must have been schooled in Greek. There's a common consensus that Jesus if he understood Greek, spoke very little of it. The same goes for his disciples. Even though Judea, Galilee, where Jesus was born, was probably bilingual, the Jews generally didn't speak it.

Even Josephus, who was learned in Greek, made blunders when he was translating and had to call Romans to assist. Therefore, John, Peter, James, etc couldn't have understood what Logos meant as used in John 1:1.

If the Logos was something the Jews where conversant with, then it doesn't make sense that the Jewish preist, the disciples of jesus would doubt his claims, right?

You are arguing using the bible as bases of historical event when the bible itself is what we are trying to dissect. It's like using the testimony of an alleged thief to judge a case. No, Sirtee, that's not how arguments are done. Use external sources, please.

FYI, there's a difference between biblical scholars and theologians. The latter are not very different from your pastors. If you want clarity, seek the biblical scholars.

SIRTeee15:



<sub>Did Peter agree with Paul

2 Peter 3

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.


Did John agree with the gentiles regarding divinity of Christ.

1 John 4
This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html</sub>

Once, Jesus privately asked his apostles, “‘who do you say that I am?’ And Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16.15-16).

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1.3)
“Through him you have come to trust in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are set on God” (v. 21).

Some traditionalists cite the last clause in 2 Peter 1.1 to support that Peter believed Jesus was God. Nearly all English Bibles translate it as the New American Standard Bible (NASB) does, which reads, “of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” One Person is in view, which calls Jesus “God.” But the King James Version (KJV) reads, “of God and our Savior Jesus Christ.” Two Persons are in view, so that Jesus is not called “God.”

This difference is due to a grammatical problem. Since soteros (Savior) in the Greek text is anarthrous (without the article), the question is whether the personal pronoun hemon (our) applies to theou (God), as in the NASB, or soteros, as in the KJV. J.N.D. Kelly says of this same issue in Titus 2.13, “‘Savior’ tended to be anarthrous (cf 1 Tim 1.1), and in any case the correct use of the article was breaking down in late Greek.”

The following internal evidence indicates that the two Persons rendering is correct:

(1) if Peter authored 1 and 2 Peter, he would not call Jesus “God” in 2 Peter 1.1 and inject confusion by distinguishing them in the next verse; (2) a similar compound title, “the/our Lord and Savior (Jesus Christ),” appears four times in this letter (2 Peter 1.11; 2.20; 3.2, 18), indicating that it had become a fixed formula that does not identify Jesus as God; (3) Peter would not have written “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” in 1 Peter 1.3 and then call Christ “God” here in 2 Peter 1.1.

In sum, Peter did not believe Jesus was God but that he was the Christ, the Savior, the obedient and subordinate servant of the sovereign and only God—the Father.
https://21stcr.org/oneness-pentecostalism-article/did-peter-believe-jesus-was-god/

Who is the Man behind 2 Peter 1?

2 Peter 1 is the first chapter of the Second Epistle of Peter in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. The author identifies himself as "Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ" and the epistle is traditionally attributed to Peter the Apostle, but some writers argue that it is the work of Peter's followers in Rome between the years 70 and 100. --------------------https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Peter_1

kkins25:
I hope you know that logos can be used in different contexts. So, saying you don't want to discuss John 1:1 which is the only place the logos was used to designate Jesus as a manifestation of God, shocks me.


Interesting. I did find that the Aramaic bible you speak of were translations done in an attempt to revert the hebrew bible to Aramaic and not the first iterations of the bible as you insinuate.

Writing down the targum was initially prohibited; nevertheless, some targumitic writings appeared as early as the middle of the first century AD. They were not recognized as authoritative by the religious leaders. Some subsequent Jewish traditions (beginning with the Babylonian Jews) accepted the written targumim as authoritative translations of the Hebrew scriptures into Aramaic. Today, the common meaning of targum is a written Aramaic translation of the Bible. Only Yemenite Jews continue to use the targumim liturgically.
---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targum



In Hebrew, the places you mentioned used "Messenger of God."



The original Christians wouldn't understand what you're saying. They didn't know anything like Trinity. They mostly didn't speak Greek either, and mind you, LOGOS as seen in John 1:1 is purely a hellenized concept. Other instances of Logos tally with the hebrew equivalent of the word except in the case of John 1:1.



Whoever wrote the book of John must have been schooled in Greek. There's a common consensus that Jesus if he understood Greek, spoke very little of it. The same goes for his disciples. Even though Judea, Galilee, where Jesus was born, was probably bilingual, the Jews generally didn't speak it.

Even Josephus, who was learned in Greek, made blunders when he was translating and had to call Romans to assist. Therefore, John, Peter, James, etc couldn't have understood what Logos meant as used in John 1:1.

If the Logos was something the Jews where conversant with, then it doesn't make sense that the Jewish preist, the disciples of jesus would doubt his claims, right?

You are arguing using the bible as bases of historical event when the bible itself is what we are trying to dissect. It's like using the testimony of an alleged thief to judge a case. No, Sirtee, that's not how arguments are done. Use external sources, please.

FYI, there's a difference between biblical scholars and theologians. The latter are not very different from your pastors. If you want clarity, seek the biblical scholars.

What do U mean by Aramaic bible is irrelevant. As at the time of Jesus, few Jews could read and understand Hebrew exception being religious leaders.
The common people had to rely on translation from Hebrew to Aramaic to understand the bible.
The written form had memra replaced for the personhood of the LORD in Aramaic translation.
This was before Christianity and had nothing to do with greeco-roman influence.
So why did the Jews in 2nd temple period start using memra for God. That's my point.

What do U mean by Hebrew bible use messenger of God for the LORD. Stop capping bro, quit the lies. If u don't know something, either ignore or learn. U don't win all argument.
Check Hebrew bible verses for places it says memra in Aramaic translation. It never said messenger of God.

What do u mean by theologian? Is Bart Erhman a theologian? Do U know Bart Erhman? He's a core atheist as it comes.
I brought Bart Erhman here because he's the most popular liberal bible scholar and he's not a theologian. Pls read about him.

I'm happy to debate u the authorship of new testament writers starting with letters of Peter. That will be later in the day.

Both internal and external evidence of a book are used to validate claims in a book. Pls study textual criticism in the academic world.
It's funny u quoting the bible to debunk Christian claims but u don't want me to do the same. We not debating theology here, what we doing is bring up textual evidence to back my claim- this could be internal or external so long as it meets textual criticism criteria.

Finally, once again u don't know the bible enough. Reason U left.
How can u bring Peter's writing saying father is God to invalidate his claim that Jesus is not God.
Peter called Jesus a man in the book of acts. That doesn't mean Jesus can't be God.

That Jesus is the son of God is the main reason he's God. The question is do u know what the son of God means in the new testament. No u don't. because if u do U won't bring Jesus as the son of God as evidence of Jesus can't be God.
Do U even know Jesus was killed by the religious
leaders?

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”[e]

65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?”

“He is worthy of death,” they answered.


18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

Jesus couldn't have been God if he isn't the son of God. Do U get it now?

So I've always made this clear. All atheist who left Christianity did so because they don't understand Christianity. Not because they understood it and felt it doesn't make sense.

You cant say something doesn't make sense or it's false if u don't understand it. This is the case of virtually all atheist and none has disappointed me or disprove my theory. Their understanding of Christian theology is extremely poor.

Case in point is kkins25 who I debated if Peter actually said Jesus is God.
Kkins is of the opinion Peter never called Jesus God because Peter called Jesus the son of God. He also argued Peter used the title God for the Father. According to kkins, if Jesus is the son of God then he couldn't be God and Peter couldn't have called father and son (Jesus) God the same time.
From the above, it's obvious kkins had never studied the bible, didn't attend bible study class and knows nothing about christology/Christophany when he was a Christian. He did not have sound Christian doctrine b4 leaving the faith.
It's unfortunate his church failed him, his pastor failed him, his Christian community failed him. And for this, I apologise on their behalf for a soul is lost in the process.

You cant understand Christianity and then decide to leave. It's impossible. Jesus Christ is the TRUTH and once u KNOW HIM, U get stuck to the truth. It's an eternal union.

The day I meet an atheist or an ex Christian that fully understands Christianity and it's doctrine is the day I will renounce my faith.

I will leave u with this bible verse from John 1.18

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

SIRTeee15:


I will leave u with this bible verse from John 1.18

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

The son of god is the holy spirit, Jesus became son of god after the spirit descended on him. Remember spirit begats spirit. God's son is the holy spirit not Jesus, son of Mary.

In that same john you are quoting, it told you when Jesus became the son of god.

John 1:32-34
32 Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33 And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.

The spirit is the son of God that came down from heaven, not Jesus son of Mary.

John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man

It's you that lacks knowledge on the books you are basing your life on, you gave your life to a mere man and even eat his flesh and drink his blood 😂

Cc kkins25

SIRTeee15:

Ih

Good that you are using the correct Hebrew translation of the Tanakh, hope you know that Isaiah 9:5 is talking about Hezekiah, the translation you have in your various bible VERSIONS is the main problem.
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15940
When we are done we'll move to Isaiah 53.


Religion thrives on ignorance that's why you think a man born in 1st century Palestine is a god, come on 😂😂

SIRTeee15:

That Jesus is the son of God is the main reason he's God. The question is do u know what the son of God means in the new testament. No u don't.

Checking the original Greek of john 1:1, what's the difference between Theo and Theon?

Remember, the word was WITH God(Theon).
The word THEN became theos not Theon.

John 17:3 (ESV), "And this is eternal life, that they know you, the ONLY TRUE God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."

It's more correct to even translate logos as reason rather than "word" 🙃

Maynmann:

Checking the original Greek of john 1:1, what's the difference between Theo and Theon?

Remember, the word was WITH God(Theon).
The word THEN became theos not Theon.

John 17:3 (ESV), "And this is eternal life, that they know you, the ONLY TRUE God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."

It's more correct to even translate logos as reason rather than "word" 🙃

U this mad man is here again.

SIRTeee15:
So I've always made this clear. All atheist who left Christianity did so because they don't understand Christianity. Not because they understood it and felt it doesn't make sense.

You cant say something doesn't make sense or it's false if u don't understand it. This is the case of virtually all atheist and none has disappointed me or disprove my theory. Their understanding of Christian theology is extremely poor.

Case in point is kkins25 who I debated if Peter actually said Jesus is God.
Kkins is of the opinion Peter never called Jesus God because Peter called Jesus the son of God. He also argued Peter used the title God for the Father. According to kkins, if Jesus is the son of God then he couldn't be God and Peter couldn't have called father and son (Jesus) God the same time.
From the above, it's obvious kkins had never studied the bible, didn't attend bible study class and knows nothing about christology/Christophany when he was a Christian. He did not have sound Christian doctrine b4 leaving the faith.
It's unfortunate his church failed him, his pastor failed him, his Christian community failed him. And for this, I apologise on their behalf for a soul is lost in the process.

You cant understand Christianity and then decide to leave. It's impossible. Jesus Christ is the TRUTH and once u KNOW HIM, U get stuck to the truth. It's an eternal union.

The day I meet an atheist or an ex Christian that fully understands Christianity and it's doctrine is the day I will renounce my faith.

I will leave u with this bible verse from John 1.18

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

So any Christian who doesn't interpret the bible the same way you do is not a true Christian? Is that an inference that should be drawn from your statements?

BTW do you think there's any Christian that has been posting on NL that you think has the same interpretation of the bible as you have and who is that person?

SIRTeee15:


Jesus couldn't have been God if he isn't the son of God. Do U get it now?

If only you'd read the text in the images you posted, you'd find that they actually support my post. I answered your Qs.. now answer mine from before.

LordReed:


So any Christian who doesn't interpret the bible the same way you do is not a true Christian? Is that an inference that should be drawn from your statements?

BTW do you think there's any Christian that has been posting on NL that you think has the same interpretation of the bible as you have and who is that person?

11


There are ways u interpret the scriptures based on the hermeneutic phenomenology developed by the early church, and primarily related to understanding the Hebrew Scriptures. Each passage in Scripture is understood to have four meanings:

Literal: What the passage says about the narratives itself.
Allegorical: What the passage can tell us about Christ
Moral: What the passage can teach us about how to live
Anagogical/exegesis: What the passage tells us about our ultimate fate

When I debate atheist, the only way I interpret the scriptures with them is literal. Exegesis has no meaning to U guys and the general consensus is that I guys base your conscience on subjective morality.

Liberal bible scholars also interpret the scripture strictly literally. Does the passage or verse actually meant what Christians claim or we are simply reading meaning to it.

If the bible say Jesus is the son of God and also God. That means the bible confirm jesus to be God. Simple.

Now exegetical interpretation may want to explain the verse another way e.g some may say the verse is claiming Jesus is a lesser god or Jesus is divine but not God....
But that's for theist to debate i.e people who actually believe in the bible.

For example all liberal bible scholars including academic Muslim scholars have admitted that if the gospel of John is true, then Jesus is definitely God.

kkins25:


If only you'd read the text in the images you posted, you'd find that they actually support my post. I answered your Qs.. now answer mine from before.

I think u should do a bit more study on historical theology. You made so many assumptions here that cannot be backed by any substantial evidence.
I want to assume your argument is based on a book called Caesar's Messiah...if this is the case, I will advise u to read academic criticism of the book.

I can't remember any question or claim U brought up that I didn't shred to pieces here.

SIRTeee15:

11


There are ways u interpret the scriptures based on the hermeneutic phenomenology developed by the early church, and primarily related to understanding the Hebrew Scriptures. Each passage in Scripture is understood to have four meanings:

Literal: What the passage says about the narratives itself.
Allegorical: What the passage can tell us about Christ
Moral: What the passage can teach us about how to live
Anagogical/exegesis: What the passage tells us about our ultimate fate

When I debate atheist, the only way I interpret the scriptures with them is literal. Exegesis has no meaning to U guys and the general consensus is that I guys base your conscience on subjective morality.

Liberal bible scholars also interpret the scripture strictly literally. Does the passage or verse actually meant what Christians claim or we are simply reading meaning to it.

If the bible say Jesus is the son of God and also God. That means the bible confirm jesus to be God. Simple.

Now exegetical interpretation may want to explain the verse another way e.g some may say the verse is claiming Jesus is a lesser god or Jesus is divine but not God....
But that's for theist to debate i.e people who actually believe in the bible.

For example all liberal bible scholars including academic Muslim scholars have admitted that if the gospel of John is true, then Jesus is definitely God.

Dude you didn't answer the question I asked.

LordReed:


Dude you didn't answer the question I asked.

Dude all Christians and non Christians have the same literal interpretation of the bible. That's what I'm saying.
All my argument on this thread is strictly literal interpretation of the scriptures. So all Christians will define the scriptures same way literally

As for exegesis, the interpretation may differ because that has to do with faith. But that's btw theist and that's not what I'm doing here.

For example, all Christians will interpret John 1.18 the same. Jesus is the son of God and that makes him God.
That's what the verse say- literal interpretation.

However, Christians may defer on the exegesis- what the verse actually meant when context is applied.
It doesn't matter if the Christian is a nairalander or not.

I rarely come here to debate Christian nairalanders including Unitarians who have a different doctrine of Jesus. So I don't know if they will disagree with me on my exegesis- I'm not here for that
I here to expose the ignorance of Muslims and atheist not Christians.

SIRTeee15:


Dude all Christians and non Christians have the same literal interpretation of the bible. That's what I'm saying.
All my argument on this thread is strictly literal interpretation of the scriptures. So all Christians will define the scriptures same way literally

As for exegesis, the interpretation may differ because that has to do with faith. But that's btw theist and that's not what I'm doing here.

For example, all Christians will interpret John 1.18 the same. Jesus is the son of God and that makes him God.
That's what the verse say- literal interpretation.

However, Christians may defer on the exegesis- what the verse actually meant when context is applied.
It doesn't matter if the Christian is a nairalander or not.

I rarely come here to debate Christian nairalanders including Unitarians who have a different doctrine of Jesus. So I don't know if they will disagree with me on my exegesis- I'm not here for that
I here to expose the ignorance of Muslims and atheist not Christians.

These are my questions again:

So any Christian who doesn't interpret the bible the same way you do is not a true Christian? Is that an inference that should be drawn from your statements?

BTW do you think there's any Christian that has been posting on NL that you think has the same interpretation of the bible as you have and who is that person?

On Nairaland there're several Christians I can mention who do not share your interpretation so please answer the questions.

LordReed:


These are my questions again:

So any Christian who doesn't interpret the bible the same way you do is not a true Christian? Is that an inference that should be drawn from your statements?

Literal or exegesis?
Or let me ask, how do I interpret scriptures to your own understanding?

LordReed:


BTW do you think there's any Christian that has been posting on NL that you think has the same interpretation of the bible as you have and who is that person?

I told u I don't debate Christians on nairaland so don't know if they will agree with me or not.

LordReed:


On Nairaland there're several Christians I can mention who do not share your interpretation so please answer the questions.

Do not share the literal interpretation or exegesis? Which one.

Pls if u do not answer above questions, I will end the conversation. The answer u looking for is already in my previous answers.

Sirtee15 dodging questions left and right....

SIRTeee15:


If the bible say Jesus is the son of God and also God. That means the bible confirm jesus to be God. Simple.

I guess some are telling you that they don't accept the Bible, which was written by humans with an agenda, is true or confirms anything. Atheists will go further and tell you it does not even confirm a God exists not to talk of said god having a child.

Thankfully, it is written in the Bible that humans should not live by only one book but by every book the gods wrote, which helps reduce one's confirmation bias and ignorance.

Just imagine not reading anything about the ancient Egyptians from who the gods grew, and you might get a clue.

SIRTeee15:
For example all liberal bible scholars including academic Muslim scholars have admitted that if the gospel of John is true, then Jesus is definitely God.

Many have resolved that "if", and found it to be not as true as some claim. And it's not healthy to just believe whatever one reads in a book without investigating it's validity by oneself.

SIRTeee15:

Literal or exegesis?
Or let me ask, how do I interpret scriptures to your own understanding?

I told u I don't debate Christians on nairaland so don't know if they will agree with me or not.



Do not share the literal interpretation or exegesis? Which one.

Pls if u do not answer above questions, I will end the conversation. The answer u looking for is already in my previous answers.

You don't answer my question but want me to answer yours, really? LoLz.

kkins25:
okay!

Show me where God created dogs and cats. Have you heard of the Liger? Kindly show us how God created that too.




What design? Do you think the universe is some form of aesthetic place? Because you get rendered visions of it on your screen? hohohoh...

How then do you explain children born with autism, down syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome, Cancer, and so on? Shey there were created from heaven.

.

1. Did he make them, man and woman, on the same day or not? Were they, man and woman, the first to be created or the last?
2. How do we have different races and skin colors?


Says the guy who is using Evolution inappropriately. Mind you, Abiogenesis is a fact.


You are just dodging bullet oga. You don lose this argument like 10 pages ago.

The highlighted shows that it is wrong for me to keep arguing with someone that is holding onto 17th century belief
Keep typing nonsense.

Even a fake chatgpt or textbook written today of won't call abiogenesis a fact
Keep shooting your shot all over the field and shouting goal

Aemmyjah:



The highlighted shows that it is wrong for me to keep arguing with someone that is holding onto 17th century belief
Keep typing nonsense.

Even a fake chatgpt or textbook written today of won't call abiogenesis a fact
Keep shooting your shot all over the field and shouting goal

You are holding on to centuries old belief so you are even more wrong by your own logic.

Aemmyjah:



The highlighted shows that it is wrong for me to keep arguing with someone that is holding onto 17th century belief
Keep typing nonsense.

Even a fake chatgpt or textbook written [b]today of won't call abiogenesis a fact[/b]
Keep shooting your shot all over the field and shouting goal

care to explain?

budaatum:


I guess some are telling you that they don't accept the Bible, which was written by humans with an agenda, is true or confirms anything. Atheists will go further and tell you it does not even confirm a God exists not to talk of said god having a child.

I believe in Christianity because it's historically, archeological, philosophical and logically valid and real. It's not a make believe faith.
Even today, U can test it and confirm it's validity.

budaatum:


Thankfully, it is written in the Bible that[b] humans should not live by only one book but by every book the gods wrote,[/b] which helps reduce one's confirmation bias and ignorance.

Can U tell us the bible verse that states the highlighted.

budaatum:

Just imagine not reading anything about the ancient Egyptians from who the gods grew, and you might get a clue.

Did any of the Egyptian gods ever claimed to be a universal supreme deity? I do t think so.
Then why should waste my time on such deity when it doesn't acknowledge my existence?

budaatum:


Many have resolved that "if", and found it to be not as true as some claim. And it's not healthy to just believe whatever one reads in a book without investigating it's validity by oneself.

There's no religion or faith that has been scrutinised or critiqued like Christianity. Yet all bible scholars- am talking of liberal/secular agree the core tenet of Christianity remains the same since it began. It's never been changed.
I'm happy to discuss the validity of John gospel with u if u sincerely want to learn.

SIRTeee15:

I believe in Christianity because it's historically, archeological, philosophical and logically valid and real. It's not a make believe faith.
Even today, U can test it and confirm it's validity.

I hope you mean you "believe the Bible", because Christianity, being an ideology, is not as valid and real as you claim.

SIRTeee15:

Can U tell us the bible verse that states the highlighted.

https://www.nairaland.com/7348804/those-read-only-one-book

SIRTeee15:
Did any of the Egyptian gods ever claimed to be a universal supreme deity? I do t think so.
Then why should waste my time on such deity when it doesn't acknowledge my existence?

The Egyptians were not do arrogant as to claim their God was a universal supreme deity, and neither were the Israelites, who's god was for them alone. It is the Western world, having killed their own gods, that adopted the god of the Israelites and promoted it as a universal god. The Israelites themselves wouldn't share their parochial god with gentiles.

And the reason it was easily shared was the fact that it had a paper book, as opposed to the word of the gods of Egypt who's words were written in stone.

SIRTeee15:

There's no religion or faith that has been scrutinised or critiqued like Christianity.

A Yoruba proverb goes, a person who hasn't seen another another person's father's farm would claim their father's farm is the biggest.

You know nothing about Buddhism for instance, which has gone through more study and critique for longer than Christianity. They just never colonised you with it, but those who were will say the same as you've said about your religion.

SIRTeee15:
Christianity remains the same since it began. It's never been changed.

Yes it has changed. It began as a change from parochial Judaism, and became Catholic, before going Protestant, and now Evangelical with lots of variants along the way. I'd even claim it came out of Egypt, but that might involve me trying to convince you of what the sort of indoctrination 400 years of slavery the Israelites went through can do to one. But I doubt your countenance that idea, even though it's similar to the indoctrination that's made us Nigerians abandon our own gods and adopt the colonisers' ones.

Humans always change, and how they will see and understand things changes too. That is how we grow and develop and evolve.

SIRTeee15:
I'm happy to discuss the validity of John gospel with u if u sincerely want to learn.

If I want to learn, Sirtee? So, you want a relationship with me whereby you are the superior and I your student?

At least show you have knowledge to share before asking me to sit at your feet in the congregation you preside over please, or perhaps consider you might want to learn too.

I've included the verse you requested below, plus another for you to think about learning.

budaatum:

I hope you mean you "believe the Bible", because Christianity, being an ideology, is not as valid and real as you claim.


https://www.nairaland.com/7348804/those-read-only-one-book


The Egyptians were not do arrogant as to claim their God was a universal supreme deity, and neither were the Israelites, who's god was for them alone. It is the Western world, having killed their own gods, that adopted the god of the Israelites and promoted it as a universal god. The Israelites themselves wouldn't share their parochial god with gentiles.

And the reason it was easily shared was the fact that it had a paper book, as opposed to the word of the gods of Egypt who's words were written in stone.


A Yoruba proverb goes, a person who hasn't seen another another person's father's farm would claim their father's farm is the biggest.

You know nothing about Buddhism for instance, which has gone through more study and critique for longer than Christianity. They just never colonised you with it, but those who were will say the same as you've said about your religion.


Yes it has changed. It began as a change from parochial Judaism, and became Catholic, before going Protestant, and now Evangelical with lots of variants along the way. I'd even claim it came out of Egypt, but that might involve me trying to convince you of what the sort of indoctrination 400 years of slavery the Israelites went through can do to one. But I doubt your countenance that idea, even though it's similar to the indoctrination that's made us Nigerians abandon our own gods and adopt the colonisers' ones.

Humans always change, and how they will see and understand things changes too. That is how we grow and develop and evolve.


If I want to learn, Sirtee? So, you want a relationship with me whereby you are the superior and I your student?

At least show you have knowledge to share before asking me to sit at your feet in the congregation you preside over please, or perhaps consider you might want to learn too.

I've included the verse you requested below, plus another for you to think about learning.

Cant u write what is useful?

budaatum:

I hope you mean you "believe the Bible", because Christianity, being an ideology, is not as valid and real as you claim.


https://www.nairaland.com/7348804/those-read-only-one-book


The Egyptians were not do arrogant as to claim their God was a universal supreme deity, and neither were the Israelites, who's god was for them alone. It is the Western world, having killed their own gods, that adopted the god of the Israelites and promoted it as a universal god. The Israelites themselves wouldn't share their parochial god with gentiles.

And the reason it was easily shared was the fact that it had a paper book, as opposed to the word of the gods of Egypt who's words were written in stone.


A Yoruba proverb goes, a person who hasn't seen another another person's father's farm would claim their father's farm is the biggest.

You know nothing about Buddhism for instance, which has gone through more study and critique for longer than Christianity. They just never colonised you with it, but those who were will say the same as you've said about your religion.


Yes it has changed. It began as a change from parochial Judaism, and became Catholic, before going Protestant, and now Evangelical with lots of variants along the way. I'd even claim it came out of Egypt, but that might involve me trying to convince you of what the sort of indoctrination 400 years of slavery the Israelites went through can do to one. But I doubt your countenance that idea, even though it's similar to the indoctrination that's made us Nigerians abandon our own gods and adopt the colonisers' ones.

Humans always change, and how they will see and understand things changes too. That is how we grow and develop and evolve.


If I want to learn, Sirtee? So, you want a relationship with me whereby you are the superior and I your student?

At least show you have knowledge to share before asking me to sit at your feet in the congregation you preside over please, or perhaps consider you might want to learn too.

I've included the verse you requested below, plus another for you to think about learning.

The verse up there has nothing to do with your claim.

I noticed u always yapping about indoctrination of foreign religion via colonialism.

Let me ask u some questions since U quoting the Koran,
When was the first mosque built in yorubaland.
Do U know balogun Aare Latosa, the great warrior of the kiriji war died a Muslim. Was it Arabic colonialism that made him drop his ancestral worship for Arabic one?

I'm not in the mood for your up and down conspiracy junks. Christianity hasn't changed, this was the conclusion of liberal experts in bible scholarship. You can't know more than them.

These are statements from Bart Erhman, read about him if u don't know him.

SIRTeee15:

The verse up there has nothing to do with your claim.

It is not how you understand it, you mean. The fact remains that those who believe one book would likely not learn from other books.

SIRTeee15:
I noticed u always yapping about indoctrination of foreign religion via colonialism.

I don't know how you could have "noticed u always yapping about indoctrination of foreign religion via colonialism", when that is not a thing I do.

Perhaps you could provide evidence of such "yapping" so you can be believed. Also consider the stupidity of "yapping about indoctrination of foreign religion via colonialism", in the language of the colonialiser.

One should yap against colonialism in one's uncolonized language, is my preferred position, and I am thankful for my proficiency in the language of the coloniser and the books it empowers me to be able to read.

SIRTeee15:

Let me ask u some questions since U quoting the Koran,
When was the first mosque built in yorubaland.

I quote the Bible too, so why haven't you asked me where the first church was built?

What has quoting the Koran got to do with the first mosque built anywhere? I detect needless deflection here, and an attempt to waste my time on irrelevants.

SIRTeee15:
I'm not in the mood for your up and down conspiracy junks. Christianity hasn't changed, this was the conclusion of liberal experts in bible scholarship. You can't know more than them.

Not only has Christianity changed, Christianity itself was a change from 'Salvation by the Ark' Judaism, to salvation by Christ.

In fact, not only did 'Thou shalt worship no other God", change, but today same God is not exactly so jealous anymore.

SIRTeee15:
These are statements from Bart Erhman, read about him if u don't know him.

Bart Erhman is required reading for anyone who truly questions the Bible, but is at the beginning of one's search for knowledge.

No one is claiming here that the Bible is not real, just that much that is described in it isn't historically nor archeologically accurate.