MacDaddy01:

John 14:6
6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


2/3rds of the world do not believe in Jesus. Hell for them. You think christianity makes sense? The devil wins. More people in hell. Surely if your God had any sense he would have appeared to all people and not only jews in the desert because his message would have spread everywhere instead of taking over 1,600 years before christianity came to West Africa (with slavery). Over half of the world do not believe in God.

Even if it were true that more people will go to hell (which is by the way is not in the bible but simply you putting two and two together), it does not benefit satan because he too will be punished. So again you have no point.

MacDaddy01: Omnipotent means all powerful. Yes. But you have a limited or ignorant view of what it means to be omnipotent. For one to be the creator of the world you would have to transcend time. Furthermore, for one to be able to read everyones mind at the same time, god would have to be polychronic. He exists beyond one timeline and so, he is neither stopping or starting.

Your god is quite an impossibility. For him to be omnipotent, he can not rest like it was said in Genesis because he is always in action and time is meaningless to him. God can not also have feelings/emotions because he created them. However, the bible tells us that he is a jealous god. How can God be jealous? Is god now a mere man that can get his panties in a bunch?

Omnipotent simply means: He is able to do everything. It doesn't mean: He is the one doing everything. If you can't understand this simple distinction, then I am afraid I can't help you.

MacDaddy01: This is quite silly. God could forgive man's sins in an instant, instead, he chose to come and appear to the same set of people he has been appearing to (isrealites) like a racist (ignoring Asia, West Africa, Australia and the Americas). God came in human form as Jesus christ. Jesus knew he was going to die and so he committed suicide to save us from our sins. However, his crucifixion had no effect on him and no effect on us. Jesus death is irrelevant; sinners will sin and go to hell while Jesus will still be alive because he can not die.

Jesus's death is the most stupid thing I have ever been told. He committed suicide, he knew that he was going to be betrayed but no, he wanted to die a martyr. Also, if Jesus is god, he must feel no pain. He walked on water, performed miracles in a human body. It is then safe to sayy that his humann body was beyond natural, he was superman. His d=torture and death must have been painless to him. He was laughing at them "forgive them father because they know not what they are doing". They didnt know that he couldnt feel the pain.

Jesus was very stupid if he wanted his message to reach the whole world. Christianity didnt reach many parts of the world until the 15th and 16th century- over a 1000 yeas after Jesus died. He stupidly chose to appear to only jews instead of travelling around the world himself.

Love is foolishness to those who can't comprehend it. I didn't expect you to understand

Delafruita:
all this will be true,only if the bible is truly the word of God and not just a book in which authors give conflicting accounts

Not so fast my friend, you are yet to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the bible is not the God's word.

Mr_Anony:
Not so fast my friend, you are yet to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the bible is not the God's word.

lets take a look at this,
1.mathew says jesus was born before herod died,luke says he was born more than 10 years after herod died
2.mathew says joseph fled to egypt to escape herod and stay away from jerusalem till archelaus was deposed(about 12 years),luke says joseph went back to nazareth and visited jerusalem every year for the feast of passover
3.the epistles of peter werent written by peter
4.no historian living during the time jesus supposedly lived even as much as mentioned his name in their writings.whereas,pilate's scribe left behind details of his life but didnt include this trial
5.mathew claims herod ordered death of all children(roughly 10-20%) of the population after the shepherd's left.such an event would definitely have been recorded by historians like pinyl who was so detailed in his accounts and seneca who lived between 2BC and 60AD.
there is no single proof that jesus exxisted except in the bible whereas there is proof that caiphas(the chief priest) existed.you can even note that mark doesnt know the name of the chief priest which would tell you he wasnt writing during the time of jesus but long after.
if details of the bible are contradictory,the argument that it was inspired by god goes into the dustbin.thats why bible scholars have tried for centuried to conjure scenarios to justify the discrepancies.
if the bible is proven to be just a work of fiction by various authors,then the myth of jesus evaporates and christianity loses its power.

Delafruita:
lets take a look at this,
1.mathew says jesus was born before herod died,luke says he was born more than 10 years after herod died
2.mathew says joseph fled to egypt to escape herod and stay away from jerusalem till archelaus was deposed(about 12 years),luke says joseph went back to nazareth and visited jerusalem every year for the feast of passover
3.the epistles of peter werent written by peter
4.no historian living during the time jesus supposedly lived even as much as mentioned his name in their writings.whereas,pilate's scribe left behind details of his life but didnt include this trial
5.mathew claims herod ordered death of all children(roughly 10-20%) of the population after the shepherd's left.such an event would definitely have been recorded by historians like pinyl who was so detailed in his accounts and seneca who lived between 2BC and 60AD.
there is no single proof that jesus exxisted except in the bible whereas there is proof that caiphas(the chief priest) existed.you can even note that mark doesnt know the name of the chief priest which would tell you he wasnt writing during the time of jesus but long after.
if details of the bible are contradictory,the argument that it was inspired by god goes into the dustbin.thats why bible scholars have tried for centuried to conjure scenarios to justify the discrepancies.
if the bible is proven to be just a work of fiction by various authors,then the myth of jesus evaporates and christianity loses its power.

What you are doing here is called the historian's fallacy and arguing from silence. You have not proven 1,2, and 3 to be absolute truths. As for 4 and 5, silence neither proves nor disproves anything.
You haven't attained the right to claim that bible scholars are conjuring up scenarios if you can't silence them factually.

Mr_Anony:
Even if it were true that more people will go to hell (which is by the way is not in the bible but simply you putting two and two together), it does not benefit satan because he too will be punished. So again you have no point.

How will Satan be punished? Fairytales make no sense. Even if his existence is destroyed, he won the war because most human beings would be in hell according to the bible. God can only have a Pyrrhic victory- which is actually a loss.

Mr_Anony:
Omnipotent simply means: He is able to do everything. It doesn't mean: He is the one doing everything. If you can't understand this simple distinction, then I am afraid I can't help you.

Lmao.....are you admitting that your God cant do anything?


You are now changing the meaning of "omnipotent" because it is not fitting with the biblical description of God. Christianity will always make you look foolish.

Mr_Anony:
Love is foolishness to those who can't comprehend it. I didn't expect you to understand

What? is this your new argument that atheists can not understand love? You don craze finish.

Furthermore, I was a christian for 22 years. So I should understand what the bible says

Mr_Anony:

What you are doing here is called the historian's fallacy and arguing from silence. You have not proven 1,2, and 3 to be absolute truths. As for 4 and 5, silence neither proves nor disproves anything.
You haven't attained the right to claim that bible scholars are conjuring up scenarios if you can't silence them factually.

you admitted on the other thread that the date of his birth isnt important since your focus is his message.that shows me you have probably never pondered this discrepancies and now that you're faced with them,you cant find any satisfactory proof in all your search to indicate the discrepancies to be false.rather,theologians have looked for every means of correlating the two accounts.
i dont need to prove the first 3,the bible already proves its own discrepancies.
try as they may,theologians wont be able to explain the discrepancy which then puts every other part into contention

Delafruita:
you admitted on the other thread that the date of his birth isnt important since your focus is his message.that shows me you have probably never pondered this discrepancies and now that you're faced with them,you cant find any satisfactory proof in all your search to indicate the discrepancies to be false.rather,theologians have looked for every means of correlating the two accounts.
i dont need to prove the first 3,the bible already proves its own discrepancies.
try as they may,theologians wont be able to explain the discrepancy which then puts every other part into contention

My friend, Yes I haven't bothered to look for "discrepancies" because they don't affect my faith. This doesn't mean I should Immediately accept something that is contested as fact. If you want to disprove the bible, come up wit absolute proof. A bunch of maybes and maybe nots is simply not good enough.

Why we bother with these trolls is beyond me, they are not worth our time and attention !!

frosbel: Why we bother with these trolls is beyond me, they are not worth our time and attention !!

It is your duty to spread the word of God. Do you think missionaries were met with open hands?

MacDaddy01:

How will Satan be punished? Fairytales make no sense. Even if his existence is destroyed, he won the war because most human beings would be in hell according to the bible. God can only have a Pyrrhic victory- which is actually a loss.

Wow you are funny, The devil has already lost the war. All that awaits him is the terror of hell. He is just trying as much as he can to deceive people i.e. drag down as many as he can with him.

MacDaddy01: Lmao.....are you admitting that your God cant do anything?


You are now changing the meaning of "omnipotent" because it is not fitting with the biblical description of God. Christianity will always make you look foolish.

Your dishonesty is appalling

MacDaddy01: What? is this your new argument that atheists can not understand love? You don craze finish.

Furthermore, I was a christian for 22 years. So I should understand what the bible says

Here we go again with you 22yr christian CV. Your understanding of the bible is still evidently lacking

Mr_Anony:
Wow you are funny, The devil has already lost the war. All that awaits him is the terror of hell. He is just trying as much as he can to deceive people i.e. drag down as many as he can with him.




Your dishonesty is appalling


Here we go again with you 22yr christian CV. Your understanding of the bible is still evidently lacking

Anony, just give up. Your slave religion is a fairytale.

frosbel: Why we bother with these trolls is beyond me, they are not worth our time and attention !!

when you say "trolls",is there a classification?

Mr_Anony:

My friend, Yes I haven't bothered to look for "discrepancies" because they don't affect my faith. This doesn't mean I should Immediately accept something that is contested as fact. If you want to disprove the bible, come up wit absolute proof. A bunch of maybes and maybe nots is simply not good enough.

the discrepancies are glaring.it is left for the Bible peeps to tell a troll(apologies to frosbel) why those discrepancies exist.you my friend,and others before you havent provided any satisfactory answer.
fact number 1-mattew and luke differ in accounts of early life of jesus.(the trolls pointed it out)
fact number 2-the Bible community hasnt been able to come up with good reason why the discrepancy exists
fact number 3-its not for the trolls to prove that the discrepancy exist,they have already done that by pointing out the anomaly
fact number 4-burden of proof lies on the Bible people
fact number 5-they have not been able to

Delafruita:
the discrepancies are glaring.it is left for the Bible peeps to tell a troll(apologies to frosbel) why those discrepancies exist.you my friend,and others before you havent provided any satisfactory answer.
fact number 1-mattew and luke differ in accounts of early life of jesus.(the trolls pointed it out)
fact number 2-the Bible community hasnt been able to come up with good reason why the discrepancy exists
fact number 3-its not for the trolls to prove that the discrepancy exist,they have already done that by pointing out the anomaly
fact number 4-burden of proof lies on the Bible people
fact number 5-they have not been able to

Lol, first of all you are misusing the word troll. (A troll is someone who likes to derail a thread or just incite wahala in internet chat rooms and forums e.g. Macdaddy01)

Number 1: You don't have a strong enough argument for the differences in Matthew and Luke
Number 2: The "bible community" doesn't have to come up with any reason for a so called "discrepancy" that it doesn't see
Number 3: The "trolls" point an "anomaly", the "bible community" explains, the "trolls" reject the explanation. Too bad.
Number 4: No the burden of proof lies on the "trolls" in this case and not the "bible people"
Number 5: The trolls have simply rejected all explanation that doesn't fit into their bias neither have they provided absolute proof.

Mr_Anony:

Lol, first of all you are misusing the word troll. (A troll is someone who likes to derail a thread or just incite wahala in internet chat rooms and forums e.g. Macdaddy01)

Number 1: You don't have a strong enough argument for the differences in Matthew and Luke
Number 2: The "bible community" doesn't have to come up with any reason for a so called "discrepancy" that it doesn't see
Number 3: The "trolls" point an "anomaly", the "bible community" explains, the "trolls" reject the explanation. Too bad.
Number 4: No the burden of proof lies on the "trolls" in this case and not the "bible people"
Number 5: The trolls have simply rejected all explanation that doesn't fit into their bias neither have they provided absolute proof.

How does the bible community explain the contradiction when it comes to polygamy and incest in the bible?

Mr_Anony:

Lol, first of all you are misusing the word troll. (A troll is someone who likes to derail a thread or just incite wahala in internet chat rooms and forums e.g. Macdaddy01)

Number 1: You don't have a strong enough argument for the differences in Matthew and Luke
Number 2: The "bible community" doesn't have to come up with any reason for a so called "discrepancy" that it doesn't see
Number 3: The "trolls" point an "anomaly", the "bible community" explains, the "trolls" reject the explanation. Too bad.
Number 4: No the burden of proof lies on the "trolls" in this case and not the "bible people"
Number 5: The trolls have simply rejected all explanation that doesn't fit into their bias neither have they provided absolute proof.

the discrepancy is clear.luke says jesus was born in 6AD,mathew says he was born in 6BC.thats a whole 12 years apart.you dont think thats a discrepancy?how is it now the job of the "trolls" to correct the discrepancy?
if you claim the bible community doesnt see the discrepancy,why are they trying so hard to explain it with lots of illogical scenarios?

Delafruita:
the discrepancy is clear.luke says jesus was born in 6AD,mathew says he was born in 6BC.thats a whole 12 years apart.you dont think thats a discrepancy?how is it now the job of the "trolls" to correct the discrepancy?
if you claim the bible community doesnt see the discrepancy,why are they trying so hard to explain it with lots of illogical scenarios?

Dude, I have showed you how it is possible that Luke was mistranslated but you have simply rejected that possibility because it doesn't fit within your bias. I am sorry I can't help you.

Mr_Anony:
Dude, I have showed you how it is possible that Luke was mistranslated but you have simply rejected that possibility because it doesn't fit within your bias. I am sorry I can't help you.

you said the greek was probably mistranslated and that luke probably meant "before quirinius became governor of syria".i went ahead to get the original greek text and all possible translations which prove your analogy to be false,but you said you dont read greek.you havent proven anything at.you only made conjectures which i disproved with fact

Delafruita:
you said the greek was probably mistranslated and that luke probably meant "before quirinius became governor of syria".i went ahead to get the original greek text and all possible translations which prove your analogy to be false,but you said you dont read greek.you havent proven anything at.you only made conjectures which i disproved with fact

I showed you two words both which could easily be mistranslated in English. 1. hegemon: which doesn't necessarily always mean governor but official and 2. prote which can mean first or before.
You copypasted someone who was interpreting prote to mean first. Unless you are an expert in Kione Greek yourself, you are simply echoing that writer's bias and you have no way of telling if he is wrong or right. I rightfully refused to argue over a subject I have no knowledge of.

Logicboy, I see that Mr Anony is covering for me. I'm sorry that I've been unavailable, it was quite unavoidable. I will be back to take you on tomorrow and I think I'll prepare a thread to address a defence of the "Christian God" as you call Him. Cheers.
Mr Anony, more grace to you, my brother. Hope to be here to support you tomorrow.

Mr_Anony:
I showed you two words both which could easily be mistranslated in English. 1. hegemon: which doesn't necessarily always mean governor but official and 2. prote which can mean first or before.
You copypasted someone who was interpreting prote to mean first. Unless you are an expert in Kione Greek yourself, you are simply echoing that writer's bias and you have no way of telling if he is wrong or right. I rightfully refused to argue over a subject I have no knowledge of.

lol

Dela fruiÞ are u logic boy??

Come out and say it so that we go know where to handle u from....

ijawkid: Dela fruiÞ are u logic boy??

Come out and say it so that we go know where to handle u from....

You must be foolish. Have you ever seen me using greek text to argue over the bible?


That's not my style.

ijawkid: Dela fruiÞ are u logic boy??

Come out and say it so that we go know where to handle u from....

very funny.

@macdaddy....
So na u be logic boy....

What happend to ur other account??

Banned as usual abi??

Still terrorizing christians as usual but under a different veneer....

Now I know what to do with u

ijawkid: @macdaddy....
So na u be logic boy....

What happend to ur other account??

Banned as usual abi??

Still terrorizing christians as usual but under a different veneer....

Now I know what to do with u

what are you going to do? Try and get me banned or what?

MacDaddy01:

what are you going to do? Try and get me banned or what?

No naaaa...

Why wuld I wanna get u banned ...

Infact I was wondering where u've been......

When ever u change ur I.d please inform us,some of us need u around....

ijawkid:

No naaaa...

Why wuld I wanna get u banned ...

Infact I was wondering where u've been......

When ever u change ur I.d please inform us,some of us need u around....

Abeg, guy no vex!


I just saw your profile pic! Jesus Christ! Dem born you with muscle? You only need one hand to squeeze me!

I fear you!

MacDaddy01:


I Peter 5:8 “8BE SOBER, BE VIGILANT; BECAUSE YOUR ADVERSARY THE DEVIL, AS A ROARING LION, WALKETH ABOUT, SEEKING WHOM HE MAY DEVOUR:”


You better forget God, Satan is epic according to the bible. Roaring lion....boss

na wa for u oooo..u cant even prove satan is more powerful..
God is superior..

hehehehehehehehehehe
mr.Anony u argue blindly,
fairy tale book(bible)
heheheheheheheheh

justaqad:

na wa for u oooo..u cant even prove satan is more powerful..
God is superior..

Even Satan had his time with the Quran. Satanic verses.


God is not superior. Especially the muslim one. He has failed so far for over a 1000 years to get his message across to millions of people on earth. Most of the people in the world are not muslim.

Delafruita:
you admitted on the other thread that the date of his birth isnt important since your focus is his message.that shows me you have probably never pondered this discrepancies and now that you're faced with them,you cant find any satisfactory proof in all your search to indicate the discrepancies to be false.rather,theologians have looked for every means of correlating the two accounts.
i dont need to prove the first 3,the bible already proves its own discrepancies.
try as they may,theologians wont be able to explain the discrepancy which then puts every other part into contention

I'm sure you meant Christian theologians.

And also a lot of religionists don't read extra-biblical books on the history of the biblical periods.

Till tomorrow the Bible hasn't identified which Pharaoh persecuted the Jews. Pseudo-claim. Egyptians recorded the names of all their Pharaohs. Ifa ri Awo! Lol!