butterflyl1on:


More like you have absolutely zilch to support your error with.

Remember that several other posters gave solid examples using the same language and even asked you questions when done and you never responded to them because you knew your goose was cooked

All you had was context and it was the same context we used to set you straight and you still can't get it.

what did I miss? what other posters? what solid examples?

Sarassin:


what did I miss? what other posters? what solid examples?

Take a casual stroll back on the thread.

butterflyl1on:


Yes and my pay grade is obviously above yours. You really have nothing to say do you? I on the other hand used scripture to balance scripture and what do you have? Just one cherry-picked verse you claim was miscopied. Well the so called "insertion" of God you claimed has been shown to you as apt. After all who was the scripture referring to if not God?

Was it referring to Paul or to you sarassin.

Do you accept that there was an insertion made in that manuscript?

Sarassin:


Do you accept that there was an insertion made in that manuscript?

Not an insertion as you would want it to look but a clarifier.

salvation101:

That is where u missed it. God is justified for all his actions for and in support of the nation of Israel for in Israel he planned the salvation of the whole of Humanity. Immediately man fell in the garden, the plan for the salvation of humanity was put in place. The seed of the Woman would bruise the head of the serpent... God preserved that seed the generations of fallen man till he committed it to a nation. His priority was to make sure that was achieved, from Noah down to Abraham down to Israel (Jacob), God's priority has been the seed. At a time, Egypt wanted to exterminate the nation from earth by killing all the new male borns at birth, God is justified for all he did to get Israel out from there. He took them through the wilderness and to a land inhabited by idol worshippers. If God didn't give those rules, Israel would have probably been wiped off the face of the earth and the seed killed. Why do u think the jews gave so much credence to genealogies? Because the entire story of the nation of Israel is the story of the Seed of the woman. God gave very strict laws initially, man never had the capacity to keep them.

You asked why Jesus had to die? If he hadn't died, mankind would be lost forever. U only remember the death, u don't remember the resurrection and glorification. He became the Son of man that sons of mean may become Sons of God. Man was restored to a position higher than where Adam fell from.

U said God drinks blood, that is blasphemy. He said he has no need of blood of Rams and cattles, he created them. Do u know the mystery of blood? Life is in the blood. Blood of Abel cried out to God. D bible said "without shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin"

Mohammed and Allah are justified for all their murder in order to build a caliphate and establish God's perfect law sharia I guess.

I meaning killing innocents that didn't do anything is justified.

blood thirsty abrahamic religions make me sick

Humanistme:


Mohammed and Allah are justified for all their murder in order to build a caliphate and establish God's perfect law sharia I guess.

I meaning killing innocents that didn't do anything is justified.

blood thirsty abrahamic religions make me sick

If you blame Mohammed...ensure you blame David too...

If you also blame David...ensure you blame your ancestors too...

Who knows, they (your ancestors) might have engaged in blood shedding and mass murder to preserve their lineage which resulted into your existence...

In summary, before you speck of dust from the eye of another person...ensure you check your eyes properly to be sure you have no speck of dust or log of wood...


Note: I am not in full support of Mohammed's actions/inactions...

butterflyl1on:


Not an insertion as you would want it to look but a clarifier.

And why would clarification be required of a manuscript that is supposedly inspired?

First off, let us record for posterity that you Butterflylion now accepts that an original Greek biblical manuscript i.e the Codex Alexandrinus was later altered. You call it a clarifier, I call it an insertion, no matter we can put to bed the lie about the incorruptibility of scripture, we now they have been tampered with.

You asked who the scripture would be referring to in its original form if not God? We can be certain it was not Paul, neither was it Sarassin nor Butterflylion so we are left with the only reasonable inference that it is of course Christ.

Therefore our understanding of that verse in the original form would be something along the lines of “Christ (who) was manifested in the flesh…” as distinct from “God was manifested in the flesh…”

Now, you have gone to great lengths in trying to pre-empt matters by correlating verses showing that Jesus considered himself God however, the terms God and Jesus are never used interchangeably in narrative scripture, for avoidance of doubt, my meaning here is that Gospel writers would not ordinarily use the term "God" where they intended to say "Jesus" and vice-versa, both terms have always had distinct usage. The pertinent question therefore is why the need for alteration or clarification as you put it?

Very simply the alteration was made in order to fully promulgate the idea of the Divinity of Jesus. It was a textual alteration made in order to counter the claim of the Ebionites that Jesus was fully human and not himself divine.

Humanistme:


Mohammed and Allah are justified for all their murder in order to build a caliphate and establish God's perfect law sharia I guess.

I meaning killing innocents that didn't do anything is justified.

blood thirsty abrahamic religions make me sick

i do not know about God of the Koran but of course i know the YHWH of the Holy scripture protected Israel from the pollution in the world. Jews didn't force anyone to become Jews, it was a choice solely left to them. There where Egyptians, Medianites who were convinced YHWH was the true God and Moses allowed them join in the Journey to the promised land. They were called the mixed multitude... Am sure u aren't even aware of that. Salvation has always been a thing of choice. Job was not a jew, Rahab wasn't, Ruth wasn't. U can argue all you want, it still doesn't change the fact that you do not know where you are going after death.

Sarassin:
And why would clarification be required of a manuscript that is supposedly inspired?

First off, let us record for posterity that you Butterflylion now accepts that an original Greek biblical manuscript i.e the Codex Alexandrinus was later altered.
You call it a clarifier, I call it an insertion, no matter we can put to bed the lie about the incorruptibility of scripture, we now they have been tampered with.

You asked who the scripture would be referring to in its original form if not God? We can be certain it was not Paul, neither was it Sarassin nor Butterflylion so we are left with the only reasonable inference that it is of course Christ.

Therefore our understanding of that verse in the original form would be something along the lines of “Christ (who) was manifested in the flesh…” as distinct from “God was manifested in the flesh…”

Now, you have gone to great lengths in trying to pre-empt matters by correlating verses showing that Jesus considered himself God however, the terms God and Jesus are never used interchangeably in narrative scripture, for avoidance of doubt, my meaning here is that Gospel writers would not ordinarily use the term "God" where they intended to say "Jesus" and vice-versa, both terms have always had distinct usage. The pertinent question therefore is why the need for alteration or clarification as you put it?

Very simply the alteration was made in order to fully promulgate the idea of the Divinity of Jesus.
It was a textual alteration made in order to counter the claim of the Ebionites that Jesus was fully human and not himself divine.

Aw, c'mon Sarassin.
It is all scripture that is inspired
and not translations, nor scripture upscaled with chapters & verses, you of all people, know this.

Also, I can bet my bottom dollar you're familiar with Isaiah 9:6, so why all this unnecessary fun you seem to be having plus contesting the divinity of Jesus, hmm?

MuttleyLaff:
Aw, c'mon Sarassin.
It is all scripture that is inspired
and not translations, nor scripture upscaled with chapters & verses, you of all people, know this.

Also, I can bet my bottom dollar you're familiar with Isaiah 9:6, so why all this unnecessary fun you seem to be having plus contesting the divinity of Jesus, hmm?

Ok, but since we no longer have actual original first copy drafts of the scriptures for comparison is it therefore fair comment that the scriptures available today particularly the NT are not inspired and therefore cannot lay claim to being inerrant?

And where have I contested the Divinity of Jesus? Isaiah 9:6 aside, I wrote that the Ebionites disputed the Divinity of Jesus and alterations were made to texts to counter this. It's good to have fun ...sometimes.

Sarassin:


And why would clarification be required of a manuscript that is supposedly inspired?

First off, let us record for posterity that you Butterflylion now accepts that an original Greek biblical manuscript i.e the Codex Alexandrinus was later altered. You call it a clarifier, I call it an insertion, no matter we can put to bed the lie about the incorruptibility of scripture, we now they have been tampered with.

You asked who the scripture would be referring to in its original form if not God? We can be certain it was not Paul, neither was it Sarassin nor Butterflylion so we are left with the only reasonable inference that it is of course Christ.

Therefore our understanding of that verse in the original form would be something along the lines of “Christ (who) was manifested in the flesh…” as distinct from “God was manifested in the flesh…”

Now, you have gone to great lengths in trying to pre-empt matters by correlating verses showing that Jesus considered himself God however, the terms God and Jesus are never used interchangeably in narrative scripture, for avoidance of doubt, my meaning here is that Gospel writers would not ordinarily use the term "God" where they intended to say "Jesus" and vice-versa, both terms have always had distinct usage. The pertinent question therefore is why the need for alteration or clarification as you put it?

Very simply the alteration was made in order to fully promulgate the idea of the Divinity of Jesus. It was a textual alteration made in order to counter the claim of the Ebionites that Jesus was fully human and not himself divine.

You are trying too hard Sarassin. Your 3rd eye may be having some form of cataracts because it's surely beginning to fail.

Nobody is trying to promulgate what already is. You have eyes yet cannot see. You have a mind yet cannot understand o ye "Sad"u"see" called Sarassin.

1. Jesus has two natures — He is God and man.

2. Each nature is full and complete — He is fully God and fully man.

3. Each nature remains distinct.

4. Christ is only one Person.

5. Things that are true of only one nature are nonetheless true of the Person of Christ.

The book of Titus follows immediately after the book of Timothy. Let's read Titus 2:13 shall we?

“looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus

Also I believe the book of John came way before the book of Timothy which you claim the divinity of Jesus was falsely promulgated so let's read John 20:28 shall we?

And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

Likewise, the book of Hebrews comes before the book of Timothy and it gives us God the Father’s direct testimony about Christ:

Hebrews 1:8

“But of the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever

Also the book of Isaiah was written in the time of monotheism yet had this to say of Jesus.

Isaiah 9:6

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

You are falling my hand sarassin. This truly is way above your pay grade.

Sarassin:
Ok,
but since we no longer have actual original first copy drafts of the scriptures for comparison
is it therefore fair comment that the scriptures available today
particularly the NT are not inspired and therefore cannot lay claim to being inerrant?

I will go as far with you and stretch my neck
that it is therefore fair comment that all translations available today or before, whether OT or NT are not inspired
and therefore as have always being pointed out, now and then, here and there, arent and/or cant have the claim of being inerrant

Sarassin:
And where have I contested the Divinity of Jesus? Isaiah 9:6 aside,
I wrote that the Ebionites disputed the Divinity of Jesus and alterations were made to texts to counter this

Alterations weren't necessary to make to texts to counter the Ebionites disputing the Divinity of Jesus, as Isaiah 9:6 was inspired before NT

Sarassin:
It's good to have fun ...sometimes.

All work and no fun, makes Jack... Sometimes.
It's good you're having fun
but don't mess with me sha

salvation101:
are you ready to understand or u are just arguing as usual? U are talking about employee nd employer here and think then is as it is now? When studying history or making a research, you should try to cast your mind back amd think like those people would have thought as at dat time. This is the Jewish culture, they knew what it meant to have the blood of am innocent on them. Judas was ready to sell out and they paid him a price for the betrayal, to them that is the price of blood, that money was cursed. Wen judas realized his foolishness(perhaps , he tried to negotiate if dey could collect the money and release his master wch dey declined, they were not ready to let Jesus go and also they were not ready to have the blood on dem).. He left the money there and went to hang himself on a parcel of land. Since d temple leaders didn't want to keep the money to themselves, they also couldn't put it back to the treasury, they used it to buy a parcel of land on his behalf.

You are wasting your time.

LordVoldermort:
Like I said I'm not here to argue I'm going to post all the contradictions I know in the Bible and I'll leave you to deceive yourselves about it

Good a thing you get busted at every turn. What you post you don't even read through to see if they are in context.

I know you google them up, hence you can't defend them when busted.

If you can, try.

Sarassin:


And why would clarification be required of a manuscript that is supposedly inspired?

First off, let us record for posterity that you Butterflylion now accepts that an original Greek biblical manuscript i.e the Codex Alexandrinus was later altered. You call it a clarifier, I call it an insertion, no matter we can put to bed the lie about the incorruptibility of scripture, we now they have been tampered with.

You asked who the scripture would be referring to in its original form if not God? We can be certain it was not Paul, neither was it Sarassin nor Butterflylion so we are left with the only reasonable inference that it is of course Christ.

Therefore our understanding of that verse in the original form would be something along the lines of “Christ (who) was manifested in the flesh…” as distinct from “God was manifested in the flesh…”

Now, you have gone to great lengths in trying to pre-empt matters by correlating verses showing that Jesus considered himself God however, the terms God and Jesus are never used interchangeably in narrative scripture, for avoidance of doubt, my meaning here is that Gospel writers would not ordinarily use the term "God" where they intended to say "Jesus" and vice-versa, both terms have always had distinct usage. The pertinent question therefore is why the need for alteration or clarification as you put it?

Very simply the alteration was made in order to fully promulgate the idea of the Divinity of Jesus. It was a textual alteration made in order to counter the claim of the Ebionites that Jesus was fully human and not himself divine.

If you are challenging the divinity of Jesus...please help shed more light on the following verses in Mark 2 vs 25-32

25 And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon: this man was just, and feared God, and waited for the consolation of Israel, and the holy Ghost was upon him.

26 And it was declared to him from God by the holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen that Anointed of the Lord.

27 And he came by the motion of the spirit into the Temple, and when the parents brought in the babe Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the Law.

28 Then he took him in his arms, and praised God, and said,

29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word,

30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,

31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people,

32 A light to be revealed to the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

Mujtahida:

Na wa ooo.
... 'Morning Star, son of the dawn' has become 'son of the morning star' as it passed through the editorial refinements of your mind. Okay ooo.

Read it in nkjv

salvation101:
are you ready to understand or u are just arguing as usual?

Dunno but since you've been using your psychic superpowers to know I've been "just arguing" before today, it shouldn't be difficult to know what my intentions are now too or did you lose that superpower?

U are talking about employee nd employer here and think then is as it is now? When studying history or making a research, you should try to cast your mind back amd think like those people would have thought as at dat time. This is the Jewish culture, they knew what it meant to have the blood of am innocent on them. Judas was ready to sell out and they paid him a price for the betrayal, to them that is the price of blood, that money was cursed. Wen judas realized his foolishness(perhaps , he tried to negotiate if dey could collect the money and release his master wch dey declined, they were not ready to let Jesus go and also they were not ready to have the blood on dem).. He left the money there and went to hang himself on a parcel of land. Since d temple leaders didn't want to keep the money to themselves, they also couldn't put it back to the treasury, they used it to buy a parcel of land on his behalf.

Read both accounts and compare, get your bible and check it out

Account 1 Said the chief priests took the money, deliberated on what to do with it and decided to use it in buying a land

Account 2 said Judas used the money to buy a land and died on it

The question is who used the money in buying the land? changing it to behalf doesn't solve it at all and its simply a copout as its like saying the hobo I gave some change bought meth on my behalf so I also bought it

adepeter2027:

This is we're common sense should come in.
For the fact that one is a Christian doesn't infer that person knowing the bible well. There are Muslim scholars who will beat Christians pant down.

What is important here and key note is EXPOSURE, INTELLIGENCE and not LABEL.

1. Wright and Oliver 1st invented plane. But today, there are people who beat these first inventors pant down.
2. I live in sokoto, I know USMANU BIN FODIO history far better than some northerners.
3. There are igbos and malams that know oodua history far better than me.

So what's your point?
There are times where one should judge a book by its contents and not by its cover.

Choi.

You think in one direction without considering other perspectives. This is the reason why some/most atheists are far better than some/most religious fellas

Is it all northerners that knows a lot about Uthman Dan Fodio? or are you comparing yourself to "some northerners" who could possibly be illiterates? thank goodness you said some northerners and not all northerners...


Back to my questions...

1) Between evidences provided against the existence of Moses by a foreigner and the evidences provided by Jewish Historians for the existence of Moses, which one carries more weight?


2) Do you have any evidence to support or counter the fact that Moses is a myth? Perhaps you know the history of the Jews better than the Jews themselves...

MuttleyLaff:
Pendantic?
Puuulllease....

Just get time, to properly read the culled article, as you've thought you should do

You'll definitely change tune after properly going through that culled article, you correctly thought that maybe you should re-read.
Some dead people, do buy things or pay for things, you know.

Good advice
and I agree along with you that, you do just that.

Thank you for your honesty.

Now I have a confession to make, there is a mis-type, the man in the scenario didn't specify what the money is for. He just gave his missus the money
Now the point is, whether actively or passively, whether directly or indirectly, that burial place for Judas was bought with his money

Even if he didn't give instructions, he still bought the milk, why? because while he might not have given direct order on what the money should be used for, there's still some nonverbal order from husband to the wife due to the relationship that exists between them, that nonverbal order sounds like "I don't know what you'd do with the money but I trust you'll do something that'll benefit you, myself and our children" so he does CARE what she does with the money but doesn't really want to know
Judas obviously doesn't doesn't care at all so long the money is off his hands (which chief priests used in buying a land) in one account while another account has him buying a land with the money (which he left at the temple in previous account)

OkCornel:


Is it all northerners that knows a lot about Uthman Dan Fodio? or are you comparing yourself to "some northerners" who could possibly be illiterates? thank goodness you said some northerners and not all northerners...


Back to my questions...

1) Between evidences provided against the existence of Moses by a foreigner and the evidences provided by Jewish Historians for the existence of Moses, which one carries more weight?

My Justification will depend on the evidence(s) provided by both parties...

2) Do you have any evidence to support or counter the fact that Moses is a myth? Perhaps you know the history of the Jews better than the Jews themselves...

This isn't my argument neither am I interested in this particular point.

butterflyl1on:


You are trying too hard Sarassin. Your 3rd eye may be having some form of cataracts because it's surely beginning to fail.

Nobody is trying to promulgate what already is. You have eyes yet cannot see. You have a mind yet cannot understand o ye "Sad"u"see" called Sarassin......


You are falling my hand sarassin. This truly is way above your pay grade.

You will stop with the personal sobriquets otherwise you and I have nothing further to discuss. You appear not to have a civil tongue in your head. You have made a number of risible and feeble attempts at a put-down towards me. I have no idea why. If you wish to have a proper grown-up, adult discussion and exchange of view-points then I am all for it, if not, then I have far better things to do with my time, I hope I make myself clear?

Sarassin yaff vex

MuttleyLaff:
I will go as far with you and stretch my neck
that it is therefore fair comment that all translations available today or before, whether OT or NT are not inspired
and therefore as have always being pointed out, now and then, here and there, arent and/or cant have the claim of being inerrant

How come when I say it, I get kicked from pillar to post? not a peep from the brethren...

MuttleyLaff:

Alterations weren't necessary to make to texts to counter the Ebionites disputing the Divinity of Jesus, as Isaiah 9:6 was inspired before NT

Really? so how come that early Christian Jews rejected the Divinity of Jesus? Isaiah 9:6 Inferred Divinity, the altered verse in John "conferred" Divinity on Jesus, it is in the Book of John we actually read of Divinity directly conferred on Jesus as doctrinal thought.

OkCornel:


If you are challenging the divinity of Jesus...please help shed more light on the following verses in Mark 2 vs 25-32

25 And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon: this man was just, and feared God, and waited for the consolation of Israel, and the holy Ghost was upon him.

26 And it was declared to him from God by the holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen that Anointed of the Lord.

27 And he came by the motion of the spirit into the Temple, and when the parents brought in the babe Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the Law.

28 Then he took him in his arms, and praised God, and said,

29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word,

30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,

31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people,

32 A light to be revealed to the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

Where did you read that I challenged the Divinity of Jesus?

MuttleyLaff:

but don't mess with me sha

'course not, you're the man

Emmanystone:

You are wasting your time.

Emmanystone:

It does. That's why i decided to leave it at that. Let him win.

Emmanystone:

That guy can argue for all Africans even when the answers are stiring him in the face. He wants to win an arguement by all means.
I no get that time.

ima put u on my fries, they need a bit of salt

hopefulLandlord:

Dunno but since you've been using your psychic superpowers to know I've been "just arguing" before today, it shouldn't be difficult to know what my intentions are now too or did you lose that superpower?

typical but childish response

Read both accounts and compare, get your bible and check it out

Account 1 Said the chief priests took the money, deliberated on what to do with it and decided to use it in buying a land

Account 2 said Judas used the money to buy a land and died on it

The question is who used the money in buying the land? changing it to behalf doesn't solve it at all and its simply a copout as its like saying the hobo I gave some change bought meth on my behalf so I also bought it

wch i took time to explain in the post u just quoted but hey, perhaps u never even bothered to read it cos u are more interested in arguing than you are interested in arguing than in my answer.

Sarassin:
'course not, you're the man

[img]https://s1/images/Chair.jpg[/img]
No ooo, you the mayne, you the baba nla won mayne.
You are, the chairman.
Twale Sarassin Baba!, I cover my chest, hide.
I merely was advising and just forewarning, so no one, mess with me,
as I know, Tae kwon do, Karate, Sumo, Judo, Jujitsu, Kung Fu, Mixed martial arts moves
and 20 more other dangerous words

Sarassin:
How come when I say it, I get kicked from pillar to post?

because your wording, the choice of words, when you say it, are incorrect

Sarassin:
not a peep from the brethren...

Have you before, ever being stunned by someone's else state of not being aware of something so basic and blatantly obvious?
Well until you have, you will never understand why not a peep from the brethren...

Sarassin:
Really?
so how come that early Christian Jews rejected the Divinity of Jesus?

Dont you think its a bit of an over-generalization, when you carelessly make a blanket statement like this?
Who are these early Christian Jews sef? Who is an early Christian Jew?
Werent there Jews who rejected the Divinity of Jesus?

Sarassin:
Isaiah 9:6 Inferred Divinity,
the altered verse in John "conferred" Divinity on Jesus,
it is in the Book of John we actually read of Divinity directly conferred on Jesus as doctrinal thought.

Really? What of Matthew 1:23?
Have you also, a different verb to use for Matthew 1:23 too?

OkCornel:
If you are challenging the divinity of Jesus...
please help shed more light on the following verses in Mark 2 vs 25-32
25 And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon: this man was just, and feared God, and waited for the consolation of Israel, and the holy Ghost was upon him.

26 And it was declared to him from God by the holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen that Anointed of the Lord.

27 And he came by the motion of the spirit into the Temple, and when the parents brought in the babe Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the Law.

28 Then he took him in his arms, and praised God, and said,

29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word,

30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,

31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people,

32 A light to be revealed to the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

Sarassin:
Where did you read that I challenged the Divinity of Jesus?

So its not just me
Must be something you keep posting then, that makes people see you, as seemingly coming across, as challenging the Divinity of Jesus

Sarassin:


You will stop with the personal sobriquets otherwise you and I have nothing further to discuss. You appear not to have a civil tongue in your head. You have made a number of risible and feeble attempts at a put-down towards me. I have no idea why. If you wish to have a proper grown-up, adult discussion and exchange of view-points then I am all for it, if not, then I have far better things to do with my time, I hope I make myself clear?

You still have nothing to say do you? What personal sobriquets? Do you not claim to have a 3rd eye? Is it not supposed to be as real to you as your regular senses?

If you wish to discuss I am always open to that and also always eager to set you straight.

Sarassin:


How come when I say it, I get kicked from pillar to post? not a peep from the brethren...



Really? so how come that early Christian Jews rejected the Divinity of Jesus? Isaiah 9:6 Inferred Divinity, the altered verse in John "conferred" Divinity on Jesus, it is in the Book of John we actually read of Divinity directly conferred on Jesus as doctrinal thought.

Did Thomas also confer divinity on Jesus when he shouted MY LORD AND MY GOD?