Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,195,071 members, 7,956,994 topics. Date: Tuesday, 24 September 2024 at 02:07 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword (8906 Views)
Should Obadiah777 Be Put To The Sword? / New Date For End Of The World: January 1 2017 - Sword Of God Cult / An Excerpt: The Sword Of Solomon By F.w. Boreham (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (Reply) (Go Down)
Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by DeepSight(m): 5:54pm On Dec 20, 2009 |
Nuclearboy: as requested - Would you be so kind as to indulge my own key concerns about "Christianity" - Because i have a sense that you might bring fresh insight to this that i may have missed in my numerous attempts to discuss same. . . |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by nuclearboy(m): 6:12pm On Dec 20, 2009 |
Hello DeepSight: Please note that everything I write remains just my own view and is based on my personal understanding. Any perceived failure(s) are mine and I do not claim to speak as God. The Claim that Jesus is God DeepSight, humor me and touch yourself! If I am right, you just touched a part of your body. Try again! Same ehn? Now get someone to call you and answer. YOU just answered. I posit that YOU ARE YOUR WORD. Going to lower animals, lets consider say, your dog. As you approach your home, you honk the vehicle horn and he starts to bark - have you noticed you automatically go "Oh yeah, that is BINGO barking"? Or by chance, did you ever hear a bark and assume it was a neighbor? John tells us that in the Beginning was the Word which was with God and was God. I do not believe in the Koran yet it also says the same though they find cause to explain it differently. But here, I have explained how I see it. Again, I wish to go into Character. Sinless, Blameless, Miracle-working, loving, kind, humble etc. What other attributes would you have? I negate the word "Pride" which would require God be a bully for all proud entities are bullies. Were He that, many of us on NL would be long dead. Lets get this first one clear before I go to the second query you've presented me with. Your serve? |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by DeepSight(m): 6:28pm On Dec 20, 2009 |
My younger brothers have often advanced this proposition to me. I accept that my word emanates from me. Just like my thoughts. Yet no particular thought of mine is me. On touching myself: i touch my physical body: i verily believe that there is an intangible aspect to me. The real me. Nevertheless the foregoing remains irrelevant: to the extent that if the word of God is God, then ANY messenger of God bringing the word of God must perforce by your analogy be God himself. I positively assert that: 1. Jesus brought the word of God - like many others have: this does not qualify any of the truth bringers to be GOD HIMSELF. 2. Is a person who brings the word of God necessarily the singular embodiment of that word? John 1:1 contains a mistranslation. The word used as "the word was God" when you revert to the Greek, should properly have been interpreted: "The word was divine (or Godly)" This is different from the greek word used in the second refrain where it is stated that the word was "with God." The use of different greek words by the original writer is highly suggestive. |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by nuclearboy(m): 6:44pm On Dec 20, 2009 |
I accept that you can listen to and hear your thoughts. But no-one else can! The comparison is not apt. Your word not only emanates from you. It is your inner being expressed for others to see/feel/hear/whatever. The messengers of God you speak of had personal aspirations, life-plans, lusts etc IN ADDITION to the particular message they had from God. Those messages were in fact, incidental, in their lives. Jesus was nothing else except the word He bore. He came only as that Word and there was no dilution through His lifetime! That to me is the distinction. Your re-translation of the Bible is funny. I will not say you are wrong over the "Godly divinity" issue but I use the KJV. What it says is "was God". Would you take me as a serious character if I were now to drop the KJV and follow your position? Suppose you were to say it said "wasn't more than the smallest angel"? What would you I do? |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by nuclearboy(m): 8:11pm On Dec 20, 2009 |
I don't know if you have read Mavenbox's post in "The rise of Counterfeit Christianity" and my response to it. I am bringing it here QUOTE Mavenbox wrote: DeepSight and Nuclearboy: i really must chip this in. Its One thing to worship Jesus the man and another to Worship the Word who become flesh. I believe one reason why no corpse was left behind for Christ is so that men would not worship it as another idol. Moses made a bronze serpent to be lifted up to save the sinning Israelites and Jesus likened himself to it. Did you know that the Israelites didnt understand that the serpent was just a vessel and not the real source? They started worshipping Nehushtan (that exact bronze serpent), see 2Ki 18:4 rather than look up to God. Jesus emphasized that only God in his divinity was good &to be Worshipped (Matt 4:10), and that his human form was only a vessel prepared for him (Heb 10:5). I think u are both right but the Word needs to be well divided, is it Jesus the man or The "non-human" Word who was known on earth as Jesus that is not to be Worshipped? (see John 4:24, Phi 3:3) Think of it like a Hollywood star in a movie and in reality. The guy in the movie is the man Jesus, he is not worthy of an Oscar. The real actor gets the Oscar. As a participator in the Godhead as Son of God, Jesus deserves worship. But not Jesus the Man. "Jesus" the Word. In Revelations, the Word was worshipped (who was known on earth as the Son of Man) and in Joshua 5:13-15 in pre-incarnate form he appeared as the captain of the Lord's hosts &allowed Joshua to worship him (something that angels wont do, see Rev 19:10, Rev 22:9). Not once as man did Jesus require worship of anyone IMO. UNQUOTE I believe this explains my point about Jesus as it were, perfectly! I am copying part of my response too to this page for the benefit of others reading who may glean something or other from our "swordsmanship". QUOTING MYSELF I think the problem is the inability to separate the Human and the entity behind the Human yet seeing them together as it were, in one entity. That is why on our "Nuclear holds a Sword" thread, I pointed out the limitation brought on by the flesh clothing. In that "situation", He was as it were, the actor Mavenbox has called Him and not meant to be worshiped. Yet! Yet He still remained essentially what He was: The Word of God who was the Son of Man. My context is the now I exist in 2000 years after He said those words. His context was the THEN in which He spoke. At times I have decided (comes and goes in my mind) that He deliberately allowed this confusion and went back and forth in history (from where I stand) because He wants us to know to a point then move further in "trust/faith". UNQUOTE |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by DeepSight(m): 8:23pm On Dec 20, 2009 |
And i am copying my responses there over here too. . . And the one point I will respond to is – you guessed it – your belabored struggle to separate Christ’s humanity from his Deity. More - Divinity is the core nature and principle of original existence, or original being. It is eternal, infinite, and accordingly an absolute. It thus is not capable of the sort of whims and caprices attributable to imperfect human beings (or to the Abrahamic God). |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by DeepSight(m): 8:24pm On Dec 20, 2009 |
The last bit. . . You have talked about His essence being different from his will. |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by PastorAIO: 8:35pm On Dec 20, 2009 |
nuclearboy: I would take you as a serious character if you went and researched what the original greek said! |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by nuclearboy(m): 9:10pm On Dec 20, 2009 |
@Pastor_AIO: Sure you would! Unfortunately for you though, it is not integral to me that I do so. Right now, I assume that you can speak Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek too. Have you also studied the Arabic language to understand the Math we learnt in school since much of that came from Arabic. Some words in the English Vocabulary come from French too. You've studied and are fluent in that too? If you cannot provide an affirmative answer to all of them, you're obviously not serious by your own standards of seriousness. @Deepsight: This copying from Thread to thread is making me dizzy. Not sure I have the presence of Mind. Could we please stay on this one thread from now? For the last time, here's my response on the other thread: I personally have always argued against the word Trinity. The word came from pagan Rome. It is to me wrong that three are one. Rather, I have always seen it as one shown as three. Given this scenario of one shown as three, I could expand to that one being then shown as a myriad which could include a dog, a snail and a piece of chalk. Taking these three examples as a "population sampling" for my illustration, would you take them to be the same or have the same capabilities? Or do you believe the Almighty unable to be 2 different things in different places? Would you expect say, the snail to eat meat or the chalk to crawl since they are same? I have used the flesh covering of Jesus to argue for limitation. Remember that the spirit is said to struggle against the flesh plus there's still the soul in this human mix. A cry for help can come from tortured flesh struggling against a Spirit rigid in its purpose. And the cry of a tortured soul is even worse. At Gethsemane, foreknowledge of what the next 24 or so hours held would have caused great grief for the soul. Remember the Spirit was not going to be the one feeling the pain. It was Flesh-Time! It caused sweat of blood, didn't it? To what? Spirit or flesh. I believe the flesh rose here and struggled. I come from a military background and know that the "Rambo" personality sold on TV is ridiculous. If God didn't cheat and Jesus was both fully Man and fully God, there was a distinct clash between the different portions of His being that I believe explains away the seeming turnarounds. Total humanity explains the fear. Total Divinity explains the acceptance of the Divine will. This I believe resolves the issue of "will" versus "personage". Of course, here, will would be Spirit whist personage is the mishmash. As an example, I would (my will) that I jog 10 miles every morning. Bros, I assure you my personage doesn't wish to get up early in the morning. |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by DeepSight(m): 9:15pm On Dec 20, 2009 |
@ Nuclear - could a divine being (even in flesh) ever request the shelving of a divinely concluded eventuality? What is divinity? What is fear? |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by nuclearboy(m): 9:25pm On Dec 20, 2009 |
Deep Sight: We know in part, DeepSight! 2,000 years ago, what would a roman have said told that me and you would be conversing separated by many miles, without audio and without seeing ourselves through a screen? Why do you think it fair or reasonable to rationalize God into the question above? Time, Science, exposure are all limited. I refuse to put God into a box or assume I know His limitations. |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by Mavenb0x(m): 9:30pm On Dec 20, 2009 |
Let me start with this verse or prophecy from the Old Covenant: Isa 9:6 For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father [of Eternity], Prince of Peace. [Isa. 25:1; 40:9-11; Matt. 28:18; Luke 2:11.] @Pastor AIO: I have the Bible in Greek here, and the two words used for GOD in John 1:1 are the same, the word θεός theos (theh'-os), meaning the Exceedingly, Supreme Divinity Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (KJV) Joh 1:1 The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God, (Message) Now, on to DeepSight's post brought forward from the other thread. |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by Mavenb0x(m): 9:31pm On Dec 20, 2009 |
@DeepSight: Let me attempt to be brief in my response, expanding my previous analogy and deepening Jesus' perspective. On Gethsemane: Using my analogy of Keifer Sutherland acting as Jack Bauer in the action series "24", I know you will agree with me (if you watch the series) that many times, Jack Bauer is close to death, and like every other human being, he does not want to die unless he absolutely has to. In a hypothetical scene, he has been left inside an underground chamber while he tries to deactivate a scheduled nuclear warhead, guarded by Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists. Jack Bauer (in his mind): Not my will, director (The director is Keifer Sutherland), but yours be done. I really want to get out of this scene alive, and save the people of the United States. (frantically tries to deactivate the warhead, while still shooting the Fundamentalist terrorists that are trying to gun him down and prevent him from doing the work) Casual Observer (someone who has seen the movie last night on MNet): what nonsense?! Doesn't Keifer know that he will not die, and the CTU will rescue him in the next few minutes? Why is he acting like he doesn't know? Are you sure Jack Bauer is Keifer Sutherland? 'Cos he was interviewed last week and he already told us about this scene! Maven: But of course he has to behave like that, because that is what his role requires! And if Jack Bauer dies in that movie, Keifer Sutherland will never be Jack Bauer again. At least until another movie. Self-preservation is a fundamental human trait, and he's only human to act that way Furthermore, I want you to note that everything Jesus did and said was for our benefit. If he acted all macho and marched to the cross, how would we know how to deal with circumstances where it seems our will is far easier than God's more complex (difficult?) will? Here, Jesus was going to undergo a three-day journey that would at first separate him from the Godhead due to the enormity of man's sins. For the FIRST time, the Son of God was going to be divorced, so to speak, from His Father. In actuality, He knew it was temporary, but for our benefit, he had to take it like a man (no pun intended). Jesus took his disciples along with him so as to show them how it is to battle out such spiritual tussles, but they were just sleeping like logs |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by DeepSight(m): 9:37pm On Dec 20, 2009 |
Hang on there! You stated: Mavenb0x: To which i have previously answered on this forum: On Isaiah – NOTICE that he says that the child born will be called “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father”. I ask you – is Jesus the Father? No – he is the son, and he made it very clear that he is not the Father in two statements – Happy on Isaiah? |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by Mavenb0x(m): 9:43pm On Dec 20, 2009 |
Buttressing my reply about John 1:1, let us examine it carefully Joh 1:1 InG1722 the beginningG746 wasG2258 theG3588 Word,G3056 andG2532 theG3588 WordG3056 wasG2258 withG4314 God,G2316 andG2532 theG3588 WordG3056 wasG2258 GodG2316. In the "with God", the word πρός (pros) indicates a preposition of direction, it means the Word was forward to, and directed from, God meaning that it proceeded from God. As for the "was God", the word ἦν ēn (ane) means agree with, take charge of, hold and use. The words for God are the same. So, an accurate understanding of the translation is found in the Message version, rather than the Weak English of the KJV: Joh 1:1 The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God, |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by DeepSight(m): 9:49pm On Dec 20, 2009 |
Mavenb0x: I hope u recognise that in the above you have conceded that Jesus is not god, but perhaps some sort of Primus Inter pares |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by Mavenb0x(m): 9:51pm On Dec 20, 2009 |
@DeepSight: As to your response on Isa 9:6, I think it will be vital to our discussion if you understand that (read the red part) Col 2:8 See to it that no one carries you off as spoil or makes you yourselves captive by his so-called philosophy and intellectualism and vain deceit (idle fancies and plain nonsense), following human tradition (men's ideas of the material rather than the spiritual world), just crude notions following the rudimentary and elemental teachings of the universe and disregarding [the teachings of] Christ (the Messiah). Col 2:9 For in Him the whole fullness of Deity (the Godhead) continues to dwell in bodily form [giving complete expression of the divine nature]. and so, Isaiah 9:6 was clearly showing that the entirety of the Godhead was being assumed in bodily form
Wonderful Counselor is a precursor to the name of the Holy Spirit. Mighty God is an indication of God's power in entirety, cutting across His revelations to us as the Son, Father and Spirit Everlasting Father of Eternity is the name of the Father, who appeared to Abraham as YHWH Prince of Peace was a precursor to the role Jesus came to play on Earth. In Christ was the fullness of Deity, bodily. |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by DeepSight(m): 9:57pm On Dec 20, 2009 |
Alright: Let's streamline issues; Is Jesus THE FATHER? Clarify for me. |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by Mavenb0x(m): 10:00pm On Dec 20, 2009 |
As for the "was God", the word ἦν ēn (ane) means agree with, take charge of, hold and use. Deep Sight: No, sir!!! I keep saying, Jesus was God expressed in human form! Agree with, take charge of, hold and use. Isn't that what the Word did when the Word became flesh? The Word AGREED with God, because God is ONE in agreement! Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: 1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (I am not debating Trinitarianism here, i am using this to indicate that they are in agreement) Understand that, assuming I was a perfect person with no guile, my words must conform with my person, which must conform with what I say. I AGREE, so to speak, with my own words and deeds and literature! It does not place one above the other primus inter pares. |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by DeepSight(m): 10:05pm On Dec 20, 2009 |
Just answer me this: Is Jesus THE FATHER. MARK MY WORDS: I do not ask if he is God, i ask if he is THE FATHER. |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by ttalks(m): 10:14pm On Dec 20, 2009 |
Now I'm in . . . . Deep Sight: No, he is God the Son. Now I'm out . . . . . |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by Mavenb0x(m): 10:16pm On Dec 20, 2009 |
Deep Sight: This is a "tricky" question because it depends on who's asking. Speaking from the physical angle, Jesus is not the Father. In actuality, the Father is the same person as Jesus. If you look into a mirror, is what we see in that mirror YOU? No, it's not you, but for a barber who looks into the mirror to trim your hair, he says "You are getting bald here", pointing at the mirror. This would be confusing for someone who has never seen a mirror before, but looking away from the mirror into reality, we will see the same "baldness" appearing on the client's head. If we keep staring in the mirror, we get a PROJECTION of the client. Being the SON of God does not only indicate childbirth or progeny through Mary like many think. The same way we say someone is a "chip off the old block" i.e. the Father has been repeated in the Son, is the way Jesus is the earth-ward projection of the Father, doing His will in entirety on earth! Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If you look from outside the mirror into the mirror, you know that Jesus the man, is not the Father. He is the Son. If you consider that its only a mirror, you understand that Jesus, the Father and the Spirit, are revelations of God's various interactions with man through eternity. Deep Sight:LOL Bros you go chill na! Please be a bit patient, I'm in Nigeria at the moment (The hols are here, yippee!) and this GLO 3G connection is wack. I just saw this when I tried to post again. The post that appeared like a reply to you, I had already typed it up. Im quite a slow typer. THIS (above) is your response. |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by nuclearboy(m): 10:27pm On Dec 20, 2009 |
@ttalks: Isaiah said he was the Father!. @Deepsight: Jesus is God! Father, Son, Spirit are semantics and only represent how God shows Himself as at differing times based on Mankind's needs. You will notice that where He is named as the Everlasting Father, He is also called the Mighty God. "Mighty" not Almighty! Seems to be another contradiction. Way I see this, God wants our trust. I buttress this by asking you why He planted the Tree of Knowledge in Eden if not to require that they trust His Judgment? Would you rather Jesus visits you with a hundred thousand angels shining like the Sun to convince you? In Eden, He gave them enough but Nope, they needed more. Same with you as I see you're trying to rationalize all of this based on words and their meanings. I thought it was only Muslims that liked to try using the Bible as a trap to win arguments. Another term used for Him is Judge. Would you like He present us His gown and wig before you believe that claim too? Think about it. |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by DeepSight(m): 9:29am On Dec 21, 2009 |
Maven/ Nuclearboy - As much as i would have liked to progress to the other questions in the OP, you both astound me. It cannot be seriously asserted by anybody that Jesus is the Father. I crafted that question carefully because of the trinitarian problem of identification whereby all three are said to be God, but never identified as being one another: in other words - is the son the Holy spirit as well? Biblically your assertion that the son is the father collapses very very easily indeed as we will see: 1. Jesus positively asserted that the FATHER was greater than him - Jn 14:28 2. In the event that you attempt the lame line that he was only saying that because he was here on earth in the physical, then what about Jesus' assertion that he would ascend to be sitted on the right hand side of the father? after being resurrected? This makes it abundantly clear that he is not the same entity at whose rigfht hand he sits. It is made clear in the Gospel that he rose and sat at the right hand side of the Father - Mark 16:19. 3. Jesus makes it clear that the father has the same relationship with us (being our father) as with Jesus (being his father). This is emphasized by the text in Jn 20:17. Even after Jesus had died and risen, there remains a clear difference between the two as Peter writes - "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" - 1 Pet. 1: 3 4. “Of that day no one knows, not the angels, nor the son, but only the Father”. Mark 13:32. 5. To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane? To who did he cry "Eli Eli, La ma sabathacni?" Doubtless to the father. In Gethsemane he makes the crucial statement - "Nevertheless not as i will, but as thou wilt" - making it clear that the Father had a different mind, will and selfconsciousness, because if he were the father himself, that prayer would be moot and paradoxical. It is glaring from the foregoing that Jesus cannot ever be said to be the father. Not even within trinitarian dogma. And the serious inconsistencies above reveal what must perforce happen when irrational ideas seep into what was once pristine truth. I am frankly waiting to see to what bizzare lengths you both will go in attempting to debunk the above and insist that he is the father. |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by DeepSight(m): 9:38am On Dec 21, 2009 |
Mavenb0x: Maven do me a big favour and scour through this verse in any modern version of the bible, not the KJV. The words above have been removed from ALL modern versions! I'm serious, go check it out. Reason: the discovery of older manuscripts after the printing of the KJV in the 17th century showed that the earliest manuscripts did not contain these words. These words were deliberately inserted by the church in order to advance trinitarian dogma. You can confirm for yourself. Just check out modern bible versions, you'll see that what you quoted above is no longer there. How curious! |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by Mavenb0x(m): 3:53pm On Dec 21, 2009 |
Thanks for sharing your views, DeepSight. I will reply from my laptop when I get back home. |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by nuclearboy(m): 4:21pm On Dec 21, 2009 |
Simply put, DeepSight, could God be 2 different things in 2 different places at the same time? I need you to answer that question? |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by KunleOshob(m): 4:28pm On Dec 21, 2009 |
@nuclearboy I am suprised you submit to the trinitarian doctrine despite all the knowledge you have about the how christianity was distorted by the early catholic church. Trinity is an inherent part of that distortion. |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by nuclearboy(m): 4:42pm On Dec 21, 2009 |
You're right that Trinity came from the RCC system. But then you seem to have missed my point. I DO NOT AGREE THAT THERE ARE THREE GODS MAKING UP ONE "GOD". My position is that there is only ONE God. Where we seem to differ is this:- you believe that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also gods but lower than God. Sort of like somewhere between Angels and God. This would in fact, suggest it is you believing in trinity. If they are lower, they're not the same and that makes them three. I hope you follow? I refuse to accept this and believe that the ONE God shows Himself in differing manner at differing times. He, I believe manifested as Jesus yet was in heaven at the same time (BECAUSE HE IS GOD) and also shows Himself as the Holy Spirit. By default, He is Jehovah, a God of Judgment, Strong, Powerful etc. When relating to us, He showed a physical manifestation represented as Jesus (remember someone accepted worship in the OT and angels do not do that) and today, He reveals Himself to us as the Spirit of Love (in effect, He lives and walks with us). Look at it this way: God physically walked with Adam and Eve in Eden! The Bible is clear on that or do you not accept that? If the sacrifice of Jesus was what we say it is and effectual, it has brought us back to that situation since Adam walked on earth, not heaven and I would expect God walking with you or myself today just as much as then. When last did you shake hands with Him? My position is that the Holy Spirit which I believe we all claim we have is His manifestation. Anything less than that and Bro, Jesus did nothing for us and the point of the sacrifice was not met. |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by KunleOshob(m): 4:57pm On Dec 21, 2009 |
@nuclearboy I really don't like debating this trinity issue as it has been over flogged on this forum, but even if you read a few of deepsight's recent posts and quoted scriptures, it is glaring that Jesus is an entity distinct from the God the father and not a manifestation. He is an Image/ perfect likeness of God as the bible describes and NOT God the father as Jesus himself made it crystal clear that the father is greated than he is. |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by DeepSight(m): 4:59pm On Dec 21, 2009 |
Nuclear - you have not answered the posers i raised from the bible about Jesus and the Father. In this, please remember that even if ONE GOD manifests as three persons, it is manifestly unlikely, nay, impossible that the different manifestations should disagree or that one manifestation would petition another manifestation requesting the shelving of a divinely ordained event, as happened in Gethsemane. Capisce? |
Re: Nuclearboy Puts Deep Sights's Concerns On Xtianity To The Sword by nuclearboy(m): 5:52pm On Dec 21, 2009 |
@DeepSight & KunleOshob: I sincerely thought my response negated the argument your posers brought up. I just didn't want to go the argument way. If you want I'll take another look at them and attempt to present my own perspective. For now though Sirs, humor me and allow me digress for a bit. I think we can solve this issue very very simply by me trying to show you what you in fact, are claiming to be the truth. Trinity I believe means three Gods in the GodHead. You say you do not believe in Trinity and so do I. We agree that there is "God". So I ask you about the 2 other names in the mix i.e. Jesus and the Holy Spirit. [1] Do you believe Jesus exists? [2] Do you believe the Holy Spirit exists? [3] Is Jesus Divine? [4] Is the Holy Spirit Divine? [5] If Jesus is Divine, is He lower than God? [6] If the Holy Spirit is Divine, is "it" lower than God? If your answers to the above questions are YES, then you have a serious problem here as you then have said there are three DISPARATE divinities in Christianity and like the Muslims would say, we have three gods. Are you Muslims, by any chance? If your answers are NO, then what are we arguing about since obviously you deny the Bible. If there is a middle ground somewhere in this, please detail it to me. Following your response to the above, I'd be pleased to look at the posers you said I ignored. |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (Reply)
The Greatest Gift / I Want To Know About MFM / Daily Guide - Daily Bible Reading Devotional From Scripture Union Nigeria (SU)
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 140 |