frosbel:

Not all of us are students.

I am waiting for your reply to my question.

welcome back, I didn't get the student bit though. I remember asking you to check the meaning of 'appear', compare it with the meaning I gave you, see if we both agree.

shdemidemi:

welcome back, I didn't get the student bit though. I remember asking you to check the meaning of 'appear', compare it with the meaning I gave you

I have a day time Job, I am not always available to comment , so don't think I have fled.

frosbel:

I have a day time Job, I am not always available to comment , so don't think I have fled.

lol, that makes me a student then. olodo, anyway answer my question.

ijawkid:

Oboy your own thread wey you give false definition of Jesus being the beginning of Gods creation.....

Thread wey you yourself dey completely ignorant of who Jesus be.....

I give you scriptural examples of the use of such expression you turn to steven wonder.......

Oya I ask you why the Father no fit be the beginning of Gods creation u begin dance azonto....

Then you dey here dey yap say we run......

Thread wey u dey argue yeyely as to the oneness wey we get with Christ.....


Thread wey even as we show you how Jesus take be saviour u argue blindly they claim say Jesus na Yahweh since Yahweh say na him be the only saviour....

We no run...we just leave you to wallow in your pagan doctrine called the trinity...

The moment you agree say Jesus no be the Father na him I just leave the thread....

My job was finished on that thread......

stay on topic... correct your entourage... if you want to discuss go back there.

benalvino:

even frosbel that opens the thread is not staying on topic. I couldn't find you in the thread that ijawkid ran away from and his entourage lol. I see the thread you directed me to. and I smiled.

What i did is teaching. Did you not see how the unfruitful spirit of confusion from Bidam Breezed in and wanted to spoil what we have been doing.

Arguement is unfruitful, teaching is the best. Answer my questions and i will answer yours.
I hope your smile meant you now understand Phil 2:5-9.

Boomark:

What i did is teaching. Did you not see how the unfruitful spirit of confusion from Bidam Breezed in and wanted to spoil what we have been doing.

Arguement is unfruitful, teaching is the best. Answer my questions and i will answer yours.
I hope your smile meant you now understand Phil 2:5-9.

Ad hominem at it best, stay on the Op.This is a cheap way of escape.

shdemidemi:

Don't play the defence, it was just a question that needs a simple answer. I ask again, did they tell you the son is the father in the Godhead?

Please who or what ever taught about persons being in a Godhead??......

Eh??.......

You are still clinging to your false understanding of God head....

and may I answer your question::

You guys by your incoherent comments have been mistaking or rather making Jesus the Father....

If Jesus isn't the Father then why believe in the trinity??.....

Are you not all sick??.....

I ask again.....

benalvino:

stay on topic... correct your entourage... if you want to discuss go back there.

Go back to where??....

Your thread which you could not defend to the end.....

You lacked complete explanations to what you presently understand,but pride won't let you learn...or would I say the pagan trinity has blind folded you....

If you could recall from_guerira abandoned you that thread to wallow in your pagan teaching when he got you to answer that Jesus isn't the Father and so destroys the trinity....

The reason why I remained on that thread for that long was to define what Jesus being the beginning of Gods creation means....

But as it did end you stuck to the trinity which has no place in the scriptures......


So you can keep worshipping 3 Gods or rather keep calling 3 persons your God....

I stick to the Father been the ONE GOD to us...I bet you and trinitarians aren't amongst the us that has one GOD that is the God and Father of Jesus and of all of us......

Keep worshipping 3 Gods....

ijawkid:

Please who or what ever taught about persons being in a Godhead??......

Eh??.......

You are still clinging to your false understanding of God head....

and may I answer your question::

You guys by your incoherent comments have been mistaking or rather making Jesus the Father....

If Jesus isn't the Father then why believe in the trinity??.....

Are you not all sick??.....

I ask again.....

You are too forward in this discussion. What do you understand by the Godhead?

shdemidemi:

You are too forward in this discussion. What do you understand by the Godhead?

I do not see the word 'Godhead' as being plural, since it does not say 'Godsheads (plural).' The head of EVERY man is Father Yahweh which most certainly includes THE MAN Yahshua.

Yahshua did not pre-exist His birth, since he is a mortal man and not an immortal 'god' or 'angel.'

Yahshua had the same origin as all men who are mortal beings:

For it was fitting that He [Yahweh], for Whom and by Whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to esteem, should make [Yahshua] the pioneer of their redemption perfect through suffering. For he [Yahshua] who sets apart and those who are set apart have all ONE ORIGIN. That is why he [Yahshua] is not ashamed to call them brethern, saying, I will proclaim Your name [Yahweh's name] to my brethern, in the midst of the congregation I will praise You (Hebrews 2:10-12; Psalm 22:22 RSV).

Frank4YAHWEH:

I do not see the word 'Godhead' as being plural, since it does not say 'Godsheads (plural).' The head of EVERY man is Father Yahweh which most certainly includes THE MAN Yahshua.

Yahshua did not pre-exist His birth, since he is a mortal man and not an immortal 'god' or 'angel.'

Yahshua had the same origin as all men who are mortal beings:

For it was fitting that He [Yahweh], for Whom and by Whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to esteem, should make [Yahshua] the pioneer of their redemption perfect through suffering. For he [Yahshua] who sets apart and those who are set apart have all ONE ORIGIN. That is why he [Yahshua] is not ashamed to call them brethern, saying, I will proclaim Your name [Yahweh's name] to my brethern, in the midst of the congregation I will praise You (Hebrews 2:10-12; Psalm 22:22 RSV).

I have never had a discussion with you, so I will like to ask if you believe in the bible before engaging you.

frosbel:

I think when it comes to evading the truth, ALL will agree that this is your trademark.

Besides, I will not indulge your ego with a response, I think this article suffices for a discussion with other brethren.

Thanks.

Lol, I asked you precisely what you claimed you wanted to discuss and suddenly discussing what you said you wanted to discuss = indulging Mr anony's ego? I see.

When you are ready to repent and submit to God's revelation through scripture and not force it under your feet perhaps then we might have a discussion as brothers. In the meantime I will continue to do the bitter job of pointing out to you that you have gone astray. I will also continue to warn other Christians of your heresies lest you lead them into sin.

frosbel:

I am ready to be very unpopular because of the Truth.

Abeg shut up there. Judas was also unpopular amongst the apostles. Being unpopular does not equal truth

Mr anony:
Abeg shut up there. Judas was also unpopular amongst the apostles. Being unpopular does not equal truth

Enigma: ^^^ You guys haven't seen anything! Many are the promises "I am busy now; I will reply later" --- all na lie; na to take style run!

See how long people have been waiting on the promise here (and that is just one example) https://www.nairaland.com/1064416/put-hard-questions-trinitarian-theologians/1#12501321

Lololol....na frosbel way be that.

Notice that he hasn't yet given us any positive argument why he thinks Christ did not pre-exist his birth.

The guy avoids this thread like a plague

Bookmark, I asked you a question that as been left unanswered, pls address it

Frosbel's modus operandi.

Step 1. Open a thread and announce that you want to show that Christ did not pre-exist His birth

Step 2. When you are asked why you think Christ did not exist from the beginning, don't answer just accuse the person who asked you the question of arrogance

Step 3. When shown from the bible that Jesus clearly existed before His birth, ignore that too instead ask an irrelevant question pertaining to trinity

Step 4. When provided with more verse including those of Jesus Himself telling people that He existed before his physical birth, dodge those as well, instead ask the irrelevant question of whether the pre-existence of Christ is relevant to Christianity. Conveniently forget that you bothered to open a thread that you didn't think was relevant at all.

Step 5. When finally pressed to the wall and asked to make your case clear why you hold the opinions you hold. Promise everyone that you will come back to answer properly as soon as you "finish what you are doing now".

Step 6. Unfollow the thread. They can wait forever if they like.

Step 7. After a week or two, open another thread on the very same topic and repeat the process all over again

^^^^^^^^^my belle ooooo haahahahaaha
you half finish frosbel..dasor!!!

shdemidemi: The guy avoids this thread like a plague

Bookmark, I asked you a question that as been left unanswered, pls address it

Done that.

shdemidemi:

I have never had a discussion with you, so I will like to ask if you believe in the bible before engaging you.

Is it not obvious that I believe Scripture from what I have posted? Just because I do not believe as you do does not mean that I do not believe what Scripture actually says.

Mr anony: Frosbel's modus operandi.

Step 1. Open a thread and announce that you want to show that Christ did not pre-exist His birth

Step 2. When you are asked why you think Christ did not exist from the beginning, don't answer just accuse the person who asked you the question of arrogance

Step 3. When shown from the bible that Jesus clearly existed before His birth, ignore that too instead ask an irrelevant question pertaining to trinity

Step 4. When provided with more verse including those of Jesus Himself telling people that He existed before his physical birth, dodge those as well, instead ask the irrelevant question of whether the pre-existence of Christ is relevant to Christianity. Conveniently forget that you bothered to open a thread that you didn't think was relevant at all.

Step 5. When finally pressed to the wall and asked to make your case clear why you hold the opinions you hold. Promise everyone that you will come back to answer properly as soon as you "finish what you are doing now".

Step 6. Unfollow the thread. They can wait forever if they like.

Step 7. After a week or two, open another thread on the very same topic and repeat the process all over again

Mate, slander is fact becoming your preoccupation.

I trust you understand some of us have Jobs and cannot always respond at the pace which you want us to.

Mr anony: Frosbel's modus operandi.

Step 1. Open a thread and announce that you want to show that Christ did not pre-exist His birth

Step 2. When you are asked why you think Christ did not exist from the beginning, don't answer just accuse the person who asked you the question of arrogance

Step 3. When shown from the bible that Jesus clearly existed before His birth, ignore that too instead ask an irrelevant question pertaining to trinity

Step 4. When provided with more verse including those of Jesus Himself telling people that He existed before his physical birth, dodge those as well, instead ask the irrelevant question of whether the pre-existence of Christ is relevant to Christianity. Conveniently forget that you bothered to open a thread that you didn't think was relevant at all.

Step 5. When finally pressed to the wall and asked to make your case clear why you hold the opinions you hold. Promise everyone that you will come back to answer properly as soon as you "finish what you are doing now".

Step 6. Unfollow the thread. They can wait forever if they like.

Step 7. After a week or two, open another thread on the very same topic and repeat the process all over again

The problem is, nowhere in Scripture is it made known that he existed before His birth and nowhere in Scripture is there one verse telling or the Messiah himself telling people that he existed before his physical birth. There is no verse in Scripture that clearly or actually says 'Yahshua existed before his physical birth.' nor is he ever recorded in the so-called "New Testament" as saying 'I existed before my physical birth.'

Frank4YAHWEH:


The problem is, nowhere in Scripture is it made known that he existed before His birth and nowhere in Scripture is there one verse telling or the Messiah himself telling people that he existed before his physical birth. There is no verse in Scripture that clearly or actually says 'Yahshua existed before his physical birth.' nor is he ever recorded in the so-called "New Testament" as saying 'I existed before my physical birth.'

Do you have an interpretation for before your fathers(the patriarchs), I AM.

Frank4YAHWEH:


The problem is, nowhere in Scripture is it made known that he existed before His birth and nowhere in Scripture is there one verse telling or the Messiah himself telling people that he existed before his physical birth. There is no verse in Scripture that clearly or actually says 'Yahshua existed before his physical birth.' nor is he ever recorded in the so-called "New Testament" as saying 'I existed before my physical birth.'

And I suppose the verse of the Bible about' 'before Abraham I was' is not in your Bible.

Mee234:
And I suppose the verse of the Bible about' 'before Abraham I was' is not in your Bible.

Sure is! The problem is with one'e own private interpretation of this verse. Yahshua was not speaking of his pre-existing his birth before Abraham was born or existed, but he was answering the question posed by the Sanhedrin to him in their asking "Are you GREATER than our father Abraham?" In his use of the word "before" in this verse he is speaking of his preeminence over Abraham, not that he existed before him.

What did Yahshua mean when he said:

"Before Abraham Was, I Am"?
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/YAHWEHFrank/IAm.html

Frank4YAHWEH:

Sure is! The problem is with one'e own private interpretation of this verse. Yahshua was not speaking of his pre-existing his birth before Abraham was born of existed, but he was answering the question posed by the Sanhedrin to him in their asking "Are you GREATER than our father Abraham?" In his use of the word "before" in this verse he is speaking of his preeminence over Abraham, not that he existed before him.

What did Yahshua mean when he said:

"Before Abraham Was, I Am"?
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/YAHWEHFrank/IAm.html

I was going to like your theology until I realised you do not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, please explain.



"All right then, the Lord himself will give you the sign. Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (which means 'God is with us " - Isaiah 7:14

frosbel:


I was going to like your theology until I realised you do not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, please explain.



"All right then, the Lord himself will give you the sign. Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (which means 'God is with us " - Isaiah 7:14

This is not a "virgin", but is a young woman or maiden.

"Mark! The maiden will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call His name Immanuel" --a word which signifies 'God with us' (Mattithyah [Matthew] 1:23 - Weymouth New Testament).


Betulah means virgin
Aalmah means young woman

Apparently, Strong's entry for 'aalmah (5959) admits that it is the feminine of 'elem' (5958). That entry lists "lad, young man, stripling" but accurately mentions nothing of virginity.

There is another word which can mean 'young woman'.

In Deuteronomy 22:25 we have 'naarah betulah' to mean ' young woman who is a virgin'. It does not mean 'young woman who is a young woman'.

Naarah is the feminine of naar (a youth) .

Saying that 'aalmah' does not mean 'young woman' because some young women are virgins is like a Turkish-speaker trying to convince an English-speaker that 'princess', although the feminine form of 'prince', actually means 'red-head' because some princesses have red hair.

Apologists try to get around this by pointing to Joel 1:8 where 'betulah' is used of a married woman. Therefore, they say, 'betulah' cannot mean virgin.

Normally, a woman does not lose her virginity during the marriage ceremony. It is quite in order for Joel to talk of a virgin who has suffered a grevious loss and lost her husband. The loss would be especially grevious if the marriage had not yet been consummated.

I believe that Yahshua had to be a man just like us in every way in that he would be able to sympathize with us.

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tested in every way as we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15).

I believe Yahshua to be a descendant of David and of his seed. This is what Scripture clearly teaches. I can not see how he can be born of a virgin and be of the seed of David at the same time. Many Chistians simply explain this contradiction away by saying "He was "both God and man" or "a God-Man."

Yahshua, Born of A Virgin?
http://www.freewebs.com/frank4yahweh/pareidolia.htm

So, He came through intimate intercourse between Joseph and Mary, right?

Frank4YAHWEH:

This is not a "virgin", but is a young woman or maiden.

"Mark! The maiden will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call His name Immanuel" --a word which signifies 'God with us' (Mattithyah [Matthew] 1:23 - Weymouth New Testament).


Betulah means virgin
Aalmah means young woman

Apparently, Strong's entry for 'aalmah (5959) admits that it is the feminine of 'elem' (5958). That entry lists "lad, young man, stripling" but accurately mentions nothing of virginity.

There is another word which can mean 'young woman'.

In Deuteronomy 22:25 we have 'naarah betulah' to mean ' young woman who is a virgin'. It does not mean 'young woman who is a young woman'.

Naarah is the feminine of naar (a youth) .

Saying that 'aalmah' does not mean 'young woman' because some young women are virgins is like a Turkish-speaker trying to convince an English-speaker that 'princess', although the feminine form of 'prince', actually means 'red-head' because some princesses have red hair.

Apologists try to get around this by pointing to Joel 1:8 where 'betulah' is used of a married woman. Therefore, they say, 'betulah' cannot mean virgin.

Normally, a woman does not lose her virginity during the marriage ceremony. It is quite in order for Joel to talk of a virgin who has suffered a grevious loss and lost her husband. The loss would be especially grevious if the marriage had not yet been consummated.

I believe that Yahshua had to be a man just like us in every way in that he would be able to sympathize with us.

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tested in every way as we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15).

I believe Yahshua to be a descendant of David and of his seed. This is what Scripture clearly teaches. I can not see how he can be born of a virgin and be of the seed of David at the same time. Many Chistians simply explain this contradiction away by saying "He was "both God and man" or "a God-Man."

Yahshua, Born of A Virgin?
http://www.freewebs.com/frank4yahweh/pareidolia.htm

I disagree with you.

Read this :

"His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[e] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[f] because he will save his people from their sins.”

22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”)." - Matthew 1

Frank4YAHWEH:

Sure is! The problem is with one'e own private interpretation of this verse. Yahshua was not speaking of his pre-existing his birth before Abraham was born or existed, but he was answering the question posed by the Sanhedrin to him in their asking "Are you GREATER than our father Abraham?" In his use of the word "before" in this verse he is speaking of his preeminence over Abraham, not that he existed before him.

What did Yahshua mean when he said:

"Before Abraham Was, I Am"?
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/YAHWEHFrank/IAm.html

Bros HE was talking about him pre existing Abraham because the question He was answering was '' though are not yet 50....... '' not between u and father Abraham who greater

frosbel:


I disagree with you.

Read this :

"His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[e] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[f] because he will save his people from their sins.”

22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”)." - Matthew 1

Yes, I know that you disagree with me and I have read and studied a large number of translations of this prophecy in the so-called "Old Testament" and the so-called "New Testament", but again, this prophecy said that she was a young woman or maiden in it's original state in the so-called "Old Testament.", not a virgin. Note that the translation that you submitted not only uses the word 'virgin', but also goes so far as to embelish with other specific words in this translation to promote the "vigin birth" doctrine compared to the translation that I had submitted previously:

"Mark! The maiden will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call His name Immanuel" --a word which signifies 'God with us' (Mattithyah [Matthew] 1:23 - Weymouth New Testament).

If you can not see the embelishment in the translation that you submitted, then you are blind!

FTI, I am not an inerrantist concerning Scripture translations. I believe that there is bias in translation and especially by Trinitarian translators.

"The author of the Gospel of Matthew used the Septuagint's translation of the Hebrew word almah as the Greek parthenos (unequivocally a virgin) in support of his concept of the virgin birth of Jesus. Scholars agree that almah has nothing to do with virginity 'per se', but many conservative Christians still judge the acceptability of new Bible translations by the way they deal with Isaiah 7:14." SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14

frosbel:

Mate, slander is fact becoming your preoccupation.

I trust you understand some of us have Jobs and cannot always respond at the pace which you want us to.

Lol dude, describing you accurately is not slander. . . .unless you have an unfavourable opinion of yourself. There is a difference between avoiding discussion on the very topic you created and not being able to discuss because of job constraints.

I am still yet to see you present any reasons why you believe that Christ did not exist before He came to the world. Mind you, it was you who initiated the topic not us.