I've tried to follow your reasoning, 8oracle; but it just doesn't add up. Here's why -

8oracle:

It isn't suprising that most so called christains have been polluted by unbibilical, devilish teachings which was propanded by a philisophical pagans the so called St Augustine and Pluto ascribing Godship to the person of Jesus Christ.

If you are misconstruing St Augustine and Pluto as the same person who penned John 1:1, then you might well be on your way to becoming the next Dan Brown. Long before St. Augustine, John 1:1 had been written.

8oracle:

NOWHERE, I REPEAT NOWHERE in the scripture was the almightness of Godship is alluded to Jesus.

It makes me wonder what "scripture" you have been reading. Talking about verses "alluding" to the deity (or 'Godship') of Jesus, sample the very same "scriptures" you deny:

Isaiah 9:6
Who is being described there as "mighty God"? Now if you concede that is it Jesus, are you then denying that He is the very same One actually called "God"? Don't stumble over "the almightiness" of God - there are a couple other texts that simply refer to the Lord as "mighty God" ==

"Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the LORD thy God is among you, a mighty God and terrible." [Deut. 7:21]

"The mighty God, even the LORD, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof" [Psa. 50:1].

"The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God." [Isa. 10:21].

"Thou shewest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the LORD of hosts, is his name." [Jer. 32:18].

Question: Is the mighty God any different from the Almighty God (or if you prefer, how is "the mighty God" any different from "the almightiness God"? How "mighty" does God have to be in order for anyone to trust Him as simply "GOD"?

John 1:1
Often quoted, would you deny that the Bible says that "the Word was God" - alluding to the very fact that Jesus is God?

Dozens more can be quoted to attest to the fact that Scripture alludes to the deity of Jesus Christ, the Word who became flesh in order to die as Man for our Redemption (see I Cor. 15:21).

8oracle:

1 The bible made it clear that Jesus was the first thing created by God (Colossian 1vs15,Revelation 3vs14) and so no other thing both in the heavens and upon the earth was created without Jesus knowing i.e in the beginning of any other creation (John 1vs1,3,Proverbs 8vss 22-31)

Did you read carefully the texts you quoted to support you personal views? I'll take just two of them: John 1vs1,3 ==

Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:3  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Do those verses read like what you insinuated about Jesus being the first "thing" created by God? Sorry, but verse 1 called Him "God" = "the Word was God."

Col 1:16  For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him

Jesus created all things. QED.

8oracle:

2 When angel Gabriel came to Mary he did not inform her that she was going to bear in her womb God rather he said Read Luke 1vs 31

No problem. The angel did not Gabriel categorically announce to Mary that she was to bear "God"; but the very same angel Gabriel would have joined innumerable other angels in rejoicing to announce the birth of the divine Son as "the Lord" =

Luke 2:11 - "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Further, when the heavenly hosts saw the marvel of the Creator becoming a Man for our redemption, they further rejoiced as we understand from 1 Tim. 3:16 =

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

8oracle:

3 When he came to the earth neither himself nor his disciples and apostles saw to it or belief that he was God (Mathew 16vs16,John 14vs 28, John 3vs 17, I Corinthians 11vs 3

You're kidding, right? Was it an apostle or an apostate who wrote clearly in John 1:1 that "the Word was God"? Was it yet another Jesus who said in Rev. 22:12-13, "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last"?

8oracle:

4 God almighty cannot be seen, (Exodus 33vs20 John 1vs 18) but Jesus had walked and been seen by thousands of persons.

Exo. 24:11 - "And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink."

John 14:9 - "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"

Col. 2:9 - "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

8oracle:

The almighty God cannot be killed,or subject to death (Habakkuk 1vs 12) but Jesus had died once under the hands of false accusers(the Jews) and the ruling Roman armies during his lifetime here on earth

Phew! What did you do with these verses:

". . . the Word was God. . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." [John 1: 11& 4].

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" [Rom. 8:3]

"Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." [Rom 9:5]

See the last line of that Rom. 9:5 - declaring that Christ is over all, God blessed for ever. More than that, He came in the flesh (see I John 4:2) for the express purpose of dying in the flesh to save men:

"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; " [Heb 2:14].

Bro, Jesus became Man in order to die in the flesh for your salvation - he did not die as "God", but as Man. The Bible defines death as the body without the Spirit (James 2:26); but it also says that after Jesus died in the flesh, He went to the spirits in prison =

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison." [1 Pet 3:18-19].

8oracle:

Hence should anyone misdirects his or her woship to Jesus,it will be counted as pure idolatry,for christ never accepted to be worship (Luke 4vs8,John20vs17,Romans 1vs25)

So, was Christ asking us to become "idolaters" when He categorically asked believers to honour Him even as we honour the Father (John 5:23)? Is it only in the name of the Father a believer is baptized (Matt. 28:19)? Did He damn those who worshipped Him by faith, such as the wise men (Matt. 2:11); the leper who was healed (Matt. 8:2); the ruler (Matt. 9:18); the disciples (Matt. 14:33 and 28:9 & 17)?

If that hasn't clicked, think about this: was the Father asking angels to engage in idolatory when He asked them to worship the Son? "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." [Heb. 1:6]. The Father instructed all the angels to worship Jesus the Son; and yet some believers fuss at men doing the same! No harm meant, but if you choose not to worship the Son, try not denouncing others who understand Jesus as engaging in "pure idolatory."

8oracle:

Finally at nowhere can one read in the bible that God prays or prayed,if Jesus was God can it be said he prayed to himself to answer his own prayer or prayers.

God doesn't pray to Himself, granted. But did you never read in Heb. 5:7 that:

"Who [Jesus] in the days of his flesh [that is, as Man], when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared."

Jesus as a Man "in the days of his flesh" offered up prayers. Prior to that time before He became Man (John 1:14), He nowhere offered up prayers.

8oracle:

Christopagan, a la carte,fast food made christain know the truth before it is too,too late

That is my prayer for you - and may God bring you to acknowledge His truth before it's late!

goodguy:

Shahan,
Thanks for shedding more light to John 1:1.

God bless you, bo. I don't mean to offend anyone, but perhaps I can understand how they feel - having myself been one of those who was taught wrongly to deny the deity of Jesus Christ.

@gbade. x, Happy New Year to you, too.

Jesus is God just as His Father is God.

On the matter of faith. Faith in the biblical context means trust. In this case trust in God and His ways of doing things. So when the bible says:

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen", it doesn't mean that the evidence isn't there. What it means is that God doesn't always choose to reveal the evidence when we think He aught to. He is in control, not us. He knows all circumstances and situations.

If God were to reveal all the evidence at our beckon and wish at a moment's notice, then where will the room be for our spiritual growth that is based on trust?

Bobbyaf:
. . .What it means is that God doesn't always choose to reveal the evidence when we think He aught to. He is in control, not us. He knows all circumstances and situations.

"Faith is . . . the evidence of things not seen",

Although this thread is about the deity of Jesus Christ, I think the Bible simply defines faith as 'the evidence' of things not seen. As long as there's faith, there's always evidence . . . or there won't always be 'the substance' in the first place. In context, that verse would simply mean: faith is substantiating the things I hope for - by how I live.

@Shahan

Faith is believing what you want to believe, yet cannot prove."

Many people, including many Christians, live with this definition of faith. For some it feels liberating. It means being able to believe in anything you want to. No explanation is required; indeed, no explanation can be given--it is just a matter of faith. For others, such a definition is sickening. Embracing faith means you stop thinking. As faith increases, reason and meaning eventually disappear. No explanations can be given, and none can be expected. Thus, living in faith is living in the dark.

The promise of rewards for the faithful falls away when confronted by the religiously-neutral injustice of the world.

Believers invent an afterlife system of justice (Heaven and Hell) to compensate and maintain their belief in a God who provides for their emotional needs. However, the idea of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God is logically incompatible with the existence of Hell. Believers therefore resort to the doctrine of divinely created free will among humans and angels. However, true free will is logically incompatible with the omniscience of God, and therefore the omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence of God is logically destroyed.

Believers, in response, flee from rationality and abandon themselves to a way of life commanded by emotion: that way of life is faith.

Reverend,

Your premise about faith is wrong, and what is worse is that the sword you've tried to swing only ends up chopping your arm. Here's a little something for your reflection:

Reverend:

Believers, in response, flee from rationality and abandon themselves to a way of life commanded by emotion: that way of life is faith.

Can you explain how "rational" is the practice of your own sensualities in the kinkychurch? How "rational" is the naked baptism your own crew demands of unsuspecting applicants to your group? And how rational is it to expose nude pictures of Africans on your kinkychurch website - without the slightest consideration of what psychological effect such would have on their progeny?

If faith is a way of life "commanded by emotions", you've only demonstrated that such an idea best describes the sorry state of your own group. Such 'irrationality' as is promoted by your own group misses the whole point of what actually is faith.

BROTHERS, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT JESUS IS GOD. IT IS THE GR8TEST CONTROVERSY EVER. GOD CAME IN THE PERSON OF JESUS TO MAN. THAT IS WHY IN THE BOOK OF FIRST JOHN, THE BIBLE SAID THAT ANY SPIRIT THAT CONFESSESS THAT JESUS CHRIST IN THE FLESH IS OF GOD. THAT IS GOD BECAME A MAN IN THE PROCESS OF INCARNATION. BUT THE DEVIL WILL MAKE SUMPPL BELIVE OTHERWISE. BUT THAT IS IT, IF JESUS IS NOT GOD, THEN HE WILL NOT KNOW HOW TO HELP YOU AND FEEL WHAT U FEEL. IT'S JUST THAT PLAIN SIMPLE BUT TOO WONDROUS TO FATHOM. BELIEVE IT IN IT'S SIMPLICITY.

@ Shahan

Talking about rationalities, what is the rationality of arguing whether Jesus is God or that God is Jesus or a space alien even?

What is the rationality of worshiping an invisible man that is supposed to love us but has no problem with burning people in hell for eternity if we upset him?

What is your problem with the naked human body? Why is it that you look down on everything and everybody that does not follow your doctrines? What makes your pretend God better than any other pretend God?

Faith = Terror

We use it as a way to deal with the terrifying prospect of death and the reality that when you die that is it. There is nothing else , physically or spiritually,

Faith is a drug used to fend off reality!

to all supporters of jesus is God especially M4MALIK, am sure this little explanation will shed light on the lies perpetrated by some people to dilludioned people into acepting that jesus is God.

John 1:1

In the "original" Greek manuscripts (Did the disciple John speak Greek?), "The Word" is only described as being "ton theos"(divine/a god) and not as being "ho theos" (The Divine/The God). A more faithful and correct translation of this verse would thus read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine" (If you read the New World Translation of the Bible you will find exactly this wording).


Similarly, in "The New Testament, An American Translation" this verse is honestly presented as

"In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine."

The New Testament, An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173


And again in the dictionary of the Bible, under the heading of "God" we read

"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.'"

The Dictionary of the Bible by John McKenzie, Collier Books, p. 317

In yet another Bible we read:

"The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine"

The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, by Dr. James Moffatt


Please also see "The Authentic New Testament" by Hugh J. Schonfield and many others.


If we look at a different verse, 2 Corinthians 4:4, we find the exact same word (ho theos) that was used in John 1:1 to describe God Almighty is now used to describe the devil, however, now the system of translation has been changed:


"the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not."


According to the system of the previous verse and the English language, the translation of the description of the Devil should also have been written as "The God" with a capital "G." If Paul was inspired to use the exact same words to describe the Devil, then why should we change it? Why is "The God" translated as simply "the god" when referring to the devil, while "divine" is translated as the almighty "God" when referring to "The Word"? Are we now starting to get a glimpse of how the "translation" of the Bible took place?


Well, what is the difference between saying "the word was God," and between saying "the word was a god (divine)"? Are they not the same? Far from it! Let us read the bible:


I have said, Ye (the Jews) are gods; and all of you are children of the most High"

Psalms 82:6:


"And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh"

Exodus 7:1


"the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not."

2 Corinthians 4:4


What does all of this mean? Let me explain.


In the West, it is common when one wishes to praise someone to say "You are a prince," or "You are an angel" , etc. When someone says this do they mean that that person is the son of the King of England, or a divine spiritual being? There is a very slight grammatical difference between saying "You are a prince" and between saying "You are THE prince," however, the difference in meaning is quite dramatic.


Further, it is necessary when translating a verse to also take into account the meaning as understood by the people of that age who spoke that language. One of the biggest problems with the Bible as it stands today is that it forces us to look at ancient Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures through Greek and Latin glasses as seen by people who are neither Jews, Greeks, nor Romans. All of the so called "original" manuscripts of the NT available today are written in Greek or Latin. The Jews had no trouble reading such verses as Psalms 82:6, and Exodus 7:1, while still affirming that there is only one God in existence and vehemently denying the divinity of all but God Almighty. It is the continuous filtration of these manuscripts through different languages and cultures as well as the Roman Catholic church's extensive efforts to completely destroy all of the original Hebrew Gospels (see last quarter of this chapter) which has led to this misunderstanding of the verses.


The Americans have a saying: "Hit the road men." It means "It is time for you to leave." However, if a non-American were to receive this command without any explanation then it is quite possible that we would find him beating the road with a stick. Did he understand the words? Yes! Did he understand the meaning? No!


In the Christian church we would be hard pressed to find a single priest or nun who does not address their followers as "my children." They would say: "Come here my children", or "Be wary of evil my children" , etc. What do they mean?


A fact that many people do not realize is that around 200AD spoken Hebrew had virtually disappeared from everyday use as a spoken language. It was not until the 1880s that a conscious effort was made by Eliezer Ben-Yehudah to revive the dead language. Only about a third of current spoken Hebrew and basic grammatical structures come from biblical and Mishnaic sources. The rest was introduced in the revival and includes elements of other languages and cultures including the Greek and Arabic languages.


Even worse than these two examples are cases when translation into a different languages can result in a reversal of the meaning. For example, in the West, when someone loves something they say "It warmed my heart." In the Middle East, the same expression of joy would be conveyed with the words: "It froze my heart." If an Mideasterner were to greet a Westerner with the words: "It froze my heart to see you," then obviously this statement would not be greeted with a whole lot of enthusiasm from that Westerner, and vice versa. This is indeed one of the major reasons why the Muslims have been so much more successful in the preservation of their holy text than the Christians or the Jews; because the language of the Qur'an has remained from the time of Muhammad (pbuh) to the present day a living language, the book itself has always been in the hands of the people (and not the "elite", and the text of the book remains in the original language of Muhammad (pbuh). For this reason, a translator must not and should not "translate" in a vacuum while disregarding the culture and traditions of the people who wrote these words. As we have just seen, it was indeed quite common among the Jews to use the word "god" (divine) to convey a sense of supreme power or authority to human beings. This system, however, was never popularly adopted by them to mean that these individuals were in any way omnipotent, superhuman, or equal to the Almighty.

Basic message of John:

Now that we have seen the correct translation of the verse of John 1:1, let us go a little further in our study of the intended meaning of this verse. This verse was taken from the "Gospel of John." The very best person to ask to explain what is meant by a given statement is the author of that statement himself. So let us ask "John" what is his mental picture of God and Jesus (pbuh) which he wishes to convey to us:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him."

John 13:16.

So the author of John tells us that God is greater than Jesus. If the author of this Gospel did indeed wish us to understand that Jesus and God are "one and the same," then can someone be greater than himself? Similarly,

"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

John 14:28.

Can someone "go" to himself? Can someone be "greater" than himself?

"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:"

John 17:1.

If John meant to tell us that "Jesus and God are one and the same" then shall we understand from this verse that God is saying to Himself "Self, glorify me so that I may glorify myself"? Does this sound like this is the message of John?

"While I (Jesus) was with them in the world, I kept them in thy (God's) name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled."

John 17:12.

If the author of John wanted us to believe that Jesus and God are one person then are we to understand from this verse that God is saying to Himself "Self, while I was in the world I kept them in your name, self. Those who I gave to myself I have kept , "? Is this what the author intended us to understand from his writings?


"Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world."

John 17:24.

Similarly, did the author intend us to interpret this as "Self, I will that they also whom I have given myself be with me where I am; that they my behold my glory which I have given myself, for I loved myself before the foundation of the world"?

So, we begin to see that in order to understand the writings of a given author, it is necessary to not take a single quotation from him in a vacuum and then interpret his whole message based upon that one sentence (and a badly mistranslated version of that sentence at that).

Who wrote the "Gospel of John"?:

The "Gospel of John" is popularly believed by the majority of regular church-goers to be the work of the apostle John the son of Zebedee. However, when consulting Christianity's more learned scholars of Church history, we find that this is far from the case. These scholars draw our attention to the fact that internal evidence provides serious doubt as to whether the apostle John the son of Zebedee wrote this Gospel himself. In the dictionary of the Bible by John Mckenzie we read

"A. Feuillet notes that authorship here may be taken loosely."

Such claims are based on such verses as 21:24:

"This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true."?

Did the apostle John write this about himself? Also see 21:20, 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, and 21:20-23. The "disciple who Jesus loved" according to the Church is John himself, but the author of this gospel speaks of him as a different person.


Further, The Gospel of John was written at or near Ephesus between the years 110 and 115 (some say 95-100) of the Christian era by this, or these, unknown author(s). According to R. H. Charles, Alfred Loisy, Robert Eisler, and other scholars of Christian history, John of Zebedee was beheaded by Agrippa I in the year 44 CE, long before the fourth Gospel was written. Did the Holy Ghost "inspire" the apostle John's ghost to write this gospel sixty years after he was killed? . In other words, what we have here is a gospel which is popularly believed to have been written by the apostle John, but which in fact was not written by him. In fact no one really knows for certain who wrote this gospel.


"Since the beginning of the period of modern critical study, however, there has been much controversy about [the Gospel of John's] authorship, place of origin, theological affiliations and background, and historical value"

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 2, Abingdon Press, p. 932

4) Who "inspired" the author of this gospel to write this verse?:

The words of John 1:1 are acknowledged by most reputable Christian scholar of the Bible as the words of another Jew, Philo of Alexandria (20BC-50AD), who claimed no divine inspiration for them and who wrote them decades before the "gospel of John" was ever conceived. Groliers encyclopedia has the following to say under the heading "Logos"("the word":


"Heraclitus was the earliest Greek thinker to make logos a central concept , In the New Testament, the Gospel According to Saint John gives a central place to logos; the biblical author describes the Logos as God, the Creative Word, who took on flesh in the man Jesus Christ. Many have traced John's conception to Greek origins--perhaps through the intermediacy of eclectic texts like the writings of Philo of Alexandria."


T. W. Doane says:

"The works of Plato were extensively studied by the Church Fathers, one of whom joyfully recognizes in the great teacher, the schoolmaster who, in the fullness of time, was destined to educate the heathen for Christ, as Moses did the Jews. The celebrated passage : "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word Was God" is a fragment of some Pagan treatise on the Platonic philosophy, evidently written by Irenaeus. It is quoted by Amelius, a Pagan philosopher as strictly applicable to the Logos, or Mercury, the Word, apparently as an honorable testimony borne to the Pagan deity by a barbarian, We see then that the title "Word" or "Logos," being applied to Jesus, is another piece of Pagan amalgamation with Christianity. It did not receive its authorized Christian form until the middle of the second century after Christ. The ancient pagan Romans worshipped a Trinity. An oracle is said to have declared that there was 'First God, then the Word, and with them the Spirit'. Here we see the distinctly enumerated, God, the Logos, and the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, in ancient Rome, where the most celebrated temple of this capital - that of Jupiter Capitolinus - was dedicated to three deities, which three deities were honored with joint worship."

I HOPE U UNDERSTAND NOW

@ Shahan

"Faith is . . . the evidence of things not seen",

Although this thread is about the deity of Jesus Christ, I think the Bible simply defines faith as 'the evidence' of things not seen. As long as there's faith, there's always evidence . . . or there won't always be 'the substance' in the first place. In context, that verse would simply mean: faith is substantiating the things I hope for - by how I live.

Well in a sense you're right. Faith becomes the substance over time. In other words, if you have faith that you will recieve a car, the substance, even though at this point in time, you are not sure how you will get it, your faith will manifest in the car itself, only it is God who is working out the situation.

So God works for BMW as a sales agent?

@Bobbyaf, no qualms, and blessings.  


@Reverend,

Reverend:

Talking about rationalities, what is the rationality of arguing whether Jesus is God or that God is Jesus or a space alien even?

If for no other reason, at least we are better off without your own version of a 'cannabis jesus.'

Reverend:

What is the rationality of worshiping an invisible man that is supposed to love us but has no problem with burning people in hell for eternity if we upset him?

If you had asked your dad the Rev. Fletcher why he still has the name 'Jesus' on the kinkychurch website, maybe you'll get answers? If all you see is the fear of burning in hell because you 'upset him', you leave me amused for just one reason - because fear is antithetical to the One you truly love.

Reverend:

What is your problem with the naked human body? Why is it that you look down on everything and everybody that does not follow your doctrines? What makes your pretend God better than any other pretend God?

1. My problem with naked human bodies on your website is that, while you expose Africans in the nude, none of your European kinkychurch members are exposed to such indecencies. Why is your dad not there; why are you not there in the nude? Do I suspect it is you've lost the plot that all sense of decency has left you.
Test: ask Seun what is wrong with posting such nude pictures on Nairaland.

2. I haven't looked down on "everything and everybody that does not follow" my doctrines, thank you. You'd be better for it if you can look more closely at how you have pedantically looked down on whatever does not square with yours - is that why you can't preach to your dad about what he's doing?

3. Oh, in case you can't read, I haven't been pretending God at all; so if that's what you are bent on by "any other pretending God", you missed the whole point miles away.

Reverend:

We use it as a way to deal with the terrifying prospect of death and the reality that when you die that is it. There is nothing else , physically or spiritually,

Okay, if you use 'it' (faith) to deal with "the terrifying prospect of death" as a way of acknowledging your own uneasiness, that says it all. Why should death be a "terrifying prospect"? Sorry, but you still are losing the plot.

I have not lost the plot as unlike you I am not following the plot!

The plot as in the sense:

1. a secret plan or scheme to accomplish some purpose, esp. a hostile, unlawful, or evil purpose

I have no fear of death as it is an absolutely natural process and is inevitable. As I have accepted the inevitability of death, I do not need a religious placebo to trick myself into believing that after my death I will live with an invisible man above the clouds and dress in white robes and drink tea all day

As for cannabis Jesus, The difference between cannabis and Jesus is that cannabis actually exists. Probably if you take enough cannabis Jesus will also appear before you. He has had enough chances to appear in the last two-thousand years, maybe cannabis is the only way you are going to make him appear

I think a Jesus stoned out on cannabis and imagining that he can do all kinds of supernatural magic is a far more believable story than the one the Bible portrays. If the apostles were also stoned it would then explain much of what happened,

Naked Images: Why would there be naked white people on the website of an African Mission? If you want my naked picture or a few images of naked white people (which I am sure is the real reason you wrote those things) then I will send them to your email address

Lets get back to the topic which is:

Is Jesus God?

The answer is simple. How can Jesus be God when God does not exist? How can God be Jesus when Jesus does not exist?

For those of you that believe then peace and happiness to you. Just keep it to yourself or:

Keep your Jesus off my penis
Keep your bible off my balls
Keep your prayers out of my ears
And your crosses off my walls
You can keep the virgin mother
And the resurrection too
Keep your Jesus off my penis
I'll keep my penis off of you


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exDo2SMdB-0

@ Muske

to all supporters of jesus is God especially M4MALIK, am sure this little explanation will shed light on the lies perpetrated by some people to dilludioned people into acepting that jesus is God.

John 1:1

In the "original" Greek manuscripts (Did the disciple John speak Greek?), "The Word" is only described as being "ton theos"(divine/a god) and not as being "ho theos" (The Divine/The God). A more faithful and correct translation of this verse would thus read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine" (If you read the New World Translation of the Bible you will find exactly this wording).

The New World translation is wrong and does not reflect the correct Greek translation. Most biblical scholars agree on this rendition.

Kai theos en o logos, which means and God was the Word.

Similarly, in "The New Testament, An American Translation" this verse is honestly presented as

"In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine."

The New Testament, An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173

Thats a paraphrased rendition and cannot be used to make the point you're trying to establish. If you're lokking fo raccuracy use an inter-linear version of the Greek that gives you a step by step translation of the Greek to English.

And again in the dictionary of the Bible, under the heading of "God" we read

"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.'"

The Dictionary of the Bible by John McKenzie, Collier Books, p. 317

Another example of a paraphrased rendition, and thus an inaccurate one for the idscussion under question.

In yet another Bible we read:

"The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine"

The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, by Dr. James Moffatt

Same as above.

If we look at a different verse, 2 Corinthians 4:4, we find the exact same word (ho theos) that was used in John 1:1 to describe God Almighty is now used to describe the devil, however, now the system of translation has been changed:


"the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not."

Ho theos is not found in John 1 at no time at all if you're quoting from the correct Greek source.

According to the system of the previous verse and the English language, the translation of the description of the Devil should also have been written as "The God" with a capital "G." If Paul was inspired to use the exact same words to describe the Devil, then why should we change it? Why is "The God" translated as simply "the god" when referring to the devil, while "divine" is translated as the almighty "God" when referring to "The Word"? Are we now starting to get a glimpse of how the "translation" of the Bible took place?

But it doesn't make that much difference. The word Devil is a capital noun anyway you look at it. Greek like some languiages have an assumed definite and indefinite article that are not translated into English. So instead of saying "the God" we would simply say God.

Well, what is the difference between saying "the word was God," and between saying "the word was a god (divine)"? Are they not the same? Far from it! Let us read the bible:

As was said there is no need to highlight the articles during translations. They are assumed. Instead of saying "the french", from the expression "la francais", we would simply say french. Same principle applies to the Greek.

I couldn't bother to quote you all the way, but suffice to say, your arguments for believing that Christ isn't God isn't biblical. A few texts from scripture will show you why.

Revelation 1:7,8
7 Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,”says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

here we see the title Almighty being used to describe Jesus Christ. As a matter of fact all the titles used in the book of Revelation that apply to the Father also apply to Christ.

In verses 10,11 we read:
10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, 11 saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and, “What you see, write in a book and send

Who was behind John speaking? Here is the proof.
12 Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band.

So the expression used as 8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Notice how the same expression of "Alpha and omega is used to describe the One referred to as Almighty? There can only be one person who was relating to John all this while, and that same person is none other than Jesus Christ. He refers to Himself as "the Almighty"

Phillipians 2:5-7
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation,

This verse is saying the opposite of what you are saying. You're making it look as if we are wrong in placing Jesus on par with His Father. Here Jesus is saying that "He thought it not robbery to be equal with God" In other words He is God and doesn't need to prove Himself as such. Being God wasn't something He longed for as Lucifer did. He never had to become envious for that exalted position since He is already God Almighty, a title which he shares with His Father. Jesus said "I and the Father are One"

Hebrews 1
8 But to the Son He says: “ Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;  A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.

Here we see the Father referring to His Son as God. They are both God. They from the beginning had the same substance. They are both from eternity.

Micah 5:2 says:
2 “ But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,  Yet out of you shall come forth to Me  The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting.”

Only God can be reffered to as being "everlasting"

There are references in the NT that no doubt show that Christ played a role of submission to His Father. He prayed to His Father; He prayed to His God. Christ saying that still doesn't make Him not God. He had to play the role of humility in order to save us from sin. Don't confuse His role with His status.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are famous for saying that Christ was created. They use texts out of context to support their arguments. They are making Him out ot be a mere creature that was exalted to an angel.  

I find that a bit strange that God could allow one of His creation to be called with the same titles He is called by. Its starange how a jealus God could allow Jesus a supposedly created being to recieve glory and hoour that only belongs to God. Listen to what God says about Himself, and what He will never do:

Isaiah 45:5
5 I am the LORD, and there is no other; There is no God besides Me.

Isaiah 46:9,10
9 Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,  And I will do all My pleasure,’

Considering the above texts. If Jesus weren't God then why is He called by the same expressions that only belong to God as seen in the book of Revelation?

John 17:5
5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

Clear isn't it? Both the Father and Son shared equal glory before the Son took on humanity.

I could go on and on.

@muske,

Here, let me help you:

muske:

to all supporters of jesus is God especially M4MALIK, am sure this little explanation will shed light on the lies perpetrated by some people to dilludioned people into acepting that jesus is God.

First of all, those of us who accept the deity of Jesus Christ as God manifest in flesh are not that "disillusioned" to know that your whole premise falls flat on its face in your opening defence:

muske:

John 1:1

In the "original" Greek manuscripts (Did the disciple John speak Greek?), "The Word" is only described as being "ton theos"(divine/a god) and not as being "ho theos" (The Divine/The God). A more faithful and correct translation of this verse would thus read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine" (If you read the New World Translation of the Bible you will find exactly this wording).

I observe that you favour the JW persuasion denying the deity of Jesus Christ. But what you missed out is that the New World Translation is spurious in its translation. You question if John spoke Greek; however, you failed to see your own weakness in Greek. Simply put, the last line of the text is correctly translated as "the Word was God", for there is no definte article ("the" before God.

More than that, "theos" simply means "God" and you can't interchange "God" and "divine". Look at the following texts for example:

2 Pet. 1:2-3 >>
"Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, According as his divine  power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue."

What I can't get is the weakness of your presuppositions in trying to stress a definite article where there's none ("the God".

If you insist that "God" and "divine" are interchangeable, you only concede to what you deny and make yourself out to be the "disillusioned person" trying to window shine others. No offence, but compare what you stated for graphic effects:

muske:

"The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine"

Beautiful. Now let me spread that statement out like this without changing a word in it:

1. The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning,

2. and the Logos was with God,

3. the Logos was divine.

In order words, if "divine" and "God" are the same, what you have just stated above is simply this:

3. the Logos was God.

Oh yes!! The Word was God!! What would you do without Dr. James Moffatt - because you definitely quoted him to buttress your vexed denial? So, what's all the noise about? Jesus is God, and you have just proved it yourself!

Reverend:

I have not lost the plot as unlike you I am not following the plot!

The plot as in the sense:

1. a secret plan or scheme to accomplish some purpose, esp. a hostile, unlawful, or evil purpose

Thanks for grabbing a dictionary - at least, my inputs are driving you to sweat it out! The whole summation of the "plot" (as defined by you) which you claim you "have not lost" is this:

- the secret, hostile, unlawful, or evil purpose of the kinkychurch promoted by your crew with Rev. Fletcher as leader -

says it all.

You really have not lost the plot, and I was dead wrong!! Apologies. You really have not lost "the secret, hostile, unlawful, and evil purpose" of exposing 'otherwise normal people' to your schemes. You really have not lost the plot, spare me, of still vaunting such evil purposes on others while you hide your faces from the same webpage that you expose others in their nudity.

I apologise that I got it all wrong at first - you really haven't lost the plot. But no thanks to such secrecy and evil purposes: I'm only sorry for the people who have been held all these years in your plot!

Getting back to topic: your denial of the existence of Jesus is a laugh - why does your dad and his crew still have His name on your kinky website - perhaps as bait for more of your "secret, hostile, unlawful, and evil purpose"?

See, just let it rest; and if you can't bear. . . keep seeking attention.

!!!!!!! !!JESUS IS TOTALLY GOD!!!!!!!!!
SIMPLY BECAUSE GOD PROCLAIMED HIM GOD, IT TAKES GOD TO TRUELY HAVE AND HAVE ABUNDANTLY, THE WORD SAYS HE IS THE WAY THE TRUTH AND LIFE, HE WHO FINDS HIM FINDS GOD,
JESUS IS GOD IN ITS TOTALITY, BELIEVE IT AND YOUR LIFE WILL CHANGE INSTANTLY!!!!!!!

Amen Wonderer. The whole bible is about Christ for He is the centre of the plan of salvation. Only God in Christ could have saved the world from sin.

Bless.

@malik

Why I said that The holy host is The Captain of The Lord of Host is The Replicate command given to Joshua in Joshua 5 is the same given to Moses at the Burning Bush then when the disciple were baptised in the holy Ghost remember flames of tongues. Well I am happy that we can try to look for the truth and have our own mind in the truth this is the replicate nature of God where the Holy Ghost the father and the son act and they are similar that you need the holy spirit to see them distinctively.

I can not categorically say that it is the Holy Ghost but I know that What ever anyone says We have a triune God (Elohim) Jesus that has appeared as God the Word in human flesh Worshiped by man and angels.

I want to add to that,that JESUS IS LORD COME RAIN,COME SHINE

Please where is the author of this thread sef?

Thought he went to get his facts together all the while?

mrpataki:

Please where is the author of this thread sef?

Thought he went to get his facts together all the while?

Goodness, mrpataki. . . you guys really have a good sense of humour. Bless up!!

Backslider:

I can not categorically say that it is the Holy Ghost

Humility there, bro. Well done.

Backslider:

but I know that What ever anyone says We have a triune God (Elohim) Jesus that has appeared as God the Word in human flesh Worshiped by man and angels.

Hmmm, good sense in noting the 'triune God'. However, I hope that you're not bordering on monism instead of monotheism? They are not the same.

@mrpataki,

thanks for remembering the author. the author is still very much around but decided to hold on till u r able to put urself together.

from the beginning of this thread till this very moment, i noticed that u have not been able to explain and answer even a single question posed at you.

when i first asked u and brought up this thread, u came with organogram but u and tayod failed in explaining your organogram.

also, u concluded then that i shoudnt bother myself asking questions that jesus is God  and you  concluded with a verse in which jesus said "i and father are one" but i still asked u again that if that statement could make jesus to be God, what of other verse in which jesus said he and the disciples are one. U DIVERTED TO ANOTHER ISSUE.

lastly i asked u questions in which u ignored too. now, to buttress your claim that jesus is God, i want you to still answer this questions

1.If Father and Son are co-equal persons, why did Jesus pray to the Father? (Matthew 11:25). Can God pray to God?

2 Similarly, how can the Son not know as much as the Father? (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32).

3 Similarly, how can the Son not have any power except what the Father gives Him? (John 5:19, 30; 6:38).

4.Did "God the Son" die? The Bible says the Son died (Romans 5:10). If so, can God die? Can part of God die?

5. Can there be more than three persons in the Godhead? Certainly the Old Testament does not teach three but emphasizes oneness. If the New Testament adds to the Old Testament message and teaches three persons, then what is to prevent subsequent revelations of additional persons? If we apply trinitarian logic to interpret some verses of Scripture, we could teach a fourth person (Isaiah 48:16; Colossians 1:3; 2:2; I Thessalonians 3:11; James 1:27). Likewise, we could interpret some verses of Scripture to mean six more persons (Revelation 3:1; 5:6).

6There is only one throne in heaven (Revelation 4:2). Who sits upon it? We know Jesus does (Revelation 1:8,18, 4: . Where do the Father and the Holy Spirit sit?

7 If Jesus is on the throne, how can He sit on the right hand of God? (Mark 16:19). Does He sit or stand on the right hand of God? (Acts 7:55). Or is He in the Father's bosom? (John 1:18).

8 Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus? Colossians 2:9 says the latter.

9 Who raised Jesus from the dead? Did the Father (Ephesians 1:20), or Jesus (John 2:19-21), or the Spirit? (Romans 8:11).

10.If Son and Holy Ghost are co-equal persons in the Godhead, why is blasphemy of the Holy Ghost unforgivable but blasphemy of the Son is not? (Luke 12:10).

11. If the Holy Ghost is a co-equal member of the trinity, why does the Bible always speak of Him being sent from the Father, or from Jesus? (John 14:26; 15:26).

12.Does the Father know something that the Holy Spirit does not know? If so, how can they be co-equal? Only the Father knows the day and hour of the Second Coming of Christ (Mark 13:32).

13. if jesus and God are same and one, who was jesus praying to at Gethsemane?

14. when jesus was crucified, whom did he shouted to that "why has thou forsaken me"?

ONE AFTER THE ONE, TAKE YOUR TIME IN ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS, M4MALIK AND SHAHAN CAN ASSIST YOU TOO

shahan and mrptaki,

if you are able to answer the above questions this time, i will know that u r not evading questions like i said in my other post.

we want to learn, go on.

@ babs787,
I never knew you had addressed me here, just stumbled on it mistakenly. Will now take time to answer your questions, as much as i would have loved to give scriptural quotations with my answers as a backup, i am fully aware that giving such only complicates your ability to comprehend the more. So i will try to come down to your reasoning patterns for now.

1.If Father and Son are co-equal persons, why did Jesus pray to the Father? (Matthew 11:25). Can God pray to God?

Matt 11:25 -"At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes."

In the above scripture reference, Christ addresses God as his Father, not as his Lord. This is just to simply show that he had a loyal obedience which is expected of a son to the father and not that of a subject, which your own religion teaches you. Further references of such you could find in the following verses too. (John 11:41; 12:28; 17:1; Lu 23:34).

2.Similarly, how can the Son not know as much as the Father? (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32).

Matt 24:36 - But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
Mark 13:32 - But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Thank you babs for this question, when Jesus said that even he did not know the time of the end, he was affirming his human form in which he came into the earth has. Of course, God the Father knows the time, and Jesus and the Father are one, but when Jesus became a man, He voluntarily gave up the unlimited use of his divine attributes. The emphasis of this verses is not on Jesus's lack knowledge as a God head, but rather on the fact that as human beings, no one knows when He would return. It is God the Father's secret to reveal when he wills.

No one can predict by scripture or science the exact day of Jesus's return. The essence of this scripture is that the preparation of Jesus is not based ona specific time or calculation!

3.Similarly, how can the Son not have any power except what the Father gives Him? (John 5:19, 30; 6:38).

John 5:19 -Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
John 5:30 - I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
John 6:38 - For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

[/quote]
As much as possible babs, never pick a scripture in isolation always look at the scripture before it and as well those after it too, just to get a better understanding as well.
He shows that there is the closest co-operation between the Father and Son. What the Father does the Son will do, even to the extent of giving life to the dead.
Because of his unity with God, Jesus lived as God wanted him to live. Just to further show his obedience to the will of the Father!

[quote]4.Did "God the Son" die? The Bible says the Son died (Romans 5:10). If so, can God die? Can part of God die?

Romans 5:10 - For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Ok, hope with all my effort, you will take time to read it thorough and get an understanding from it. Now the above scripture goes to show that As sinners, we are the enemies of God, rebels, under his divine displeasure. Through the gospel of the Crucified Redeemer, we obtain peace with God. We turn to him, and are reconciled to him, obtaining forgiveness through faith. God is not reconciled to us, but we to him. His love ever shines, and is shown in his gospel. He is ever ready to pardon, and when we cease our rebellion, and come to him, through Christ, for mercy, he receives us. Yes he died because he came as flesh and blood and dwelt amongst us for real!

5. Can there be more than three persons in the Godhead? Certainly the Old Testament does not teach three but emphasizes oneness. If the New Testament adds to the Old Testament message and teaches three persons, then what is to prevent subsequent revelations of additional persons? If we apply trinitarian logic to interpret some verses of Scripture, we could teach a fourth person (Isaiah 48:16; Colossians 1:3; 2:2; I Thessalonians 3:11; James 1:27). Likewise, we could interpret some verses of Scripture to mean six more persons (Revelation 3:1; 5:6).

Isiah 48:16 - Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

Colossians 1:3 - We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,

Colossian 2:2 - That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;

I Thessalonians 3:11 - Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you.

James 1:27 - Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Revelation 3:1 - And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.

Wow babs thank you for acknowledging the Oneness in the Godhead, you really had to go study the bible hard to find this out, anyways the scriptures you have earlier outlined here goes to show a relationship between the Father God head, and the Holy Spirit and as well showing the relationship God has with the son which is Christ Jesus!

The perfect number of seven denotes fullness. He hath the fulness of the Spirit whom he sends into the earth to do his work. (Revelation 1:16)

6There is only one throne in heaven (Revelation 4:2). Who sits upon it? We know Jesus does (Revelation 1:8,18, 4: . Where do the Father and the Holy Spirit sit?

Revelation 4:2 - And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.
Revelation 1:8 - I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Revelation 1:18 - I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

When the throne of God was revealed, the One that was stated in Revelations 4:2 is the God head himself not Jesus as you want to incite here, even Jesus himself said his place is at the right hand side of God the Father! Please refer to Revelation 3:21 for better understanding.

7 If Jesus is on the throne, how can He sit on the right hand of God? (Mark 16:19). Does He sit or stand on the right hand of God? (Acts 7:55). Or is He in the Father's bosom? (John 1:18).

Mark 16:19 - So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
Acts 7:55 - But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

Really babs are you this stupid and totally bereft of common nursery 1 comprehension At various instances did each individual(Stephen in Acts and John in the book of John) have a vision of seeing Jesus and do note it was not at the same time, and whether he was standing or sitting down the fact still remains that each had seen Jesus on the right hand throne side of God!!!!!!

8 Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus? Colossians 2:9 says the latter.

Colossians 2:9 - For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.I will answer it as thus: You must not be drawn from Christ. He is all in all. In him is the divine fullness (all divine power). In him as revealed was God in bodily form. Compare John 1:14.

9 Who raised Jesus from the dead? Did the Father (Ephesians 1:20), or Jesus (John 2:19-21), or the Spirit? (Romans 8:11).

Ephesians 1:19 - And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
Ephesians 1:20 - Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
John 2:19-21 - 19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21. But he spake of the temple of his body.

To answer your question, Ephesians 1:20 has answered it. It is God at work babs!!!!

10.If Son and Holy Ghost are co-equal persons in the Godhead, why is blasphemy of the Holy Ghost unforgivable but blasphemy of the Son is not? (Luke 12:10).

Luke 12:10 - And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

Even though the holyspirit is as gentle as a dove, God knew the heart of man before time that it is desperatley wicked and could want to take the gentleness and meekness of the holyspirit for granted! In other words ascribing the work of the holyspirit to the devil is blasphemy!
Mt 12:31; Mk 3:28

11. If the Holy Ghost is a co-equal member of the trinity, why does the Bible always speak of Him being sent from the Father, or from Jesus? (John 14:26; 15:26).

John 14:26 - But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Oh babs oh babs oh babs,
I know you know that Jesus was sent from Father to reconcile the heart of Man back to God, here on earth, so what confuses you now?, when we have the third head of the trinity who is the holyspirit sent by God to those who will accept the Lordship of Jesus here on earth as their guide as the scripture above refers?

12.Does the Father know something that the Holy Spirit does not know? If so, how can they be co-equal? Only the Father knows the day and hour of the Second Coming of Christ (Mark 13:32).

Mark 13:32 - But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son,but the Father.
Please refer to question 2 where this same question as been dealt with as well.

13. if jesus and God are same and one, who was jesus praying to at Gethsemane?

Please refer to question 1 for the answer but just incase you dont understand what i just meant now, the answer is God.

14. when jesus was crucified, whom did he shouted to that "why has thou forsaken me"?

Kai kai, babs787,
What English is this?
It was to his Father!

I'm impressed. . . very impressed! You have added to my understanding, and may God Himself bless and increase you.

I say an Amen to that m4malik as well I pray that God will increase your faith the more in Him as well. May the Gospel of the light of God continually be shed in our hearts. Keep the flag of Jesus flying!!!

Glory!!

Backslider:

@malik

Why I said that The holy host is The Captain of The Lord of Host is The Replicate command given to Joshua in Joshua 5 is the same given to Moses at the Burning Bush then when the disciple were baptised in the holy Ghost remember flames of tongues. Well I am happy that we can try to look for the truth and have our own mind in the truth this is the replicate nature of God where the Holy Ghost the father and the son act and they are similar that you need the holy spirit to see them distinctively.

I can not categorically say that it is the Holy Ghost but I know that What ever anyone says We have a triune God (Elohim) Jesus that has appeared as God the Word in human flesh Worshiped by man and angels.

God bless you bro - we are all learning, and my present knowledge is dwarfed by what some others have said. Blessings and Happy New Year!