I still wonder and imagine how the Christians resolved at the solution of the concept of TRINITY.
Imagine: 1 God+1 God+1 God = 1 God,  OR 1+1+1=3. Ahhhh.  Even a Nursery school kid should be wiser than committing such fallacy.  I still can't imagine how they got the ABRACADABRA law of mathematics. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN THE FORMULA TO US?
The earlier u realize u are not different from common PAGANS that worship more than one god, d better 4 u.
Wake up.

Me too, how can 1 + 2 = 1, is just simply deception

Let me try some illumination.

The doctrine of the Trinity was decided upon at the Council of Nicea, which was presided over by Constantine, the Holy Roman Emperor.

This is what the Council was about:

Overview
The First Council of Nicaea is commonly regarded to have been the first Ecumenical council of the Christian Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom. The council did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ. [2] Instead, the council affirmed and defined what it had found to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is; that Christ is the one true God in Deity with the Father.

Derived from Greek oikoumenikos, "ecumenical" literally means "worldwide" but generally is assumed to be limited to the Roman Empire, as in Augustus' claim to be ruler of the oikoumene/world; the earliest extant uses of the term for a council are Eusebius' Life of Constantine 3.6[3] around 338 "σύνοδον οἰκουμενικὴν συνεκρότει" (he convoked an Ecumenical council), Athanasius' Ad Afros Epistola Synodica in 369,[4] and the Letter in 382 to Pope Damasus I and the Latin bishops from the First Council of Constantinople.[5]

The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was the literal son of God or was he a figurative son, like the other "sons of God" in the Bible. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two voted against Arius[6]).

And this was the main issue in contention:

[size=16pt]ARIAN CONTROVERSY[/size]
The Arian controversy was a Christological dispute that began in Alexandria between the followers of Arius (the Arians) and the followers of St. Alexander of Alexandria (now known as Homoousians). Alexander and his followers believed that the Son was of the same substance as the Father, co-eternal with him. The Arians believed that they were different and that the Son, though he may be the most perfect of creations, was only a creation of God the Father. A third group (now known as Homoiousians) later tried to make a compromise position, saying that the Father and the Son were of similar substance.[23]

Much of the debate hinged on the difference between being "born" or "created" and being "begotten". Arians saw these as the same; followers of Alexander did not. Indeed, the exact meaning of many of the words used in the debates at Nicaea were still unclear to speakers of other languages. Greek words like "essence" (ousia), "substance" (hypostasis), "nature" (physis), "person" (prosopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from pre-Christian philosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up. The word homoousia, in particular, was initially disliked by many bishops because of its associations with Gnostic heretics (who used it in their theology), and because it had been condemned at the 264–268 Synods of Antioch.

Homoousians believed that to follow the Arian view destroyed the unity of the Godhead, and made the Son unequal to the Father, in contravention of the Scriptures ("The Father and I are one", John 10:30). Arians, on the other hand, believed that since God the Father created the Son, he must have emanated from the Father, and thus be lesser than the Father, in that the Father is eternal, but the Son was created afterward and, thus, is not eternal. The Arians likewise appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I". Homoousians countered the Arians' argument, saying that the Father's fatherhood, like all of his attributes, is eternal. Thus, the Father was always a father, and that the Son, therefore, always existed with him.

The Council declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal, basing the declaration in the claim that this was a formulation of traditional Christian belief handed down from the Apostles. This belief was expressed in the Nicene Creed.

Thus leading to the formation of the Nicene Creed in this manner -

For Bishop Alexander and others, however, greater clarity was required. Some distinctive elements in the Nicene Creed, perhaps from the hand of Hosius of Cordova, were added.

1.Jesus Christ is described as "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God," proclaiming his divinity. When all light sources were natural, the essence of light was considered to be identical, regardless of its form.
2.Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made", asserting his co-eternalness with God, and confirming it by stating his role in the Creation. Basically, they were saying that Jesus was God, and God's son, not a creation of God. This is considered one of the mysteries of the catholic church.
3.Finally, he is said to be "from the substance of the Father," in direct opposition to Arianism. Eusebius of Caesarea ascribes the term homoousios, or consubstantial, i.e., "of the same substance" (of the Father), to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority.

_{*All extracts from Wikipedia}

So you can see for yourself.

Prior to this time, the Trinity was not consensual church dogma, and was certainly never taught by Christ, who severally indicated that he had a  God, Almighty God, who he worshipped just like the rest of us do/ should.

It is no surprise therefore, that the word "Trinity" does not appear in the bible, and that previous attempts to smuggle the doctrine into the Bible (See KJV 1 Jn 5: 7) - HAVE BEEN EXPUNGED FROM ALL MODERN VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE BECAUSE THE DISCOVERY OF OLDER MANUSCRIPTS SHOWED THAT IT WAS NOT A PART OF THE EARLIEST VERSIONS!

Thus fanatical christians who cling rigidly to the trinity doctrine to my mind display a mis-education in History, just as surely as they would not accept the obvious fact that without the decisions at Nicea, they would not be trumpeting the "Jesus is God" idea about today.

Law prince:

I still wonder and imagine how the Christians resolved at the solution of the concept of TRINITY.
Imagine: 1 God+1 God+1 God = 1 God, OR 1+1+1=3. Ahhhh. Even a Nursery school kid should be wiser than committing such fallacy. I still can't imagine how they got the ABRACADABRA law of mathematics. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN THE FORMULA TO US?
The earlier u realize u are not different from common PAGANS that worship more than one god, d better 4 u.
Wake up.

I also imagine why so called professors of false religion cannot get it into their heads that 1 x 1 x 1 = 1. Nursery school kids that go to Christian faith schools would surely figure this out, this is no "ABRACADABRA law of mathematics" only if you spent time studying real arithmetics or modern mathematics instead of studying arabic you would have been able to comprehend this simple "formula" Who is the PAGAN now?

Deepsight. . .what about all those fallacious arguments to use to "prove" God's existence. How are those different from the trinity? they seem just as ridiculous to moi. . .  And they were all made up by "theologians and ph[b]olodo[/b]phers" trying hard to show that God exists. How that different from Nicea? They all came from men, and are all bollocks. . . 

discuss. . .   

These cheap shots we throw at each other are ridiculous. Everyone just wants to feel that their belief is better than others, or more "well reasoned", or whateva.  It's fukn pathetic

@ Modupe01
I also imagine why so called professors of false religion cannot get it into their heads that 1 x 1 x 1 = 1. Nursery school kids that go to Christian faith schools would surely figure this out, this is no "ABRACADABRA law of mathematics" only if you spent time studying real arithmetics or modern mathematics instead of studying arabic you would have been able to comprehend this simple "formula" Who is the PAGAN now? Tongue

It is obvious and glaring dat Modupe is nothing but an illiterate. Don't u know the difference between Addition and Multiplication? U can still go back 2 skl, it is not late.

Law prince:

@ Modupe01
I also imagine why so called professors of false religion cannot get it into their heads that 1 x 1 x 1 = 1. Nursery school kids that go to Christian faith schools would surely figure this out, this is no "ABRACADABRA law of mathematics" only if you spent time studying real arithmetics or modern mathematics instead of studying arabic you would have been able to comprehend this simple "formula" Who is the PAGAN now? Tongue

It is obvious and glaring dat Modupe is nothing but an illiterate. Don't u know the difference between Addition and Multiplication? U can still go back 2 skl, it is not late.

And who told you that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1?  Take off those blinders and see the truth that: The Father x The Son x The Holy Ghost = God QED.  

Satan has surely blinded the minds of people who have deliberately chosen to ignore the truth of God's words.  Lets see another simple mathematical fact that you guys can't comprehend.

A helpful analogy of the Godhead is that God is like a triangle that is one figure yet has three different sides (or corners) at the same time.  So there is a simultaneous threeness and oneness.  Of course, no analogy is perfect since in every analogy there is a similarity and a difference.  The difference here is that “sides” or “corners” are not persons.  Nonetheless, the triangle does illustrate how there can be threeness and oneness at the same time.  While there is one God, there are three persons within the One God.  QED.

Krayola:

Deepsight. . .what about all those fallacious arguments to use to "prove" God's existence. How are those different from the trinity? they seem just as ridiculous to moi. . .  And they were all made up by "theologians and ph[b]olodo[/b]phers" trying hard to show that God exists. How that different from Nicea? They all came from men, and are all bollocks. . . 

discuss. . .   

These cheap shots we throw at each other are ridiculous. Everyone just wants to feel that their belief is better than others, or more "well reasoned", or whateva.  It's fukn pathetic

I can see it has long been your position that once ANY MAN subcribes to ANY belief, then HE CANNOT view ANY belief in existence, as wrong, or misguided.

Arguments for the existence of God are just that: Arguments. The very fact that it remains an argument means it is an open discussion still. I may advance my philosophy, which you may rebutt. That's fair game. What does that have to do with dogma? How should that prevent me from seeing an absurd doctrine elsewhere and criticising it? Why are you attempting to demonise criticism when you are yourself a critic? Everyone is entitled to his/ her view!

According to your statement above; there is no reason why any one of us should dare criticise the followers of Olumba Olumba Obu who declare him to be the Alpha & Omega.

Simply because we have dared to proffer arguments for the existence of an intelligent prime mover, we must now be shackled into silence whenever ANY dogma is bandied about, no matter how absurd?

Look again at my post. I extracted historical facts to make a simple point: that we hold as sacrosanct that which men like ourselves sat and debated upon and concluded as a creed.

What is wrong with the extractions from History, Krayola? Are they inaccurate? Would you foist silence upon me?

And for extracting that little bit of history, you have concluded that i am an "Olodo," or influenced by "Olodos."

So there: you are doing exactly what you will not have me do - criticizing my view point, even insulting me for it, when all i did was dig up one historical fact of a council that sat at Nicea hundreds of years ago.

Do you subscribe to Free Speech, Krayola?

Krayola:

They all came from men, and are all bollocks. . .

O, all that comes from men must be bollocks? Wwow, there goes Einstein's Theory of Relativity flying out of the window!

Krayola:

These cheap shots we throw at each other are ridiculous. Everyone just wants to feel that their belief is better than others, or more "well reasoned", or whateva. It's fukn pathetic

Cheap shots? It seems you conveniently ignored this:

Deep Sight:


It is no surprise therefore, that the word "Trinity" does not appear in the bible, and that previous attempts to smuggle the doctrine into the Bible (See KJV 1 Jn 5: 7) - HAVE BEEN EXPUNGED FROM ALL MODERN VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE BECAUSE THE DISCOVERY OF OLDER MANUSCRIPTS SHOWED THAT IT WAS NOT A PART OF THE EARLIEST VERSIONS!

Do you have a copy of the King James Version of the Bible?

Go check if you will see that verse in any other modern version, kRAYOLA.

Mindless jibes are crappy, yes - but reasoned criticism is essential. Is there anything mindless in pointing out the historical facts of the Council of Nicea?

haha. Deepsight like to dey type sha. 

I'm just letting you know that your arguments make sense to you. You believe they point at something, and it makes sense to you. When critiqued you tell us we "just don't get it". .  and just keep going. I'm not complaining. . .It is fun, and we all learn from it. And I wasn't demonizing u.

It's just that those arguments seem as ridiculous to others as the Trinity is to you. That all I'm saying. Again, I'm not demonizing u. . .and I think it's kinda ridiculous that u will suggest that.

I didn't call u an olodo. . . . hahaha. The funny thing is that that "pholodophers" was originally a typo and when i wanted to correct it i noticed that it spelled something and just made it bold.  Relax mehn. . . no be fight.


ANother historical fact is that those arguments that u make have been made for centuries and debunked over and over again. . . yet they are more credible than the trinity? gimme a fukn break. Your cosmological argument  and the Trinity fall in the same category IMO. Thats all I'm saying.

Krayola:

Your cosmological argument and the Trinity fall in the same category IMO. Thats all I'm saying.

There we go! Is the Trinity an argument? A discourse based on reason? No, it is a dogmatic statement of faith.

The Cosmological Argument is a discourse based on reason: which is exactly why it can be debunked based on reason.

You cannot debunk the Trinity based on reason; since it is a statement of faith.

Arguments (Cosmological or whatever) are always welcome.

Hope you see the difference.

Krayola:


those arguments that u make have been made for centuries and debunked over and over again. . .

Unless the law of cause and effect has been debunked, and all the laws of motion have been debunked, and the laws of degrees of things have been debunked, and the whole of physics has been debunked? ? ? ?

_{P.S: It seems you missed the latter part of my last post, which i modified? What say you to the removal of the words in 1 Jn 5 v. 7?}

Deep Sight:

There we go! Is the Trinity an argument? A discourse based on reason? No, it is a dogmatic statement of faith.

The Cosmological Argument is a discourse based on reason: which is exactly why it can be debunked based on reason.

You cannot debunk the Trinity based on reason; since it is a statement of faith.

Modupe just made an argument for it, several Christians on NL have made arguments for it. I'm shocked u still don't see the irony in all of this 

Deep Sight:

Arguments (Cosmological or whatever) are always welcome.

Yeah right.

Deep Sight:

Unless the law of cause and effect has been debunked, and all the laws of motion have been debunked, and the laws of degrees of things have been debunked, and the[b] whole of physics has been debunked[/b]? ? ? ?

YOur arguments make a mockery of physics. 

Deep Sight:

_{P.S: It seems you missed the latter part of my last post, which i modified? What say you to the removal of the words in 1 Jn 5 v. 7?}

It seems u keep missing my point . . .It makes sense to u if u are on the inside. The same way u think the laws of c&E and motion and degrees and whateva are blatantly obvious and should just be swallowed as proof of God is the same way the trinity makes perfect sense to those that believe in it. According to your post they claimed it was handed down from the apostles. Were u there? How do you know it wasn't? Prove that it wasn't. 

While not intending to jump into this discourse on Trinity, may I simply correct an erroneous premise:

Law prince:

I still wonder and imagine how the Christians resolved at the solution of the concept of TRINITY.
Imagine: 1 God+1 God+1 God = 1 God,  OR 1+1+1=3. Ahhhh.  Even a Nursery school kid should be wiser than committing such fallacy.  I still can't imagine how they got the ABRACADABRA law of mathematics. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN THE FORMULA TO US?
The earlier u realize u are not different from common PAGANS that worship more than one god, d better 4 u.
Wake up.

Modupe01 already gave an instance of how three 1's don't always have to be 3, using same law of mathematics:

Modupe01:

I also imagine why so called professors of false religion cannot get it into their heads that 1 x 1 x 1 = 1. Nursery school kids that go to Christian faith schools would surely figure this out, this is no "ABRACADABRA law of mathematics" only if you spent time studying real arithmetics or modern mathematics instead of studying arabic you would have been able to comprehend this simple "formula" Who is the PAGAN now?

Truth is, the two operations are not the same: while one is addition, the other is multiplication, still same mathematics (or arithmetics precisely).  I have not seen where the doctrine of Trinity is said to be based on the laws of addition!

Furthermore, to buttress the fact that 1+1+1 can actually be 1, look further than mere numeric addition.  In logic and computing (and electronics as well) two of the elementary operations of Boolean Algebra (Logical addition called OR and Logical multiplication, AND) also show how three 1's can be 1:

          1+1+1=1
          1x1x1=1

I dare anyone to dispute this.  You see, it all depends on the premise!

Krayola:

Modupe just made an argument for it, several Christians on NL have made arguments for it.

1 x 1 x 1 = 1 Can never be an argument for the Trinity as it operates correct for any amount of "1"s which you may choose to multiply.

Thus: 1 x 1 = 1; so why not a duality, and not trinity?

1 X 1 X 1 X 1 = 1; SO WHY NOT A QUADRAPULARITY?

1 X 1 X 1 X 1 X 1 X 1 = 1; So why not a sextupularity?

Krayola:

According to your post they claimed it was handed down from the apostles. Were u there? How do you know it wasn't? Prove that it wasn't. 

Here are the quotes of the apostles:

1Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

1 Peter 1:3: “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Acts 2:22 - “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”

Acts 2:36: “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

There. So which "Apostles" handed down the Trinity?

Go back and read the hideous insertion in 1 Jn 5 v 7 (KJV) and see how biblical archaelogy led to the removal of those words from all modern versions of the Bible as they were discovered to be a deliberate insertion not contaned in the Original text.

Krayola, you make it appear a sin to point out this INDISPUTABLE FACT to the Trinitarians?

Brilliant input

@deepsight. haha. It isn't a sin. U can point out whatever you want. But realize that IMO anyone that buys that cosmological argument as conclusive proof of God is just as "lost" and "unreasonable". That's all I'm saying.

ENjoy your anti-trinity crusade.

Unless the law of cause and effect has been debunked, and all the laws of motion have been debunked, and the laws of degrees of things have been debunked, and the whole of physics has been debunked? ? ? ?

deep sight has come again.  wetin concern law of physics with your cosmological arguments?   Those laws have little if anything to do with the supernatural.  The next thing we know you would be posting Maxwell equations as proof god exist.   

na wa for your scholarship o.

Trinity = A vindictive father + A suicidal son + A dove

True talk

Trinity is one of history's biggest lies lol

Deep Sight:

1 x 1 x 1 = 1 Can never be an argument for the Trinity as it operates correct for any amount of "1"s which you may choose to multiply.

Thus: 1 x 1 = 1; so why not a duality, and not trinity?

1 X 1 X 1 X 1 = 1; SO WHY NOT A QUADRAPULARITY?

1 X 1 X 1 X 1 X 1 X 1 = 1; So why not a sextupularity?

How does the above disprove the calculation of 1 x 1 x 1 = 1? Have you considered Analytical's proposition (Boolean Algebra) that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1? Do you want to disprove it?

Deep Sight:

Here are the quotes of the apostles:

1Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

1 Peter 1:3: “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Acts 2:22 - “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”

Acts 2:36: “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

There. So which "Apostles" handed down the Trinity?

The doctrine of trinity is a concept that is revealed throughout the Bible. This is what Jesus said to His Apostles in Matthew 28:19-20 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. . "--

This is Jesus here recognising other members of the Godhead as well as Himself, commissioning His disciples to preach the gospel and to baptise by the authority of all three Persons. Who said that the concept of the doctrine of trinity was not passed down from the Apostles?

Deep Sight:

Go back and read the hideous insertion in 1 Jn 5 v 7 (KJV) and see how biblical archaelogy led to the removal of those words from all modern versions of the Bible as they were discovered to be a deliberate insertion not contaned in the Original text.

Krayola, you make it appear a sin to point out this INDISPUTABLE FACT to the Trinitarians?

What fact? 1 John 5:7 has not been removed from the Bible, most versions say that there are three that bear witness about Jesus while a few others went on to specify those that bear this witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit; such as the New King James version, the Amplified Bible, Young's Literal Translation, the Wycliffe New Testament, the 21st Century King James Version, etc.

In Matthew 18:16 Jesus said "that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." (see Deut.19:15)

Let us see how the three witnesses about Jesus Christ confirm this at His baptism in Matthew 3:16-17 "And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon Him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

The Father, repeatedly, by a voice from heaven declared that Jesus was his beloved Son. The Word declared that He and the Father were One, and that whoever had seen him had seen the Father. And the Holy Ghost, who descended from heaven and rested on Christ at his baptism; who had borne witness to Him by all the prophets; and gave testimony to his resurrection and mediatorial office, by the gift of miraculous powers to the apostles.

Listen modupe there is no place like home.

The best religion is your native religion.

If you are a yoruba,i would advise you to go back to your native ifa,ogun,etc and refine or purify it.

The western world 'whites' still practise their sterilised native religion.

The so called israelites still practise their judaism and not christianity up till today.

Who is leading us astray,NOBODY,but our desire,we love vanity.

Goodmorning.

http://www.mutualinterestsforum.com/

Secondly,we seem to be on a very long,apparently unending and meaningless  journey without a destination.

The significant aspect of foreign religion is the commercial aspect but underneath there is a price to pay.

http://www.mutualinterestsforum.com/

@ alex0026,

Good morning to you. Christianity is not a religion. All religions are man made. Religion is man's way of covering up his short coming and trying to reach out to God/gods by his own makings. You can read more about this in Adam's attempt to cover up his unclothedness with leaves and Cains vain attempt at pleasing God by making a sacrifice not acceptable to God. God's way was to reach out to man as He did to Adam and Eve by killing and shedding the blood of an animal and using its skin to cover their unclothedness, the shed blood as an atonement for their souls. Abel was obedient as he followed this example in offering his sacrifice that was accepted to God but Cain practiced his own religion as we are proned to practise today.

God has reached out to mankind by allowing Jesus Christ to shed His blood for the remission of our sins and whoever believes Him will not perish but have eternal life which is a free gift. Your religion will not save you from the wrath of God to come on all humanity "for all have sinned and come short of His glory." It is only through Jesus that we can be forgiven and made righteous before the Creator God and not by covering ourselves by the leaves of the religion of our forefathers.

Modupe01 I couldn't agree with you more!  You are right there.

Even in the time of Jesus, they took stones to stone him because they said he was making himself equal to God.  You see, they quite understood the import of His claims about His divinity.  Once they accept His divinity, they would be equally admitting his Godhead!

I really find it hard to believe anyone will doubt that Jesus is the very God after reading John 1: 1-14.  The Word that was in the beginning with God and was God Himself became a human being and they named Him Jesus and dwelt among us as human being.  He has been God and created all things by Himself ever before he became Jesus the man!  That was why he said he had been before Abraham (and even David as Abuzola kept hammering!) That he became the Son, didn't nullify his being the Eternal Word!

Oh, I guess people just won't read or they read and don't understand or simply refuse to believe what they read.

Hello modupe,

today,judaism is still the national and major religion in israel. and even jesus throughout his life was a judaist.

It's a shame so-called christians go on pilgrimage(tourism) to see things for themselves.

If i may ask you,what is wrong with the ogun,ifa,etc religion ?if you observe anything wrong correct it and move on instead of running away or digressing.you remain your parent child for life despite the indifferences you had with them on several occasion.

----------and i shudder to think to hear you comment that christianity is not a religion.Then what is it?

Have a great day.

modupe01:

@ alex0026,

Good morning to you. Christianity is not a religion. All religions are man made. Religion is man's way of covering up his short coming and trying to reach out to God/gods by his own makings. You can read more about this in Adam's attempt to cover up his unclothedness with leaves and Cains vain attempt at pleasing God by making a sacrifice not acceptable to God. God's way was to reach out to man as He did to Adam and Eve by killing and shedding the blood of an animal and using its skin to cover their unclothedness, the shed blood as an atonement for their souls. Abel was obedient as he followed this example in offering his sacrifice that was accepted to God but Cain practiced his own religion as we are proned to practise today.

God has reached out to mankind by allowing Jesus Christ to shed His blood for the remission of our sins and whoever believes Him will not perish but have eternal life which is a free gift. Your religion will not save you from the wrath of God to come on all humanity "for all have sinned and come short of His glory." It is only through Jesus that we can be forgiven and made righteous before the Creator God and not by covering ourselves by the leaves of the religion of our forefathers.

For God so loved the world that he mudered his only begotten son

I really find it hard to believe anyone will doubt that Jesus is the very God after reading John 1: 1-14.  The Word that was in the beginning with God and was God Himself became a human being and they named Him Jesus and dwelt among us as human being.  He has been God and created all things by Himself ever before he became Jesus the man!  That was why he said he had been before Abraham (and even David as Abuzola kept hammering!)  That he became the Son, didn't nullify his being the Eternal Word!

Jesus, peace be upon him, like Adam, peace be upon him, was created from the Word of GOD Almighty, but for the sake of argument, lets say the word was god and john:1 meant that jesus is part of a trinity

then why all this contradictions huh

Mark 12:29"Here, O Israel:  The Lord our God is one Lord." 
The words "our God" indicate that Jesus had a higher God over him, a stronger God than him.  Jesus didn't say "Your God".  He said "our God" which includes Jesus as the creation of GOD,

in Luke 23:34
If Jesus was GOD, then why did he ask for GOD's Forgiveness,  How can Jesus be GOD Almighty when he asked for GOD's Forgiveness? it doesnt make sense lol

in Mark 15:34"And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

to me that dont sound like jesus (pbuh) wanted to die on that cross

Mark 10:18 “And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”?

what is he saying there lol, is he not god, why is he not good if he is god? hmmmmmm,


John:1 proves nothing really,

in the old testament

The "God" title was  given to others beside Jesus

The "Son" title also given to others beside Jesus

Jesus' Miracles were not unique in the Bible

If Jesus is believed to be GOD because he could do miracles, he could heal leprosy, he could cause blind men to see, or raise the dead, then what about the others who performed the same miracles? were they also gods?

White84 I take it you neither read my post nor John 1 vs 1-14. Do read that passage in as many translations you want for clarity. It's very clear. Don't just assume you know what is there.

The Word became flesh to reconcile us back to God. He wasn't Jesus before He became incarnate. He was God. But he shed His glory and He was born as a human through Virgin Mary after the Holy Spirit (Spirit of God) came upon her, thereby fulfilling many prophecies ages before then. Then He was named Jesus because He came to save us. So while he was here as a man (in his humanity) he experienced pain etc just like every other human would. That didn't nullify who He was (and still is) ever before He was born as man!

Analytical:

Modupe01 I couldn't agree with you more! You are right there.

Even in the time of Jesus, they took stones to stone him because they said he was making himself equal to God. You see, they quite understood the import of His claims about His divinity. Once they accept His divinity, they would be equally admitting his Godhead!

I really find it hard to believe anyone will doubt that Jesus is the very God after reading John 1: 1-14. The Word that was in the beginning with God and was God Himself became a human being and they named Him Jesus and dwelt among us as human being. He has been God and created all things by Himself ever before he became Jesus the man! That was why he said he had been before Abraham (and even David as Abuzola kept hammering!) That he became the Son, didn't nullify his being the Eternal Word!

Oh, I guess people just won't read or they read and don't understand or simply refuse to believe what they read.

@Analytical,

You have rightly summed it up.  He is the Eternal Word of God.  Jesus said in Matthew 20:28 that "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."

Only if these religious people could read and see what God has revealed in His Word they would not be saying what they are now saying.  Satan has definitely blinded the eyes of those who have wilfully ignored God's Word.  This is what John MacArthur wrote on the verse above: "If the sinless Christ, who is literally God in human flesh and Lord of all, would so humble Himself for us, we dare not denigrate humility or aspire to self-esteem instead of lowliness . . . If Jesus can step down from His glorious equality with God to become a man, and then further humble Himself to be a servant and wash the feet of twelve undeserving sinners--then humble Himself to die so horribly on our behalf, surely we ought to be willing to suffer any indignity to serve Him. "

White84 I take it  you neither read my post nor John 1 vs 1-14.  Do read that passage in as many translations you want for clarity.  It's very clear.  Don't just assume you know what is there.

The Word became flesh to reconcile us back to God.  He wasn't Jesus before He became incarnate.  He was God.  But he shed His glory and He was born as a human through Virgin Mary after the Holy Spirit (Spirit of God) came upon her, thereby fulfilling many prophecies ages before then.  Then He was named Jesus because He came to save us.  So while he was here as a man (in his humanity) he experienced pain etc just like every other human would.  That didn't nullify who He was (and still is) ever before He was born as man!

If God is truly omnipotent he could  simply forgiv us correct?, why does god!!!!!! neeeeeds to come down as a man to save his own creations and then execute himself on the cross!! in order to forgive his own creation?

alex0026:

Hello modupe,

today,judaism is still the national and major religion in israel. and even jesus throughout his life was a judaist.

It's a shame so-called christians go on pilgrimage(tourism) to see things for themselves.

If i may ask you,what is wrong with the ogun,ifa,etc religion ?if you observe anything wrong correct it and move on instead of running away or digressing.you remain your parent child for life despite the indifferences you had with them on several occasion.

----------and i shudder to think to hear you comment that christianity is not a religion.Then what is it?

Have a great day.

Christianity is not a religion.  I know this may be a shock to you because many people have the misconception that because they were born in a bakery they then consider themselves to be loaves of bread.   The fact that you have a Christian name, born into a Christian family, a member of a Christian church does not make you a Christian than being born in a bakery will make you a loaf of bread.  Christianity has to do with the self realisation that we are depraved sinners who have sinned against the righteous God and the wages of sin is death, this is the eternal Justice of God, "the soul that sinneth shall die" God being a righteous Judge will not compromise His Justice otherwise He will no longer be a righteous and Just Judge.  If a Judge here in one of the courts here on earth will be counted as corrupt if he lets a murderer go scot free how much more of the righteous God be Just in executing His eternal Justice.  This He did without compromising His Law by becoming a man to die our death and give us life as He is the resurrection and the life.  Through Him we have all died and through Him we shall all live if we believe this truth.

White84, that is what the christian story truly is!  You just hit it!  That is the goodnews!  That God became a man to save us!

You asked the right question: WHY did he do it?  Let me try and simplify it.  That is what John 3:16 explains!  LOVE is it.  The hallmark of Love is sacrifice.  God loves us so much he wont stop at nothing to save us, even if it means coming down to save us himself.  Remember, he didn't create us as sinners.  Man sinned, so it is man that must die as penalty for the sin.  Since God cannot die, He found a way of making sure that the penalty for sin is fully paid by man.  He decided to come down and be a man!!  Isn't that beautiful?

Jesus was that sacrifice.  Blood has to be spilled for sin to be fully paid for once and for all!  Man has tried to appease God by sacrificing animals and all that.  But no other blood could have paid for the penalty of sin- it has to be a sinless blood of a man.  And how could we have found a sinless man?  Impossible, since we all carried that sin trait.  It had to be a different genealogy- one without sin.  Here comes Jesus. . .

Hope it's making sense?