Besides, the Christian faith transcends logic - it is not constrained within the limits of logic. Ironically, many of your types who talk about 'logic' haven't the slightest clue what that word means, or what type of logic you even want to begin to apply in your drivel.

Yep, Guru Maharaji is God - that definitely transcends logic!

Deep Sight:

UNSURPRISINGLY, YOU DID EVERYTHING - RAIN INSULTS ON MY OWN CREED, CALL IT SHALLOW, IMPUGN MY INTEGRITY - ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING - EXCEPT ADDRESS THE CONTRADICTION I POINTED OUT. WHY ARE YOU SO EMOTIONALLY DEFENSIVE VIARO?

You're daft. Stupid fool. Does that help?

How long has it been that you've been berating Christians on this issue of the Deity of Christ? Disagreeing is one thing; but being adept at your gross stupidity is another thing entirely! You ask me why I'm so emotional . .  and you have the nerve of a schmuck to type in all CAPITALS? We have done this deal about contradictions before; and I posted you a subscript from the same John 5 that you had quoted (yours being v. 19, mine being verse 23) - so what is this baloney of I absolutely did not address anything in yours?

True, my aim was not to address anything (IF that is what you wanted to read). One thing I wanted to call your attention to was your damn hypocricy that you plaster everytime this subject comes up. You're a DEIST - enjoy your world, ever so evasive as can be; but don't use your own irreconcilable non-starters to write off Christians as engaging in 'HORRID' whatever and pretend you're being nice. That just has to be retired.

That contradiction was simple; she stated that Jesus was following a script written by a script-writer - And yet insists that he himself is the Script Writer. Can you wrap your head around that Viaro? I didn't think so.

Yes I could. Quite a few times when I read mavenbox on the Deity of Christ and the Trinity, she has tried to present her own views - just hers. I deliberately tried to stay out of such threads because I see things differently even though I should make clear that I am a confessed Trinitarian. I believe in the Deity of Christ, that His Deity is not something magically brought about by the NT writers but has long been prophesied in MANY nuances by the OT prophets. Even now, I don't have all the answers, but that does not mean therefore that I should go around trying to damn every Christian who holds a different view. What sense does that make where you just like to do so, Deep Sight?

You don't need to be so defensive simply becasue the fact that you worship a fellow human being as God is exposed/ Tell me how that is better than worshipping Guru Maharaji?

I was not trying to be defensive. Read my post again. I guess it was damn too acrid that you skipped hastily through and did not get the gist! I only posted the John 5:23 verse as a postcript to let you know why in worship Jesus from His very own mouth made clear that EQUAL honour be paid Him as men do to the Father. If Guru Maharaji wants to make the same claim, tough luck for him - I'm not one of his followers and will not be, unless he wants to show precisely a fulfillment of Christ's warning that many shall come as 'Christs' with all sorts of claims to take the place of the Son of God. If you want to worship Guru (any of such 'gurus'), good luck all the same. . . . probably you're still searching for your lost O.O.I. god and can't make sense of what others believe for your own displaced fantacies.

P.S - THE ONENESS OF INFINITY IS NOT A SUBJECT THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED IN THE OFF-HAND MANNER THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO DISCUSS YOUR PAGAN TRINITARIAN MYTH.

You don't need to be defensive or even shout in CAPITALS. The 'oneness of infinity' is daft, evasive and a non-starter that even YOU don't understand or make sense of for your own religion. Just relax. .  the day will come when I will thorough waste that stupid drama of yours and send you back typing in small fonts.

Be that as it may i have written the prose during the week and will post it soon.

I look forward to it, and to whatever Mathematics you have been murdering with cosmetic apologetics.

Edit:

Deep Sight:

I forgot to add that it becomes even more inane and laughable when one considers the fact that he supposedly tried to change the script mid-way in Gethsemane by praying to himself to change the plot - a fact that you Viaro - lied that he did not do, which argument was kicked to dust here -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-355093.64.html#msg4989271

Please stop lying. I gave my view as to why your 'contradictions' do not amount to contradictions for me. You cheapen intelligence by making recourse to this attitude of forcing words into people's mouth. This is why you never last in a rational discussion before jumping to conclusion with 'you have just conceded defeat' whenever others are trying to point out certain things.

_______________

Deep Sight:

Yep, Guru Maharaji is God - that definitely transcends logic!

Good - go bow down to Guru and suck his ass all you want. . then come back and tell us the same GURU is your 'oneness of infinity' god. You just don't have a good grasp about your own certer of gravity and are just floating withersoever the wind takes you.   I feel very sorry for your Deism.

@Viaro

I do accept criticism as you and I know I'm imperfect in any way. But so much as to your support of @Mavenb0x, I wasn't criticising him but admonishing him to come plain and give us a definite answer to the topic instead of giving endless quotes from the Bible without actually answering the question. That to me was just religion!

If you read my thread, I indulged everyone to be simple and honest. See this as an essay that you either answer yes or no to and back it up with your reasons.

God Bless!

bee444:

@Viaro

I do accept criticism as you and I know I'm imperfect in any way. But so much as to your support of @Mavenb0x, I wasn't criticising him but admonishing him to come plain and give us a definite answer to the topic instead of giving endless quotes from the Bible without actually answering the question. That to me was just religion!

If you read my thread, I indulged everyone to be simple and honest. See this as an essay that you either answer yes or no to and back it up with your reasons.

God Bless!

@bee444,

I'm truly humbled by your gentle response. Thank you, and I take correction on some of the areas I might have overlooked. Some may have many verses in support of whatever views they hold on this subject - I am one of them. But I chose to use only one verse (John 5:23) for the meantime, as I understood you would have appreciated concise replies. Apologies again, and many blessings.

@okika_juju

Your response was the best of the best. You certainly understood the question and what i'm looking for.
.
You not only gave a straight YES or NO answer, but also simplified it with your reasons and intellect.


God Bless!

viaro:

You're daft. Stupid fool. Does that help?

Well Viaro, you must really be in a bad mood.

As i recall it -

I pointed out a simple and obvious contradiction -

And you responded describing me as "insane," "dense" and now "daft", "stupid", "a fool" and "a hypocrite."

I do wonder since when it became a crime to point out contradictions. What's the purpose of debate then?

You do point out what you believe to be contradictions in my theories. I do not recall responding with insults.

Do have a good day.

Deep Sight:

Well Viaro, you must really be in a bad mood.

As i recall it -

I pointed out a simple and obvious contradiction -

And you responded describing me as "insane," "dense" and now "daft", "silly", "a slowpoke" and "a hypocrite."

I do wonder since when it became a crime to point out contradictions. What's the purpose of debate then?

You do point out what you believe to be contradictions in my theories. I do not recall responding with insults.

Do have a good day.

What an irony. I remember earlier being the same person (among many) who advised the likes of my Christian brethren like Davidylan to play it less on the insolence when discussing with non-Christians. Today. . ?

But the one thing you often miss out in this sort of exchanges between us, Deep Sight, is not so much about my acrid attitude to your posts. Pointing out contradictions is one thing, but labelling the convictions of Christians as 'HORRID'  and all sorts is quite another matter entirely. Of course, many people continue to flag up so-called 'contradictions' in many things that we as Christians believe - and they do not get me riled up one bit. However, you don't only replay these 'contradictions' but go on and on every time to deride Christians with all sorts of qualifiers as ridiculous and irrational. .  to put it mildly. That not even considering the several times a few posters have drawn your attention to such unhealthy attitudes in discussing with other folks.

You can point out what appears to you as 'contradictions' - and yes, we see many contradictions in your Deism as well. To me, it appears that there would be contradictions in ANY worldview anyone holds . . . whatever worldview, bar NONE. Yet people continue to hold on to whatever they believe. The one thing I find really crazy about folks pretending to be "open-minded" while lambasting other people's beliefs is that they don't seem to have the stomach to contain the very same things that they use to write off other people.

There is just no way that Deism can come close to resembling Christianity - they are worlds apart. You can hold on to your deism without trying to hammer your drivel on Christians and write them off as holding 'horrid' or irrational worldviews just because your deism is too narrow to contain Christian doctrines, especially the Deity of Christ. Many 'Christians' have made up their minds to deny His Deity, and that's all okay - their world. Denying the Deity of Christ by emphasizing only His Humanity does not make them any bit more intellectual or educated on the subject.

And one more thing: you can do well trying to not tell us what to believe where in fact you don't even believe what you argue - in which case your recourse to Guru Maharaji and/or Olumba Olumba as firstaid for your arguments is risible. Christians do not preach such people as the central figure of their Christianity; so why often drawing that unnecessary illation? I guess it would be great for me to compare your deism to something quite unfamiliar and unpalatable that you really have not heard of, and then come back pretending that all is well, no?

In all, do play it safe and retire this mendacious stupidity to deriding Christians over matters you cannot contain within your Deism. And while you're on it, cheers.

@bee444: Maven, he? Did u c d (f) beside my name? And did you read my post? I wasnt JUST quoting verses, I was using them to clarify my views. Goodluck finding your answers!

@viaro: Easy, bro. Sticks & Stones. . . Flesh & Blood. . .

@DeepSIGHT: I just visited this thread again. Its far easier with you than 1 of Nairaland's numerous atheists cos we at least av common ground: We believe God exists. Lets move on from there.

Tell me, sir, what do you understand (is meant) by / as The Word of God?

Please take time to respond, before I proceed logically to show you what engendered my rather odd views

^^^ The word of God is the will of God.

You can hold on to your deism without trying to hammer your drivel on Christians and write them off as holding 'horrid' or irrational worldviews just because your deism is too narrow to contain Christian doctrines,

Ok, is my Deism also too narrow to contain the doctrine that Olumba Olumba Obu is God?

Just ride on worshipping a fellow human being and calling that "broad."

Mavenb0x:

@viaro: Easy, bro. Sticks & Stones. . . Flesh & Blood.

Thanks, Maven. Sometimes I wish Deep Sight was in full view so I pound him with as many sticks and stones I can find.

Deep Sight:

^^^ The word of God is the will of God.

Where do you find that 'will of God'? In stones? In an evasive O.O.I. that defies articulation? In your 'zero' concept of 'nothingness'? Hahaha!! You're quite a character.

Deep Sight:

Ok, is my Deism also too narrow to contain the doctrine that Olumba Olumba Obu is God?

How should I know? Am I a deist? If you would rather Olumba Olumba is your god of 'oneness of infinity', how does that affect me personally? Your deism could be all narrow as best you want to make it, but it's not up to viaro to define its perimeters for you, you know?

Just ride on worshipping a fellow human being and calling that "broad."

Hehe. . I didn't present my Christianity to you as a deistically 'broad' outlook. And as long as John 5:23 says - straight out of Jesus' own mouth, viaro would forever render HONOUR to the Son in precisely the same way that he renders HONOUR to the Father. No quarrel there, is there?

Wow! So much emotion

@DeepSight:

I recall MavenBox using an allegory in another thread where Jackie Chan WROTE the script, DIRECTED the movie and PLAYED lead. So when you say "Why do you persist in this UNSPEAKABLY HORRID contradiction? ? ? He is following a script written by A SCRIPT WRITTER AND YET YOU INSIST THAT HE IS GOD? ? ?", have you forgotten that the script writer could also be following His script?

I think the reason for the emotion shown here is that we, have/show quite a bit of respect for you and listen to you patiently even when we don't agree with you but your post suggests you do not reciprocate that. Do to others, DeepSight, as you ,  , 

@Viaro:

God forbid I get on your bad side. Chei! '

aboulia. linear tarradiddle. 'apeiron borborygmus' etc

What language dictionary should I download?

@Muhsin/the_seeker/the-turbaned-violence-brigade:

You will notice that the people discussing on this thread are educated. We went to Universities, not arabic schools and education has informed us the nature of your whatever :- stony; being a black stone! We use our intellects and thus have reason to discuss and "tell stories". This is not recitation period. I wonder what concerns slaves of allah with a discussion that makes no reference to hitting your head against the floor

I recall MavenBox using an allegory in another thread where Jackie Chan WROTE the script, DIRECTED the movie and PLAYED lead. So when you say "Why do you persist in this UNSPEAKABLY HORRID contradiction? ? ? He is following a script written by A SCRIPT WRITTER AND YET YOU INSIST THAT HE IS GOD? ? ?", have you forgotten that the script writer could also be following His script?

Fair enough except that he began in Gethsemane to attempt to change the script stating to the one he was pleading with "Nevertheless not as i will, but as thou wilt" - thereby indicating a clear possible dichotomy of wills which cannot be defended given the unity of God.

Where do you find that 'will of God'? In stones? In an evasive O.O.I. that defies articulation? In your 'zero' concept of 'nothingness'? Hahaha!! You're quite a character

It really surprises me that till date you are yet to grasp the simple fact that the much bashed "oneness of infinity" is also exactly how your bible and all Abramamic Religions describe God -

He is described as ONE - See Deutoronomy 6: 4 -("Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one ONE Lord." This is also plastered all over the Quoran.

He is described as infinite, or eternal.

So perhaps you want to revisit your antagonism to the idea.

« #8 on: Yesterday at 10:37:22 PM »  
Quote
Php 2:4  Let each of you esteem and look upon and be concerned for not [merely] his own interests, but also each for the interests of others.
Php 2:5  Let this same attitude and purpose and [humble] mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus: [Let Him be your example in humility:]
Php 2:6  Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained,
Php 2:7  But stripped Himself [of all privileges and rightful dignity], so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that He became like men and was born a human being.

It is disgenius of the writer(s) of the above to suddenly string Jesus to become God, when he clearly stated that he is Jesus whom "YOU" sent. He see that there were other earlier prophets, all of then humans who did as much if not more of miracles than what Jesus ever did. In all of that no one ever take them to be equal to the Creator! Is there anyone but the "Creator"?

Prolegomena:
If we can agree that Earth is a temporal place with respect to Heaven, and mankind is utterly finite with respect to God, then we see that every occurrence on earth is very much like the happenings in a book or a movie: pre-determined by the author or script-wright, but each character in the book/movie is oblivious of that fact.

Now, let us consider an autobiography or self-directed documentary, in which the author himself features. Truly, the finality of the matter is known and determined by this author in reality, but that does not prevent the reader / observer from having a thumping heart, or the other story-characters from frenzied actions, as the excitement in the story grows.

In light of this, I will start by saying that this side of existence is relatively virtual, with respect to eternity. As seen in Php 2:4-7 above, Jesus was an "actor" in the "reality show" called Earth. In his essential nature outside the "movie" Earth, he is still himself, God.

Every normal person understands movies to be a make belief, dealing with fantasy for entertainment purposes, for the most part. Whats real about the movie Back to the future, except it is fantasy? You cant go back to the past. You cant fast forward the future. The only reality is the present!

Quote
It cannot be seriously asserted by anybody that Jesus is the Father. I crafted that question carefully because of the trinitarian problem of identification whereby all three are said to be God, but never identified as being one another: in other words - is the son the Holy spirit as well?


You keep referring to "the three of them", which is an assumption that you have made, thinking I believe in the Trinity. I do not. I repeat, God is not 3-in-1, He is 1-as-3. i.e. A Singleton, who, relative to mankind, has been seen (and still is seen) in three various perspectives.

We finally found a Christian who thinks Trinity is not to be believed! But why? Is it because it is not in the Bible? Is it because of the fact that it is stated that there are three personalities in that concept of trinity? Is it other reasons or all of the above and others? We need to know, though we read that the argument is now 1 as three, similar to me Olabowale, a father, a husband, a son, limiting my many attributes or descriptions to my immediate bloodline, partially because am still a brother, a nephew, etc which will make my condition even more complex than the 1 as 3 because am now 1 as more than 3 (See above).

Analogy: Jackie Chan's Who am I, a 1998 Jackie Chan film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Am_I%3F) which he wrote, starred in, and also directed is a good example here! Since he wrote the movie, I will say He FATHERED it, c.f. the role of God (as) the Father. As he starred in it, that means his own script "gave birth to his character" i.e. He did EXACTLY what the script described for his role (that is what SONship is all about!). Directing the movie is like the role of the Holy Spirit, whom the Bible says, knows the things of God (1 Cor 2:11-13), and is the one qualified to GUIDE us into all truth, as God is truth.

Is that actor in reality the husband of the wife of Jackie Chan? Of course not, because when he and his wife are in their bedroom, neither the actor, nor the director nor the producer (each of them a character in a make belief scenario, movie) is ever the man called jackie Chan! To use this analogy to defend 1 as 3 or 3 as one, etc is naive, dishonest and should you give me 3 million dollars and when I record your deposit in the transaction, you will get upset that it says 1 million dollars as 3 million dollars so that I can pay you just 1 million dolars!

Would it then be right for an observer to ask "How can Jackie Chan condescend to such a level as to allow himself lose his memory (as it happened in the movie)? Since he wrote the script, why couldn't he let it all be an easy, smooth & magical macho ride?". Valid question, but then who would buy such a movie?

Clint Eastwood is a better, more famous, producer, director and actor than the younger Jackie Chan. The adventure of Josie Wales which he produced, directed and starred in, he was the hero doing justice to the bad guys. I enjoyed it with Sandra Locke in it, a woman that he married in real life, if only it did not last a lifetime; the life of make believers in play! Is make belief the best way to make God Almighty Who knows everything co-equal to human jesus and ghostly spirit? What an injustice on the Most Powerful!  

In light of the analogy above, if we say that
1. Jackie Chan (the real guy you can eat dinner with),
2. his movie-character (A black-OPs CIA agent also named Jackie Chan) and
3. the movie director (an ambitious guy named Jackie Chan)

No, because in reality the make belief dies when Jackie Chan the human being steps away from the shoots! Let me explain; if Jackie Chan were to attend his son's school teachers and parents association meeting, do we expect the CIA personality to show up, or just the father of the student? Its obvious that it is the father that we expect, in the real world separate from movie's make belief!

are all the same JACKIE CHAN, would we be wrong?

But there is only one Jackie Chan; the father, the son the husband, and is business role as producer, director and actor individually or collectively dies with the end of the shoot, for there is no need for him to continue in any of these roles when the product is now in the theaters, but to embark on another "future" project.

So why is it hard to understand that God wrote a script called Eternity, and one of the seasons of that long movie is called Earth, and he decided to feature himself in it? Some minutes into that season, he allows the "himself" character to die (as was planned from the start) and the script goes on?

Hogwash. The convenience of that is for the gullible. What will be the purpose of that at that time in human history? Will it be because it was the earliest of time or the middle or the end of time? Would it because it is the purest of time, or the worst or time, or the middle? None of these is true, even in our limited knowledge. I say limited because we do not know everything, just like Jesus a human being like every prophet before him did not know everything; the end of time for example and have limited ability to do things, like what came out of the lips of jesus about himself not fully powerful, unable to do things without "God'd" Help! Whats the purpose of God coming down from His Unique Position, different and completely separate from humans, all of a sudden becomes just like man? Could he not have help man in the way he had done it many times before? In all of the arguments to make God Jesus on earth, we forget what Jesus said himself against this foolishness, and not considering that after they say that he dies for sins, we see that he said there is "Lake of Fire" (HellFire) still and prophesied that in the day of Judgement he will say I never knew you to many miracle workers of the Christians.

And that, exactly, is the case we have right here. Jesus is a projection of God into human form (a la projection of Jackie Chan into the TV screen), and I will employ this analogy to answer your some questions in my next few posts.

The Jesus who You sent statement tore into unrecognizable pieces of uselessness the idea that jesus is the actual protection of God Almighty while prophets like Moses, Noah, etc are not!

« #11 on: Yesterday at 10:39:39 PM »  

Quote
  2. In the event that you attempt the lame line that he was only saying that because he was here on earth in the physical, then what about Jesus' assertion that he would ascend to be sitted on the right hand side of the father? after being resurrected? This makes it abundantly clear that he is not the same entity at whose rigfht hand he sits. It is made clear in the Gospel that he rose and sat at the right hand side of the Father - Mark 16:19.

Let me start with this Bible verse.

Exo 15:6  Thy right hand, O LORD, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O LORD, hath dashed in pieces the enemy.
Exo 15:12  Thou stretchedst out thy right hand, the earth swallowed them.
Deu 33:2  And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.
Psa 16:8  I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.
Psa 16:11  Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.


The English language is so weak that meanings have been lost in translation. Thank God for verses like Exo 15:6 and many others that show that the "right hand" of God does not mean towards the eastern cartesian coordinates of his upper limbs!

The RIGHT HAND of God means the place of assurance, security, hope, salvation, power, might, glory, favour etc. i.e. anything good that one can benefit from God, emanates from His right hand!

Jesus "seated at the right hand of God" means that the benefits of our salvation are to be obtained THROUGH Him IN GOD.

How does seated at the right hand makes the one who sat and the One Whose right hand the seat become one, instead of two separate entity, even if all goodness is from the right, then all evil must be from the left, telling us that the left is still not occuped. If we follow the wisdom of the sitting positions, it is clear that Biblical God is on the right side of the emptiness, while jesus is on the right of Biblical God! Can anyone argue with any clear mind that Jesus is the same entity wose right side he is seated?

As for my Jackie Chan analogy, that is like seeing Jackie Chan on the streets in Hollywood and I scream "Jackie Chan!!! Please sign me an autograph!!" and he smiles and asks "Which movie was your favourite?",

If you look at this above, Jackie Chan is no more just on the single movie that we have seen him above as a CIA person, but actor of many movies. Ridiculous since the arguments are flowing from one river to another stream which feeds a spring and it is this spring that flows to the Ocean which will definitely feed a major river like Niger, or Nile or Mississippi! Can anyone believe and accept these inconsistencies?

and then we get to start talking about His character in the movie "Who am I", about the cool Black-OPs CIA dude. The REASON I am interested in the Jackie Chan guy I am talking to, and any autographs I get from his, is only because of His RIGHT HAND, which is the movie character. If the black OPs guy were not on Jackie Chan's RIGHT HAND, who would give two scoobies (viaro!  ) about that Chinese guy? I believe my analogy has sufficed in this case.

Except that to you, Chan's best work was just that, while to others it is another movie and some racist or others may actually think that he is a bore, an ill prepared actor, not meritting the cost of admission! Jackie Chan, the person is the only true Jackie Chan, not the make believes of Hollywood, where reality is mired in lies; its acceptable this way since it is only for entertainment purposes, but to use the same process to cheapen the Uniqueness of God by dragging Him to be a human being is the highest form of disbelief, idolatry, and at least personal desire!

« #12 on: Yesterday at 10:40:06 PM »  
Quote
  3. Jesus makes it clear that the father has the same relationship with us (being our father) as with Jesus (being his father).

Unfortunately what Jesus said directly has been lost because there were no immediate at the moment of gospelling recordings! Therefore, it is no surprise that we see a lot of conjecture, personal opinions and "what Jesus said"!

This is emphasized by the text in Jn 20:17. Even after Jesus had died and risen,  there remains a clear difference between the two as Peter writes - "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" - 1 Pet. 1: 3

I already explained what a Father's role is in the development of a son's character. The FATHER Figure does not necessarily mean sexual progeny, it means someone from whom one is DERIVED.

Father in realty is the one whose blood flows in your veins. The one who slept with mother and the end result is you. Any other definition is false, for your father's daughters are your sisters, his sons are your brothers and you cant marry your sister if you are a man, and you cant marry your brother if you are a woman.

John 8:44 records Jesus saying to a group of dissenting Jews "You are of your father the devil", and this was because their actions were derivative of the devil!

we must apply the same process to jesus in relationship to God! no muslim denies that jesus and God have a standing relationship, just in the same pattern of relationship that each Messenger or prophet has with God! Is anyone of them son, but just messenger, or prophet? Is the evil doer the child of the devil, but a relationship with him by actions?

Just like Michelle Ferre, acting as Christine, a beautiful CIA undercover agent, also acting according to the script, will have Jackie Chan for a FATHER. BUT NOT the Jackie Chan who is a CIA Agent! It will be the Jackie Chan that wrote the movie script.

Can the true jackie Chan, please stand up! It will be the one that is not from the make belief lifestyle of Hollywood! If the Jackie Chan on his family dies, will there still remain any of the jakie Chans from Hollywood?

God became the FATHER of the Jews starting from when he adopted Abraham,

Adopted him as what; a son or a messenger prophet whom He said is a friend? We must not forget that Abraham was not a Jew, a lineage of Judah, but the jews are one of the lineages that came from Abraham, making the relation between God and Abraham cover all the lineages of Abraham and cant be exclusive to just a branch! Is there a proof against this, from any book, even if the offspring of Abraham happens to be an evil doer, will he still have the benefit of this relationship, while a good person just because he is not from his bloodline, but adopted Abraham's good ways excluded from it? Of course not!

and he revealed himself as El-Shaddai in Genesis 17:1. El-Shaddai translates as "the multi-breasted God" meaning that he had more than enough for anyone at any point in time.

this will then destroy the exclusivity of what the Jewish tribe claims for herself!

That is a real Father.

Is Creator not better and higher than a father? Why deny God the Creator and stubbornly stick with Father? My Creator is God. My father is long dead!

When Jesus spoke to Mary, he spoke as one who was in the cast of mankind, and also following the script of life. And Peter referred to him as the FATHER of CHRIST. Very true! Because Christ came to do his will, perfectly. That is what real sons do.

Did Jesus ever referred himself as his own father, even when you call him son of david, and in the two geneologies, there was no place it was traced back to God? Who is closer to God; from the geneologies, Adam or Jesus? Of course Adam, yet never called son of God! You may argue that he was created from dirt, but are we not all sons and daughters of Adam? Was the creation of Jesus more miraculous than the creation of lady Eve, or that of Adam, or their children, the first earth birth?

« #13 on: Yesterday at 10:40:33 PM »  
[quote]Quote
4. “Of that day no one knows, not the angels, nor the son,  but only the Father”. Mark 13:32.

Consider these:

Quote
Joh 5:19  So Jesus answered them by saying, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, the Son is able to do nothing of Himself (of His own accord); but He is able to do only what He sees the Father doing, for whatever the Father does is what the Son does in the same way [in His turn].
Joh 5:20  The Father dearly loves the Son and discloses to (shows) Him everything that He Himself does. And He will disclose to Him (let Him see) greater things yet than these, so that you may marvel and be full of wonder and astonishment.

Shurdy arguments! The truth is Jesus cant do anything of his own, no way, no how, no power no ability. But God can do everything without Jesus and the Independence of God on all things is 100%! We see that God even in His love did make it clear that Jesus does not know everything; "The end of time"! We even see that Moses was able to know that God will save the children of israel under him, yet he was a mere human, a prophet! Does this not make Moses even more knowledgeable of the end of the event that he was a leader of, while Jesus failed to know his own event outcome, when it will end, according to the Bible?

Quote
Mat 11:27  All things have been entrusted and delivered to Me by My Father; and no one fully knows and accurately understands the Son except the Father, and no one fully knows and accurately understands the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son deliberately wills to make Him known.

Everything, except the end of time! Is that truly everything?

As I have explained earlier, the Son is the manifestation of the Father, appearing in human form as Christ Jesus. Everything is known to the FATHER, who wrote the script. But He did not make it such that everything will be "known" by the Son in the script.

Going about selling a lie will only be a product to be purchased by dishonest traders! If the author is the actor, why would he as the actor be surprised at his own script events, example is the crying on the cross? The cry itself if critically analysed can only come from disbelieving soul, because even the little boy, son of Abraham when he was going to be slaughtered, laid on his side, there is no portion, Bible with its unbelievable story forgetting how Sarah was the boss and will not stand for the death of Isaac, or Quran which produces an accurate event that is being observed up till today, considering the easiness of Hagar's low class position which will make her son Ismail an easier Sacrificial person, were it is reported that the young person cried, doubted and carried on in a manner showing disbelief! This is a child, a human with courage, not a 30 something year old man, prophet, which some people even take it to the extreme to call him God! Even me Olabowale, am resigned to the fact coming to me one day, though I do not wish it for another 70 years. Whenever it comes, should I now react to it as if I am now abandoned by God Who all these while allowed me to be alive, experience His Bounty?

As John 5:19 clearly states, JESUS WAS FOLLOWING A SCRIPT! The only thing he can do is what the script-writer had determined or allowed him to do.

Is he the script writer or what? If he is, he is a dishonest actor because no time did he tell the people, even after the event that he acted to show them some wisdom. If he is not the script writer, then those who say he was the writer are following their own selfish and unsubstantiated desire!

Let me illustrate with a movie analogy. A re-enactment of Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes Mysteries. Set in the early 20th century, would we expect the kind of high-tech gadgets that are available in this 21st century to be employed in the script? No, of course not! Even when the Sherlock Holmes actor KNOWS that by programming a hidden camera into a wristwatch as an embedded nanotechnology system, he can solve the mystery at hand, does he do that? So, isn't it clear that the script-writer knows what could have saved the day, but the SON (the actor in THAT form of acting) does not?

Why would Jesus who was Script writer and Actor revealed to us by the my God my God on the cross that he is ignorant of that end, when he has been telling us earlier that God the Script Writer is completely different from him, the actor (a la Mark 12 verse 29)? The reality then is that they are not the same, while the Script Writer is not on the screen, the actor is, and if the movie get damaged by fire, we will not see the actor and the movie any longer on the screen. If the script is damaged by fire, the script writer is not imaged in the Script as the actor is in the movie! Is it not a disgenuious statement that one will think that God Almighty as Script Writer will know everything, but as an actor will teach us that there are still some knowledge he does not have? Wow!

« #14 on: Yesterday at 10:41:39 PM »  
Quote
5. To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane? To who did he cry "Eli Eli, La ma sabathacni?" Doubtless to the father. In Gethsemane he makes the crucial statement - "Nevertheless not as i will, but as thou wilt" - making it clear that the Father had a different mind, will and selfconsciousness, because if he were the father himself, that prayer would be moot and paradoxical.

Finally, the last question. I already answered this on the other thread, so to save time I will copy and paste it here.

Quote
On Gethsemane:

Using my analogy of Keifer Sutherland acting as Jack Bauer in the action series "24", I know you will agree with me (if you watch the series) that many times, Jack Bauer is close to death, and like every other human being, he does not want to die unless he absolutely has to. In a hypothetical scene, he has been left inside an underground chamber while he tries to deactivate a scheduled nuclear warhead, guarded by Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists.

Jack Bauer (in his mind): Not my will, director (The director is Keifer Sutherland), but yours be done. I really want to get out of this scene alive, and save the people of the United States. (frantically tries to deactivate the warhead, while still shooting the Fundamentalist terrorists that are trying to gun him down and prevent him from doing the work)
Casual Observer (someone who has seen the movie last night on MNet): what nonsense?! Doesn't Keifer know that he will not die, and the CTU will rescue him in the next few minutes? Why is he acting like he doesn't know? Are you sure Jack Bauer is Keifer Sutherland? 'Cos he was interviewed last week and he already told us about this scene!
Maven:   But of course he has to behave like that, because that is what his role requires! And if Jack Bauer dies in that movie, Keifer Sutherland will never be Jack Bauer again. At least until another movie. Self-preservation is a fundamental human trait, and he's only human to act that way

While we are dancing from one idea to another, we must not forget that the reality here is Keifer Sutherland, the son of his father actor "the senior Sutherland", for if the son dies (thats not my wish since the boy is still young), the father would have lost a child. Thats not the case with Jack Bauer of the make belief.

Furthermore, I want you to note that everything Jesus did and said was for our benefit.

No single proof more than to claim what Moses did was for the "benefit" of the Egyptians who perished after losing their first birth!

If he acted all macho and marched to the cross, how would we know how to deal with circumstances where it seems our will is far easier than God's more complex (difficult?) will?

The same guy who had earlier acted Macho when he overturned the table of the "old people" doing their money exchange business? How can we argue that this same man is not macho and even violent at all with this very event?

Here, Jesus was going to undergo a three-day journey that would at first separate him from the Godhead due to the enormity of man's sins. For the FIRST time, the Son of God was going to be divorced, so to speak, from His Father. In actuality, He knew it was temporary, but for our benefit, he had to take it like a man (no pun intended).

Three days as a jew of daily measurement of Sunset to Sunset or other people of Midnight to Midnight? Either way calculate 3 das for me starting from just before Sunset Friday to just after dawn of Sunday! There is no way you will get a 2 days of the jews or 3 days of the 12 midnight to 12 midnight!

Jesus took his disciples along with him so as to show them how it is to battle out such spiritual tussles, but they were just sleeping like logs

They did not see him do any battle, if it is spiritual (an unseen battle since you cant see spirit). The only place they see something that he did, which is the hanging on the cross, it is less than 3 days! Did Jesus of the Bible dont know how to calculate the time measurement of the Jews from Sundown to Sundown?  

« #15 on: Yesterday at 10:44:42 PM »  
Sincerely, I think the entire problem surfaces whenever we try splitting hairs between Jesus and The Father, when he has clearly said that "I and the Father are ONE" (John, at 10:30pm  ) for which the Jews attempted to stone him, saying he thus made himself God. In this narrow road of understanding HOW God could be in Heaven and yet be manifest in the flesh, a weary traveller without the help of the Holy Spirit can fall into error and heresy.

Mark 12 Verse 29 is completely saying that jesus and God are not the same, so how do you reconcile this clear opposition? We see that the Jews say even before they were evr called Jews during their Children of Israel or Israelites days that they are all even Gods, Children of God!

Question:

Quote
To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane? To who did he cry "Eli Eli, La ma sabathacni?" Doubtless to the father. In Gethsemane he makes the crucial statement - "Nevertheless not as i will, but as thou wilt" - making it clear that the Father had a different mind, will and selfconsciousness, because if he were the father himself, that prayer would be moot and paradoxical.

This attempt to re-enact God's role in Jesus as a movie director acting his own script is, I think, the farthest analogy I can go on with. If I use a simpler analogy, I will severely weaken the very idea of Divinity.

Can Unity and Trinity ever fit in the same box? Its absolutely impossible.

What makes this whole topic so complex is the fact that God put aside his divinity and participated in the flesh as a man.

Conjecture or is there a proof, from the time of Adam all the way to Jesus?

In that man-form, his true nature has not been compromised, but in his fairness and justice, he will act as a man. Nature and spirits will recognize him (e.g. Matthew 8:27, 8:29 etc.) and they will bow, they know their creator even though he wears a mask. But man? No, man will not believe. For the fact that he came in a form like he is, man in his pride will think he's one of them, and they would kill him. But he knew that already.

I will try to be brief.

If he knows why would anyone say that as the actor, in previous responses, above that he lacked knowledge of it, because the Script writer, he, did not tell himself the actor? It is ridiculous considering that we are trying to marry two entirely different entities as one, when it is so obvious that they cant: One being the Creator, the other being created having a beginning through his mother? What spirits would recognize him, supposedly when there is just one spirit/ghost? Or are there more and what are those spirits like the good spirits of the True Prophets and the evil spirits of the false prophets? To assume that human have enough pride to want to overcome a thing that claims he is God, and actually succeed will disqualifies that entity as True God for it is not possible to destroy the CREATOR!

Quote
Really strange then that he wrote the script and also wrote a part in the script where he would address himself begging himself to change the script.

As I said earlier, Jesus was not "begging",

If Jesus was not begging, what was he doing? And then follows the below:

it was necessary for him to do that for two reasons:
1. To show the disciples how to handle such situations whenever it arises in their own lives (that was why he asked them to come with him)
2. God will not cheat, and he will never perform at a sub-standard level. So if he cast himself into a script as a man, the man will be expected to fulfill the roles that are required of any such man in that role. That is what it means to be a good actor. Permit the analogy.

If Jesus was not begging, why the explanation? THis is almost similar in an esoteric way to a man who was clearly stealing a property and he was telling the owner and the people who witnessed it that he was just safekeeping it for the rightful owner who knew it was safe where he had it under lock until the thief broke the lock! God using Moses showed easier way to deal with adversities without dragging Himself into it, for the prophets are examples for the people to follow! What is substandard for God is to actually become human and allow Hisself to be killed, and wrongly calculate less than two Jewish days for 3 days before the arrogant Jewish people! Shouldnt the manhood of God be superior if it were ever a thing to happen, than to find that God not knowing all things now that he is a man, crying, weeping, etc, etc to the point that he is suddenly surprised that he is going to die, carrying on to the point of disbeleving, complaining that his God in heaven self now abandoned himself now on the cross? What a lost of memory and sign of disbelief!

Quote
IF CHRIST WERE GOD, HE WOULD KNOW VERY WELL EXACTLY WHAT EFFECTS HIS CARRYING SIN WOULD HAVE ON THE GODHEAD -

Accordingly he would not despair that "God had forsaken him. . ." He would know fully well all the divine computations of what was going on. . .

God in His omniscience knew what He had to do in the form of Christ. It was never for once lost on him. Why else would he rebuke Peter when he tried to convince him otherwise, and call him the devil?

While Jesus repuked Peter as such he failed dishonestly to rebuke himself on the cross acting exactly worse than Peter. Peter was not even a prophet but a follower of a prophet. Should a prophet with the same level of disbelief as Peter not carry greater blame? How if God were to show a disbelief in Himself, will it not be the wholesale amnesty of the people against God if He were to blame them for disbelief in Him?

1. The very reason Christ cried out this way was because Jesus was quoting from Psalm 22 which would have been immediately recognized by those within earshot, and today by those who know the Psalms.  It follows the classic pattern of the Todah Psalms – suffering followed by deliverance. Jesus the Messiah, Son of David, draws attention to this psalm not only because it is a prophecy of his crucifixion, but because he can very confidently give thanks knowing it’s purpose. Raising his voice, he began reciting the Psalms, starting with, and ending with, the two verses below:

Pay attention to son of Daid, instead of God! What is truly the truth? I will ignore the crying out, a sign of mankind.

Quote
Psa 22:1  To the Chief Musician; set to [the tune of] Aijeleth Hashshahar [the hind of the morning dawn]. A Psalm of David. MY GOD, my God, why have You forsaken me? Why are You so far from helping me, and from the words of my groaning? [Matt. 27:46.]
--------------------------------please read the rest, twould make my post too long---------------
Psa 22:31  They shall come and shall declare His righteousness to a people yet to be born--that He has done it [that it is finished]! [John 19:30.]

NOTE the beginning and the end were the words recorded in the gospels. Why is that? In a form of symbolism, the gospel writers recorded only the beginning and the end of Christ's words as he hung on the cross, struggling to say the words (due to asphyxiation by virtue of the cross). I believe he said the whole psalm, because when you read it you get an exact description of what happened at the cross.
2. As I said before, he was fulfilling a role. I don't think I need to flog this horse, it's dead and maggot-infested by now.

If it is the writer or the writers who captured merely the beginning and end of what Jesus said, missing out what was in the middle, can we sincerely say that they captured everything, maybe the deliberate omission of what clearly pointed to Jesus being no more than the prophet, a man of God, carrying and delivering His Message? Can we sa the writers are in essence capturing the word of God, but simply what they deem fit to record of what the man, Jesus said? Why do we say then that the Bible is the completely the word of God, when it was written by men and still going through revisions, editions, versions even as we speak, showing fully that this is a document from man, showing imperfection?What is the symbolism here and unfortunately a God dying of asphyxiation, by simple device of just a small group of mankind? Can we believe an entity that dies to be called Immortal and Invisible?

And why can't God follow his own script? The Bible says in Psa 138:2 that he has magnified his word above ALL his own name! His name there, including his integrity and intents, is subjected to his own Word. So why is is difficult to say that God followed through with his own script in His own wisdom?[/quote?! Integrity and Intents of God is now subjected to His word, allowing His own Word to die off, trail off? Could this ever happen to the God Who perished the people of Noah, then the people of Lot, then the Egyptians, then the people of Jericho, the Jebusites, Philistines, etc, long before, unrelenting when He wishes to punish? Is He now punishing Himself as Jesus to do what, whereas people (christians who have this idea) will still go to lake of fire since Jesus said that "I never know thee"?


[quote]God never lost his omniscience. But in cases where his "actor" on earth was not "designed" by the "script" to know something, it would be correct to say that Jesus "did not know" e.g. Mark 13:32. May I use an analogy here? It's like saying that when I look into the mirror, there are some things that my mirror image will know? That in itself is an abstruse statement, can you tell what my mirror image knows? Of course, there are things like my facial expression and my body language that my mirror image can "know", but can it tell you what time I intend to go shopping tomorrow? That analogy is quite poor, but I hope you get my point.

Does this make sense that a part of God knows everything, another part knows just what the first part wants him to know, while still the last part we really cant figure him out? THe Mirror reflection does not becomes the person starring at it. It is a make belief having no dimension, and value. YOu cant kill the image in the mirror unless you kill the person, making human being even more unique than the Christian god of three with one part dying! Can we say this is God?

I rest my case. I hope you find your answers. « #16 on: Yesterday at 10:45:40 PM »  
Here is the entire chapter, from the AMPLIFIED version, for you and anyone else who also wants to read it in perspective of the crucifixion. {I quote the AMPLIFIED because it  uses the original Greek and Hebrew texts to unlock subtle meanings, and also includes cross-references.}

Please read with a very open mind, seeing that it was a prophecy and not all the details were fully expressed. For instance, Psa 22:31 in many versions end with "he has done it", but Jesus ends with "it is finished". Considering translation gaps from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek, I think it is acceptable. Such gaps are adequately covered in the AMPLIFIED, but you can compare with the KJV or another, as well.

Psa 22:1  To the Chief Musician; set to [the tune of] Aijeleth Hashshahar [the hind of the morning dawn]. A Psalm of David.
MY GOD, my God, why have You forsaken me? Why are You so far from helping me, and from the words of my groaning? [Matt. 27:46.]
Psa 22:2  O my God, I cry in the daytime, but You answer not; and by night I am not silent or find no rest.
Psa 22:3  But You are holy, O You Who dwell in [the holy place where] the praises of Israel [are offered].
Psa 22:4  Our fathers trusted in You; they trusted (leaned on, relied on You, and were confident) and You delivered them.
Psa 22:5  They cried to You and were delivered; they trusted in, leaned on, and confidently relied on You, and were not ashamed or confounded or disappointed.
Psa 22:6  But I am a worm, and no man; I am the scorn of men, and despised by the people. [Matt. 27:39-44.]
Psa 22:7  All who see me laugh at me and mock me; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, [Matt. 27:43.]
Psa 22:8  He trusted and rolled himself on the Lord, that He would deliver him. Let Him deliver him, seeing that He delights in him! [Matt. 27:39, 43; Mark 15:29, 30; Luke 23:35.]
Psa 22:9  Yet You are He Who took me out of the womb; You made me hope and trust when I was on my mother's bosoms.
Psa 22:10  I was cast upon You from my very birth; from my mother's womb You have been my God.
Psa 22:11  Be not far from me, for trouble is near and there is none to help.
Psa 22:12  Many [foes like] bulls have surrounded me; strong bulls of Bashan have hedged me in. [Ezek. 39:18.]
Psa 22:13  Against me they opened their mouths wide, like a ravening and roaring lion.
Psa 22:14  I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart is like wax; it is softened [with anguish] and melted down within me.
Psa 22:15  My strength is dried up like a fragment of clay pottery; [with thirst] my tongue cleaves to my jaws; and You have brought me into the dust of death. [John 19:28.]
Psa 22:16  For [like a pack of] dogs they have encompassed me; a company of evildoers has encircled me, they pierced my hands and my feet. [Isa. 53:7; John 19:37.]
Psa 22:17  I can count all my bones; [the evildoers] gaze at me. [Luke 23:27, 35.]
Psa 22:18  They part my clothing among them and cast lots for my raiment (a long, shirtlike garment, a seamless undertunic). [John 19:23, 24.])
Psa 22:19  But be not far from me, O Lord; O my Help, hasten to aid me!
Psa 22:20  Deliver my life from the sword, my dear life [my only one] from the power of the dog [the agent of execution].
Psa 22:21  Save me from the lion's mouth; for You have answered me [kindly] from the horns of the wild oxen.
Psa 22:22  I will declare Your name to my brethren; in the midst of the congregation will I praise You. [John 20:17; Rom. 8:29; Heb. 2:12.]
Psa 22:23  You who fear (revere and worship) the Lord, praise Him! All you offspring of Jacob, glorify Him. Fear (revere and worship) Him, all you offspring of Israel.
Psa 22:24  For He has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither has He hidden His face from him, but when he cried to Him, He heard.
Psa 22:25  My praise shall be of You in the great congregation. I will pay to Him my vows [made in the time of trouble] before them who fear (revere and worship) Him.
Psa 22:26  The poor and afflicted shall eat and be satisfied; they shall praise the Lord--they who [diligently] seek for, inquire of and for Him, and require Him [as their greatest need]. May your hearts be quickened now and forever!
Psa 22:27  All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall bow down and worship before You,
Psa 22:28  For the kingship and the kingdom are the Lord's, and He is the ruler over the nations.
Psa 22:29  All the mighty ones upon earth shall eat [in thanksgiving] and worship; all they that go down to the dust shall bow before Him, even he who cannot keep himself alive.
Psa 22:30  Posterity shall serve Him; they shall tell of the Lord to the next generation.
Psa 22:31  They shall come and shall declare His righteousness to a people yet to be born--that He has done it [that it is finished]! [John 19:30.] Can Jackie Chan the man dies and somebody is now sending condolences to the Image on the movie screen of his above CIA role, without somebody scratching his head to see if the person is mentally stable? Is there any real Jackie Chan except one, and the rest is a make belief, fake on screen and in the performing art business? Is Keifer Sutherland, I think his father is Donald more than just one Keifer to his family? Does he truly appear in more than one place in body and soul, being a human being? If this guy is just one, a human being, created can find a way to be acting as he is, tell me, is it necessary that God will have to kill Himself for mankind, when He can simply forgive us all, without any effort, only from His Mercy or Forgiveness?

Many years ago, the son of Martial Art hero Bruce Lee, was playing a lead role in a movie. In the middle of it, he lost his life. Guess what, somebody else had to finish the project, taking the place of the late young man! Thats hollywood, and we see now that they do have stunt doubles. Non of the verses above support that it is talking about Jesus over say "Completely innocent full of mercy, patience, etc John the son of Zachariah" who lost his head because of his straight and narrow ways of life, turning down in disagreement the woman called Jezebel! How about Zachariah or even going back to Moses, etc those who had suffered in the hands of the enemies of their mission, and their persons and definitely the enemies of God Who sent them.

[/quote][/quote]

Oh my God, the grand commander of the turbans has come to town now every page will be 400 pages long with nothing said.

@DeepSight:

Indefensible? Try this -

Fully Divine, Fully Human. Thus the Divine follows the script BUT the Human cannot be neglected as it is a part of this "mix". Seeing/sensing/understanding what is about to happen, the flesh recoils and wants out. I wager you have had many instances where you knew something was wrong yet found there was a conflicting will within you that wanted it. Or the other way around - knew it was right yet something made you go against it. The separation of personalities solves this issue you make such a big deal about, DeepSight. Just remember - Fully Human, Fully Divine. Thats what we always have claimed, right?

Each had its own agenda. I know you understand that. What matters to us as believers though, is that the right one won the conflict!

@Baba70:

Please leave us alone with our mature educated reasoning. No one here needs your ancient islamic reasoning! Igba baba70 ti koja

Olabowale&co.I ve just realized with your reasoning mentalities,theres no way u would understand d concept of trinity.Even if we opened your skulls&insert d explanations,u still wouldnt get it.May be would invite Jesus to help kindle your light of reasoning since its in Jesus THAT ALL D TREASURES OF WISDOM&KNOWLEDGE ARE HIDDING. Colossians2:3

Deep Sight:

Where do you find that 'will of God'? In stones? In an evasive O.O.I. that defies articulation? In your 'zero' concept of 'nothingness'? Hahaha!! You're quite a character

It really surprises me that till date you are yet to grasp the simple fact that the much bashed "oneness of infinity" is also exactly how your bible and all Abramamic Religions describe God -

Dear Deep Sight, I understand what is meant by 'oneness of infinity' as used by Deists for their concept of the deist's god. And NO, that is not 'exactly' how the Bible and all Abrahamic religions describe God.

Should we have cause to revisit your deistic 'oneness of infinity'  for precisely what it is (minus the antagonisms), it would not be difficult for you to see that none of the Abrahamic faiths purports God to be a 'zero' or 'nothingness' or an 'it' or any of those inarticulate non-starters that have taken you several threads and ednless ages to decipher for yourself. I had indeed hoped that a good explanation for your oneness of infinity would be forthcoming in the other thread you raised for that purpose; but aside the cosmetic jingles of a maths you have no clues about, that same O.O.I. remains ever as evasive.

Relax, when the time comes, my dear friend, viaro will empty your drivel. This drama is not complete yet, and the final draft will not pan out to parts I & II. At best, your deism only goes about stealing concepts from as many religions as are out there - which probably explains why you're never at peace with yourself until you write off the views of others as horrid, etc. Take heart, the time will come.

nuclearboy:

@Viaro:

God forbid I get on your bad side. Chei! '

aboulia. linear tarradiddle. 'apeiron borborygmus' etc

What language dictionary should I download?

Hahahaha!!

Oh shooks! I once promised to 'behave' on my diction. . but here I am breaking the law.
Your honour, I truly need deliverance! Anytime viaro boils over, words just spew out of me
and I have very little clue what they mean. . until after I post them!

@olabowale: Hi. How's family?

@Viaro: This guy!! You have no idea how much you're cracking me up, man!

@nuclearboy: You nailed it there: fully human, fully divine! Yes sir!!

@Deep Sight:

Deep Sight:

^^^ The word of God is the will of God.

Pray tell, what exactly is this "Will of God"? How does it relate to his actions and overall activities?

@Viaro:

No worries, Bro. I'm downloading a dictionary for every language name I can pronounce! BTW, seems today has been really a moody one for you. Saw you on another thread "destroying" lady234 as per "naughty fingers".  

@MavenBox:

Hello there, Lady. nice to see you're back from your earlier withdrawal.

toba:

Olabowale&co.I ve just realized with your reasoning mentalities,theres no way u would understand d concept of trinity.Even if we opened your skulls&insert d explanations,u still wouldnt get it.May be would invite Jesus to help kindle your light of reasoning since its in Jesus THAT ALL D TREASURES OF WISDOM&KNOWLEDGE ARE HIDDING. Colossians2:3

since you understand trinity pls how do you reconcile it with you ealier claim that jesus is not God. Are you confused or what? Or you wanna eat back your words? I thought trinity was about three in one or one in three (you may choose any that suits you)
. The Roman catholic catecthism on trinity (a word that was coined by them) reads
'the father is Almighty, the son is Almighty and the holy spirit is Almighty'.
How can you accept that christ is not god and still amke him part of your trinity?
Toba why do you keeping keeping your self about a dogma that obviously does that agree with your sensibilities

viaro:

I don't think you get it. I was not out looking for any creeds of Islam - I know far too many to even begin to bother, and as many creeds in Islam exist to divide Muslims even over the very nature of the allah of Islam. Perhaps you never carefully thought through your own answer before clicking on the 'reply' botton; and one thing that might help you is to carefully weigh the meaning of the term 'nature' before seeking to use it to query anyone else.
What is allah's 'real nature'? You are still very, very far from grasping the meaning of 'nature', let alone talk about the 'real nature' of anything. Being 'one' does not tell you anything about allah's nature - you're only arguing a creed, not a nature of anything about allah. There are many things that could be said to be 'one' and yet not much could be said about their real nature. Besides, not all Muslims in every shade of Islam agrees about your resolute idea about the creed of allah (tawhid - it is merely a doctrine, and it does not explain anything about nature).
Thank you. It is only idiots who talk the way you do. You have not addressed anything about your nature of allah, and passing off a creed instead of the 'nature' does not do your job for you before you begin to accuse Christians of being confused. Are you that dense? Twerp. Please go back to school and get a real education, not that silly thing they gave you in one madrassa where you don't even know what the meaning of nature actually is.
Of course, Christians disagree on many things - even as you have admitted that Muslims disagree on many things (second quote above) - so why does it surprise you that Christians also disagree? There's hardly ANY worldview where adherents agree on EVERYTHING - you search and you will come back to affirm same. If Christians disagree on the Deity of Christ, why does that constitute grounds for your idiocy to start deriding them? You just have not been to Muslim forums outside Nairaland where Muslims disgaree to the point of blue murder on the most basic of their own tenets - that is prolly why you sit back like a twerp talking bunk. Besides, when you visit some of those forums, you will be amazed that it is Muslims disagreeing with Muslims about those things, with no contributing fuel from non-Muslims. Just because some Christians are disagreeing on this matter has suddenly become your most happy moment, no?
I don't think you can read. Where did I get John 5:23 from, you consumate daft? I'm not given to story-telling in discussions on the Deity of Christ. What brought me here is this retard attitude from some of you who think that you have the birthright to tell others what to believe about their own faiths when you do not even make any move to subscribing to that same religion. If Christians do not hold Islamic view, they are 'confused' or 'horridly illogical' - that has gone on unchecked on Nairaland for far too long that it beggars intelligence to see how you buffoons just go on and on and yet have not the slightest clue what you want to talk about in your own worldviews. You, for instance, just don't have a clue about the nature of allah in Islam, and you think that plucking off a creed of tawhid would do the job for you? If you chose to address the issue without derisive remarks, you won't read me in this tough stance. Dummkopf.
True, and that is not a claim that was derived from thin air. The Bible says clearly that understanding God's counsels comes through the action of the Holy Spirit: "Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you" (Prov. 1:23). So what is the problem in that?

Besides, the Christian faith transcends logic - it is not constrained within the limits of logic. Ironically, many of your types who talk about 'logic' haven't the slightest clue what that word means, or what type of logic you even want to begin to apply in your drivel.

Another thing is that Muslims also make the same claims repeatedly that non-Muslims would never understand anything outside what allah deems fit to convey to anyone. We often have read from your comrades such quotes as allah guides whom he will (Q. 22:16) rather than guide everyone. The whole point in your Islam is that the mullahs believe (on the authority of the authentic hadiths) that even if someone is actually right, they are still wrong - regardless how right they may be! Is that 'logical' to you?

Unfortunately, allah does not post on Nairaland, nor anywhere else. The best places he prolly knows how to post his non-translatable quranic verses are on materials that goats can devour under Aisha's bed. Lunkhead.

are you not ashamed of the junk you posted? Typical response from an apparently smart guy trying to defend a hopless sensless dogma. I have noticed that this sickness called xtrianity has been gradually eroding your mental faculty.

Seeker.I couldnt find anything readable in ur post.D last part keeping keeping is confusing too bad

the_seeker:

are you not ashamed of the junk you posted? Typical response from an apparently smart guy trying to defend a hopless sensless dogma. I have noticed that this sickness called xtrianity has been gradually eroding your mental faculty.

It must have taken you eons to read through my reply and still found you were mentally challenged. Do I repeat it in madrassa language? But, of course, poor folks like you post typical responses like yours as firstaid to hide your low IQ.

Besides, the Christian faith transcends logic - it is not constrained within the limits of logic.

Viaro, it might be more apt to state that spirituality transcends known logic.

For your statement may just as easily be hijacked by a Hindu person worshipping cows - in defense of this he may declare - "the hindu faith transcends logic!"

I repeat:-

@Deep Sight:

Deep Sight:

^^^ The word of God is the will of God.

Pray tell, what exactly is this "Will of God"? How does it relate to his actions and overall activities?

Well, i hoped to conclude the "Oneness of Infinity" thread with reflections on that, but since you press, let me only say very briefly that -

- God is ONE

- ONENESS is perfect unity

- Perfect unity is the ultimate form of harmony

- God's will, therefore, is ultimate harmony in creation.

viaro:

It must have taken you eons to read through my reply and still found you were mentally challenged. Do I repeat it in madrassa language? But, of course, poor folks like you post typical responses like yours as firstaid to hide your low IQ.

am i suprised? No! How could i be suprised by a guy who worships a jewish capentar as his God. Like deepsight said, what makes you better than the Hindu that worship cow.

Deep Sight:

Well, i hoped to conclude the "Oneness of Infinity" thread with reflections on that, but since you press, let me only say very briefly that -

- God is ONE

- ONENESS is perfect unity

- Perfect unity is the ultimate form of harmony

- God's will, therefore, is ultimate harmony in creation.

Don't worry about the OOI thread because it is moving along much too slowly to converge (what would we expect from an infinity?). Let's continue our discussion, you may import ideas as you deem fit. The threads are after all, independent.

God's Will is ultimate harmony in creation?

This can be interpreted in two ways:
1. God, who made the creation, depends on creation's harmony to conduct his own actions. i.e. he keeps adjusting to fit creation's harmony, as creation deems fit.
2. God's actions are reflected on creation, and forces it into harmonious concordance. i.e. creation adjusts in continuous harmony with his actions and thoughts and intents.

Which of the two is it, then? If it is neither, can you please expatiate your post, because that means I don't understand?

This may be my last question (depending on your response) before I show how how the "script-theory", as I expressed it, is not absurd.