Can anyone with common sense, much less claiming to possess scientific knowledge, expect an orderly universe to have come out of an explosion?

What is the probability that a hurricane can pass through a junk yard, and produce a brand new Boeing 747?

Those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel is true.
But living by the gospel is what Paul declined to do and expected that others too should do so.

But fine, those who determine to live by it should live off the free will donations and offerings made by the people.If they can't survive on that, they have a problem.
The gospel is supported by what the people can and want to give and not by any tithes.

Paul's ministry throughout the bible was supported by the freewill donations and offerings of believers and never tithes.

Anybody reading tithes into any of those examples of giving is a liar.

So, why didn't Paul make mention of so important a matter of not tithing, or tithing, as much as he addressed circumcision? You cannot impose Paul's approach to missionary work on Christians generally.

Paul spoke on issues based on context. He spoke out against circumcision, yet he circumcised Timothy.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

I am sorry its far bigger than that. Its not a question of God's ability, or inability, unwillingness, or willingness.

If your only concern is where evil came from, then I am ready to start explaining. Is that your starting question?

Mmmmh, people would always perish from lack of knowledge, I wonder why anyone would want to be living under a curse when grace is available.
@bobby
And is tithing one of the financil laws? Cause as far as the bible is concerned tithes should from agricultural produce and not money some crooks have twisted it to mean.

I am not under a curse! Besides, you missed the point about the various laws that existed under the Mosaic system that are still being practised by modern civilization, and which serve a useful purpose.

For example if mankind were still obedient to the dietary laws laid down by God through Moses, then the health crises we now face would be non-existent.

So a lot of church leaders are going to have to account to God for their false teachings about the Mosaic system, by not being honest with their congregations about what to maintain, and what to ignore. Then we will see who will be cursed in the long run.

2Th 3:6-10
(6)  Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
(7)  For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
(  Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
(9)  Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
(10)  For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

This is not Paul's personal opinion.
This is what they expected of every Christian.

Paul no doubt addressed missionary work. He speaks of personal experiences in terms of how he approached such work, and being the type of strong-willed person he was should we be surprised of such remarks? That was the typical Paul.  

In other sections of the Pauline writings he says, " those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel" In this day and age if there isn't a plan of systematic giving to support God's church, and its ministry it will fail.

The fall of man was all part of God's purpose. Everything that is happening or has been happening and will happen is all according to his purpose. How you view it is based on how you view the whole picture.

That is true, but they are more eager to find out if God is to blame for not preventing the outcome, or finding out why would such a God after having known still allowed it anyway. That is what is causing the confusion.

They are not prepared to see the bigger plan, or purpose that would have manifested for all God's creation, despite sin and its awful results.

If god is all knowing then why didn't he foresee the fall of mankind in the garden of eden ? If he foresaw the fall of mankind but did nothing about it then doesn't that mean he is a cruel sadistic god instead of a loving one ?

I wish your question was based on a sincere desire to know the truth, but alas I am disappointed. First of all God by virtue of being God had to have known beforehand that Adam and Eve would have fallen.

However, God having a foreknowledge of that outcome had nothing to do with their choice. All of God's intelligent creatures that were made after His image, and likeness were made as free moral agents. They were made to understand the consequences that would follow if and when they chose to move from God's plan.

For you to fully grasp the true understanding of why God allowed certain things to have happened, without having to intervene, is to first understand the nature and character of God. Unfortunately, you don't, and I am not even sure if you're willing to find out, but just in case you are willing I'd be more than prepared to supply you with an explanation.

For every question of aspersion that is brought up against God, there is an explanation.

1Co 11:1
(1) Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

Php 3:17-19
(17) Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.
(18) (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:
(19) Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

These look like some serious expectations from Paul from us Christians.

And this is what Christ said to his apostles of which Paul is one of them:

Luk 10:16
(16) He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

pretty serious stuff, aight?!

Its serious stuff alright, but Paul's personal opinion, which he gave in other situations, must not be made into a requirement. Must we forbid marriage as the Catholic priests have and use Paul's advice as a standard, or should we see it as just a recommendation? I hope not!

The point I am making Ttalks is that not everything that is placed under the Mosaic system automatically makes it bad, or legalistic. There were all types of laws that served different purposes back then that if were applied today would make much practical sense. There were financial laws, agricultural laws, quarantine and hygiene laws,
personal Laws etc.

Hence the tithing just happens to be one of those principles that is worth continuing. There is nothing in the NT that says it is a sin to tithe.

bobby!! bobby!!bobby!

back to business,anti -catholic bashing is your pasttime ,I actually expected u to resume long ago ,welcome back after the long break.

unfortunately for you ,the records are easily available,no other christian organisation has contributed to christian evangelisation than the jesuit order.

I actually xpected you to be preaching the sabath,here instead of your normal catholic bashing since a greater number of christians are "endangered"

Sound nervous Chukky! 

How do you explain the Jesuit oath, and how do you reconcile that oath with the good of which you speak of the Jesuit order? Can good people make such satanic agreements?

t is either that u are amazingly stupid or astonishly uneducated

like i said b4 I won't discuss issues other than tithes here,

Why on earth do u think apostle paul was fending for himself when he could have helped himself with tithes ?

why don't u provide a single bible quotation where christians practised tithing ?

how come biblical tithing frequency was increased from once in three years to the now monthly,weekly and daily tithing of today ?

He fended for himself because that was how he chose to do it. Its that simple. He gave no command for pastors to fend for themselves. As usual you use one irrelevant topic to strengthen your opinion. Learn to make the distinction between an opinion and fact.

@bobby
If you read it and understood it then you would know that tithing is antichristian.

Paul didn't say that at all. Don't add to the bible. Please show me in the NT where tithing was abolished. If you show me a just one line I will accept it.

@bobby
Go and read the passage and stop blabbing, I would have posted it here and highted the relevant verses but I am not with my laptop I am using my phone to post this. Special emphasis on verse 5,12 &18 when you read it.

I did!

my man stop blabbing ,the mere fact at the apostles never practised tithing show that it is not relevent,The apostles commented  on marriage and other parts of the mosaic law that were incorporated into the new covenant.

You have no proof that the apostles didn't tithe. That you will never accomplish.

There is no where in the epistles of the apostles that they commanded tithing or anything in the bible to show they practised it.Rather church collections were voluntary and even at that were used in taking care of the poor.

Don't confuse free will offerings with tithing. If Abraham and Jacob who were righteous men practised a principle of tithing to God's Son at the time called Melchisedec, then why not continue to tithe seeing that Melchisedec still lives.

Paul for instance earned  his living from building tenths and not from tithe ,in his epistle to the thesalonians he  boasted ,that he had never received anythin wihout payin for it,he said he was setting an example for us to follow.

Paul said a lot of stuff. It doesn't mean that all preachers did what he thought he had to do. Wasn't Paul who also said that "those who preach the gospel must live by the gospel"? What better way than to have an organised way of supporting the gospel ministry. Tithing is the best systematic manner of giving. There is no better plan so far.

why on earth don't toay's pastors want to follow his example ?

Go ask them!

Tithing was never practised for thr fist 500 years of christianity until it's introduction at the council of macon in 580 CE

You have no proof. Recall that the true worshipers were being suppressed by the Roman church. You seem to have forgotten what your organization did to suppress truth. A lot of people are not aware that the truths of history went in obscurity. Revelation 12 describes that God's true church the woman was lead into the wilderness for 1260 years, which means that she was in hiding, while the false church prevailed.

Incidentally how come you are not the least concerned about all that property that is bequeathed to the RCC, and how rotten rich it has become off the sweat and blood of its members. Notice how richly clad the priests are? Notice how the instruments of communion are all gold laden?

How come you're so dead silent on such atrocities?

@bobby
On the contrary they abolished tithing read hebrews7:5-19.on the issue of law, the ceremonil laws[which includes tithes] is what was done away with. The moral ones have been written in out hearts which includes adultery you mentioned.

Show us where tithing was mentioned? Besides, tithing was never a law of ceremony.

Why am i writing this thread and exposing the antics of false prophets? Because the bible makes it clear we should hence they continue to destroy lives of other people.

Titus 1:11:
11 They must be silenced[exposed], because they are turning whole families away from the truth by their false teaching. And they do it only for money.

So let me ask you this. Are you yourself free from false teaching in your organization? Is everything being taught in your organization meeting the requirements of truth?

Have you checked that out thoroughly?

@ Kunleoshob

@bobbyaf
All those who depend on tithing to be put right with God are under a curse [galatians 3:10] and they have fallen of the grace of christ [galatians 5:4] so realistically speaking they can't be christians since they have no grace.

Why must you view it that way? I don't view it that way, and neither does God. Its a matter of principle. God has called unto Him those who are willing to make a sacrifice. You dare not view the principle of tithing as a Mosaic law when you know that it preceded Moses.

Must anyone argue that because the Hebrew people observed marriage that it is Mosaic? Moses forbad adultury through the law, yet Christians still observe such a law. Don't you?

This is the kind of confusion that people display who have no proper understanding of God's will. You all downplay God's law as if its some contagious disease or something, yet you all live out those lawful requirements, at least some aspects of it in your daily life.

If you're going to base your argument on what Christ taught, then you must accept that He practised the requirements of the law, and taught it.

In fact it was commonly believed by the leaders in His time that He wanted to destroy the law, but Christ simply said that He came to fulfill it, or execute it. He came to show its true meaning and purpose.

Hence those relevant parts of the law are still binding, and by relevant I mean those practical aspects, and that is why Christ nor His apostles never taught about an abolishing of tithing. They didn't have to.

Each time I read that oath I am led to really wonder if those people aren't possessed. If God has sent His Son to grant us freedom, who are they to stop those who desire freedom in Jesus Christ? And you know what alarms me, is that mainstream Christianity is playing into the hands of catholicism.

Mainstream Christianity is not reading the moves of the Catholic church for religious unity correctly. From ever since the Council of Trent, which was started to counter the reformation, the Jesuit order's one goal and mission was to destroy any attempt to neutralize papal power.

In 1798 when Napolean abolished papal power, albeit temporarily, plans were afoot to regain power by the insiders, but in a not so obvious manner. Hence the Jesuit order was strengthened since its inception in the 1500s, to once again continue its role as that body that would seek to function as the Pope's militia.

Are we really looking at a church, or are we looking at an organization posing as a church with ulterior motives to control the globe, and who will do anything to maintain global control now that they are on the rise again?

Christians wake up!

“Then the Bible that serpent which with head erect and eyes flashing threatens us with its venom while it trails along the ground, shall be changed into a rod as soon as we are able to seize it.” — Hector Macpherson, The Jesuits in History, Ozark Book Publishers, 1997, appendix.

Protestants be on the look out. If you're a firm believer in sacred scriptures as being the only rule of faith and practise, then open your eyes to the stark reality that is about to pounce on you like a Puma in all its wrath.

Here is an organization, the Jesuit order, that is bent on destroying anything that shows up the true color of the Roman catholic organization, and its plan to control the world using religion as a guise. Listen to this quote as put out by the Jesuit order:

I do further promise and declare, that I will have no opinion or will of my own, or any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver, but will unhesitatingly obey each and every command that I may receive from my superiors in the Militia of the Pope… I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition; and that I will hang, burn, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and the wombs of their women and crush their infants heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus."" — Edwin A. Sherman, The Engineer Corps of Hell; or Rome’s Sapper’s and Miners, Private Subscription, 1883, pp. 118-124.

To think that a person would concur with such an abominable oath defies reason. One could not even imagine a more despicable oath. The word heretic in the above quote refers to anyone who disagrees with the pope.

Recall in previous threads that Papal Rome in accordance with bible prophecy must have global control, until it is destroyed by the very earthly kingdoms it seeks to control.

If ever there was a time for Christians to open their eyes and see whats coming its now. The lawn mower is coming singing hymns.

already know that you are a big fool so I won't bothger replying you

Cat got your tongue, huh!

Chukwudi go deal with the many diabolic issues facing the catholic church members. I am sure you're aware that the catholic church is famous for influencing its members to will property to the church. I wonder who gets all those monies? I wonder what they do with all those monies they get from indulgencies? How come you're not concerned about such spiritual slavery that exists in the Catholic church?

And don't you know that calling people who believe in God fools is far more dangerous than not returning a tithe that is holy unto the Lord? Your sin is even greater because you fail to listen to the voice of Jesus who warns you against such. Yet you have the audacity to talk on religious matters.

@ Dwonder

Fantastic post i must say,
Everytime I read your post i really get confused. I can't point out what you really want to say.

You need to go back to grammar school then.

Are you saying that Jesus is the Almighty God or he his equal to God or What?

I didn't have to say it, the bible has already said so, but you're so not accustomed to seeing the truth that I am not surprised when it stares you in the face you are not able to see it. Let me introduce you to this passage. "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" Phil. 2:6

If you're in the form of God it means you're God. If you find it no robbery to be equal with God then you're equal with God. Its very simple.

Just like you wrote earlier you just can't quote a portion of the bible to support your views while you leave out other portions. the bible is a whole book with many parts collaborating the other, many parts can't be understood until the global theme of the bible is considered.

That also applies to your approach as well. In fact JWs are more likely to be guilty of that because in the past they have changed so many of their teachings, over 200 to be exact when they discovered the glaring truths afterwards. So many books went out of print because of the many doctrinal errors.

I sincerely do not intend to change your views on this forum, I dare not. however I will try to point out a couple of things.

One read the book of Hebrews from Chapter 1. Here are a couple of other bible translations available.


To the Hebrews

1 God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, 2 has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. 3 He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places. 4 So he has become better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.

5 For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father”? And again: “I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son”? 6 But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all God’s angels do obeisance to him.”

7 Also, with reference to the angels he says: “And he makes his angels spirits, and his public servants a flame of fire.” 8 But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. 9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than your partners.” 10 And: “You at [the] beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are [the] works of your hands. 11 They themselves will perish, but you yourself are to remain continually; and just like an outer garment they will all grow old, 12 and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as an outer garment; and they will be changed, but you are the same, and your years will never run out.”

13 But with reference to which one of the angels has he ever said: “Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet”? 14 Are they not all spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?

2 That is why it is necessary for us to pay more than the usual attention to the things heard by us, that we may never drift away. 2 For if the word spoken through angels proved to be firm, and every transgression and disobedient act received a retribution in harmony with justice; 3 how shall we escape if we have neglected a salvation of such greatness in that it began to be spoken through [our] Lord and was verified for us by those who heard him, 4 while God joined in bearing witness with signs as well as portents and various powerful works and with distributions of holy spirit according to his will?

5 For it is not to angels that he has subjected the inhabited earth to come, about which we are speaking. 6 But a certain witness has given proof somewhere, saying: “What is man that you keep him in mind, or [the] son of man that you take care of him? 7 You made him a little lower than angels; with glory and honor you crowned him, and appointed him over the works of your hands. 8 All things you subjected under his feet.” For in that he subjected all things to him [God] left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him; 9 but we behold Jesus, who has been made a little lower than angels, crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death, that he by God’s undeserved kindness might taste death for every [man].

10 For it was fitting for the one for whose sake all things are and through whom all things are, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the Chief Agent of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both he who is sanctifying and those who are being sanctified all [stem] from one, and for this cause he is not ashamed to call them “brothers,” 12 as he says: “I will declare your name to my brothers; in the middle of [the] congregation I will praise you with song.” 13 And again: “I will have my trust in him.” And again: “Look! I and the young children, whom Jehovah gave me.”

14 Therefore, since the “young children” are sharers of blood and flesh, he also similarly partook of the same things, that through his death he might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil; 15 and [that] he might emancipate all those who for fear of death were subject to slavery all through their lives. 16 For he is really not assisting angels at all, but he is assisting Abraham’s seed. 17 Consequently he was obliged to become like his “brothers” in all respects, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, in order to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself has suffered when being put to the test, he is able to come to the aid of those who are being put to the test.





The Letter to the Hebrews: a commentary & meditation

"In many and various ways God spoke, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son"
Scripture: Hebrews 1:1 - 2:4

1:1 In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.

5 For to what angel did God ever say, "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee"? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"? 6 And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." 7 Of the angels he says, "Who makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire."

8 But of the Son he says, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness beyond thy comrades."

10 And, "Thou, Lord, didst found the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of thy hands; 11 they will perish, but thou remainest; they will all grow old like a garment, 12 like a mantle thou wilt roll them up, and they will be changed. But thou art the same, and thy years will never end."

13 But to what angel has he ever said, "Sit at my right hand, till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet"? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to serve, for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation?

2:1 Therefore we must pay the closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. 2 For if the message declared by angels was valid and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, 3 how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him, 4 while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his own will.


Hebrews, chapter 1


Compare with Revised Standard Version: Hebr.01


1: God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2: Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3: Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4: Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5: For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6: And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7: And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8: But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O.



Do Angels Worship Jesus?

CERTAIN translations of Hebrews 1:6 say: “Let all the angels of God worship him [Jesus].” (King James Version; The Jerusalem Bible) The apostle Paul evidently quoted the Septuagint, which says at Psalm 97:7: “Worship Him [God] all ye His angels.”—C. Thomson.

The Greek word pro‧sky‧ne′o, rendered “worship” at Hebrews 1:6, is used at Psalm 97:7 in the Septuagint for a Hebrew term, sha‧chah′, meaning “to bow down.” This can be an acceptable act of respect for humans. (Genesis 23:7; 1 Samuel 24:8; 2 Kings 2:15) Or it can relate to worship of the true God or that wrongly directed to false gods.—Exodus 23:24; 24:1; 34:14; Deuteronomy 8:19.

Usually pro‧sky‧ne′o given to Jesus corresponds with obeisance to kings and others.

Compare Matthew 2:2 and 8
After Jesus had been born in Beth′le‧hem of Ju‧de′a in the days of Herod the king, look! astrologers from eastern parts came to Jerusalem, 2 saying: “Where is the one born king of the Jews? For we saw his star [when we were] in the east, and we have come to do him obeisance.”

8 and, when sending them to Beth′le‧hem, he said: “Go make a careful search for the young child, and when YOU have found it report back to me, that I too may go and do it obeisance.

(compare again 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 20:20 with 1 Samuel 25:23, 24; 2 Samuel 14:4-7; 1 Kings 1:16; 2 Kings 4:36, 37.) Often it is clear that obeisance is rendered to Jesus not as God but as “God’s Son” or the Messianic “Son of man.”—Matthew 14:32, 33; Luke 24:50-52; John 9:35, 38.

Hebrews 1:6 relates to Jesus’ position under God. (Philippians 2:9-11; 9 For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.)

Here some versions render pro‧sky‧ne′o “pay . . . homage” (The New English Bible), “do obeisance to” (New World Translation), or “bow before” (An American Translation). If one prefers the rendering “worship,” such worship is relative, for Jesus told Satan: “It is Jehovah your God you must worship [form of pro‧sky‧ne′o], and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.”—Matthew 4:8-10.

Though Psalm 97:7, which speaks about worshiping God, was applied to Christ at Hebrews 1:6, Paul had shown that the resurrected Jesus is “the reflection of [God’s] glory and the exact representation of his very being.” (Hebrews 1:1-3) So any “worship” the angels give God’s Son is relative and is directed through him to Jehovah.



In all sincerety Jesus has been given a position that no other person can attain, he has become KING of God's Kingdom that though doesn't make him equal with God.

And all those versions except yours say that Jesus is worshiped by angels, and that the father referred to Jesus as God. Your version attempts to give a different impression of worship by using obeisance instead of worship.

There is one God being a title that befits both the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. All three are One, yet are separate persons working with a united purpose.

As for the Almighty status of Jesus there can be no question. John in Revelation 1 indicates that aspect in this passage:

Revelation 1:8 says , "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

The expression "which is, which was, which is to come" is one that has been used to describe Jesus Christ who was once alive, and died, and who rose again to live for ever.

@skydancer. What are you saying?

I'd really like to know myself what he's trying to explain.

I read your posts, and unfortunately I know that you are an intellifgent man, but you suddenly jump to conclusion, without a methodical step by step process that is understandable, in human language and thoughts to get us from point A to point Z of the Trinity course, because you know that it does not make any sense!

How do you say you are a God when you are obviously a human, and say with your own mouth that you have limited knowledge, calling another God to help you, asking Him to aid you, saying you cant do anyhing of your own except He does it by allowing you to have the power of doing it, etc? If Trinity is the concept by which this fake God is calibrated to be God, then Trinity is destroyed by the simple fact that the human god is proven to be human alone and not in any shape a God! I read you Boobyaf, but your material is not qualified as a thing that proofs the existence of Trinity. Nothing does, and the more you struggle with it, the easier to see the follies of that effort!

You may have read my posts, but its either you do not understand, or you refuse to see the point I have made. Let me repeat:

1. Was Christ God before He became a man? The answer is yes because God the Father called His Son God. (see Hebrews 1:8 "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."

2. Angels could not have been allowed to worship Jesus if He were not God.  Note in particular that this command was applicable while Jesus became human[b]Hebrews 1:6[/b] says "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him."

3. When Thomas the doubter finally believed he fell at the feet of Jesus and proclaimed "My Lord and my God" If Jesus suspected that Thomas went astray, or went too far in his approach, did Jesus reminded him that He Jesus should not have been worshiped since He was a man?

I could go on.

@ tudor

What side effects are you talking about?

Every synthetic drug carries side effects.

Does insulin have any side effects for diabetics? Even using natural proteins inappropriately is bound to cause toxicology.

Insulin carries terrible side effects, and allow me to mention a few. It increases dangerous levels of cholesterol and triglycerides that damage the heart and blood vessels. Some others include severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); changes in vision; chills; dizziness; drowsiness; fainting; headache; increased heartbeat; increased hunger; loss of consciousness; nervousness; seizures; sweating; tremor; weakness.

I could go on. Incidentally I once managed a medical lab in a hospital, and I know of the dangers of administering insulin in patients. I used to see what happens to certain patients suffering form the side effects of such a drug.


Quote
Thats speculation! Science doesn't deal with could, and since no one could have measured what happened back then, then its pointless speculating.

That is why science moves from hypothesis to verification then conclusion. We're getting there. Ascribing it to some heavenly magician isn't the way to go.

You're getting there you say?  Trust me the matter under discussion about how life started is way too critical for those who inadvisedly use tricks and deception and brand it as science. The theory of the TOE is still a theory, and has been tweaked and tweaked for so many years now, that one wonders what to think of those who keep tweaking. As a matter of fact honest scientists are coming out of the closet and are discrediting the whole theory.

@gentle me

The weightier matters of the law like Justice and mercy were incorporated into the new covenant,there were reiterated in the letters of the Aposrtles,but no where did they ask us to tithe.

The early christians never paid tithe.Paul had to work for his own living,he was a tenth maker,he even mentioned in his letter to the thesalonians that he never received money from anyone without paying for it.

Donations under christianity were well coverd in 1cor 8,9 and 2 cor 9.No where were christians asked to tithe and nowhere in the bible were tithe paid daily ,weekly or monthly ,not even in the OT

You seem not to understand that not making mention of tithing doesn't mean it never happened. Jesus already clarified about tithing being the lighter portion of the law, in terms of what is required. Where in the NT is there mentioned that change?

Don't you think for one moment that if tithing was seen as a legal burden by Paul or any other of the apostles, that such would have been mentioned specifically and dealt with?

You of all persons need to raise as concerns in the RCC the many undue decrees that the pope and prelates have introduced to its members, most of which have not yet been kept. Members are not allowed to use contraceptives while having sexual intercourse is just one stupid burden being placed on civilized people, yet you come on this forum talking about something you have the least knowledge about.

Why not do the smart thing and tackle your own church issues before hypocritically addressing others.

That they've failed so far doesn't mean its impossible. Years ago, production of synthetic enzymes or hormones useable by the body was non-existent today even atheletes use them for doping. Besides aren't enzymes and hormones proteins?

But look at the side effects? I am not arguing whether or not synthetic proteins or any form of proteins for that matter, can be made.

This is wrong. Natural forces could well have been producing D-isomers then which evolved as time goes on in cells due to environmental conditions.

Thats speculation! Science doesn't deal with could, and since no one could have measured what happened back then, then its pointless speculating.

Which came first in cells, the membrane development or the biomolecules; DNA or proteins? Cannot you see the illogic of the big bang theory, and how it led to the development of the cell structure? A cell does not up and build itself in bits, and then finds itself waiting on further development as time moves on. For a cell to live and maintian itself it has to have all the parts ready for development. DNA, and RNA need to be present for living proteins to be made. You see the chance theory allows for trial and eror, which a cell does nt have as a luxery.

According to the postulation , Natural conditions now are quite different from what was obtainable then. For instance life was said to have been formed in the primordial soup. . .you don't find primordial soup in every womans pot these days, do you?

I will comment on this later. I am a bit sleepy.  Adios Tudor!

That they've failed so far doesn't mean its impossible. Years ago, production of synthetic enzymes or hormones useable by the body was non-existent today even atheletes use them for doping. Besides aren't enzymes and hormones proteins?

But look at the side effects? I am not arguing whether or not synthetic proteins or any form of proteins for that matter, can be made.

This is wrong. Natural forces could well have been producing D-isomers then which evolved as time goes on in cells due to environmental conditions.

Thats speculation! Science doesn't deal with could, and since no one could have measured what happened back then, then its pointless speculating.

Which came first in cells, the membrane development or the biomolecules; DNA or proteins? Cannot you see the illogic of the big bang theory, and how it led to the development of the cell structure? A cell does not up and build itself in bits, and then finds itself waiting on further development as time moves on. For a cell to live and maintian itself it has to have all the parts ready for development. DNA, and RNA need to be present for living proteins to be made. You see the chance theory allows for trial and eror, which a cell does nt have as a luxery.


According to the postulation , Natural conditions now are quite different from what was obtainable then. For instance life was said to have been formed in the primordial soup. . .you don't find primordial soup in every womans pot these days, do you?

I need to start a thread explaining the New Covenant because much confusion exists concerning it, and if this is not understood properly many souls will indeed perish. People read the NT to their own spiritual downfall. They fail to read  betwen the lines.

God once said that He will not alter the word that has proceeded from His mouth. God's covenant is an everlasting one, but He alters the circumstances in which His people find themselves.

1. The first covenant was made with the first family after  they sinned.

2. The second  was made with Noah before the flood, and after the flood.

3. The third was made with Abraham concerning the Messiah.

4. The fourth was made with Moses and the children of Israel.

5. The fifth one had to do with a renewal of the covenant with Israel and Judah under better conditions. It is this covenant that has been introduced to the gentiles as well, who are grafted into the olive tree. This olive tree is God's true people that comprises both jews and gentiles which we call the church.

6. Paul in the book of Hebrews goes into details about what the better conditions were surrounding the same covenant or agreement. He made it clear that man's efforts and the sacrificial system were no more apart of this renewed covenant. The new focus was now to be placed on God's power to transform His people through what Jesus accomplished on calvary, and by the power of the Holy Spirit to help us maintain that sanctified lifestyle that is pleasing to God.

The Mosaic approach in the wilderness failed in the sense that the people were not spiritually mature to truly appreciate what God was willing to do for them as His chosen people.  They were still too worldly. They were like children. Hence their continued struggle to please God, and their ultimate captivity for 70 years in Babylon.

Well, God raised up the weeping prophet Jeremiah to remind them of the plan to place God's law in their hearts, rather than relying on them to obey. In other words if we allow God to take control of our lives, then all will go well. If we try to do it on our own we will fail, just as how ancient Israel failed due to unbelief.

Daniel also reminded them that God would have given them 490 more years after the captivity to prepare for the plan. Daniel laid out the birth of the Messiah, and His crucifixion, and what would happen if they failed to accept the Messiah. He also predicted the downfall of their temple which occured in AD70.

He also introduced the covenant and how it would have been confirmed for 1 prophetic week or 7 literal years by Christ first, and followed by His disciples until AD34. That period ended, as well as the confirmation in AD34 when Stephen was stoned by the Jewish leaders, and which marked the end of the Jewish people bearing the divine oracles of God. Now it was a mixture of nations that was predicted by Isaiah to form spiritual Israel. Hence Peter evangelised the Jews and Paul reached out to the gentiles.

The common misconception is that God put away or abolished His law, when He Himself said that He didn't come to do that, but to fulfil it. When does fulfilling something abolishes it? If I promise to fulfil my marriage vows, then by their arguments after a while there will be no vows left. After Jesus baptism He said "thus it fulfills all righteousness"
Did it mean that He abolished all righteousness because He was baptised?

I will continue,

Using the bible as a science textbook is a very dangerous thing

That depends on how much you are able to correlate both the bible and science. For example. At one stage science once taught that the earth was flat, and the bible said it was round by mentioning the circle of the earth in the book of Isaiah.

Where did the bible get the knowledge that the earth was round, and at a time when men didn't know it was? Long before science forwarded the idea that air had weight, the bible said it did.

There was also a time when bible critics challenged certain names mentioned in the bible, yet archeology which is a science has confirmed to the critics' embarrassment, that such names did exist in certain geographical regions.

You don't understand how DNA proved you the theory of evolution and you claim that you studied natural and life sciences ? Stop lying men

Do you believe everything you studied? If you did I didn't. I had to pass my exams on the TOE, but who says I believed it? And if I studied it then who are you to say I don't understand it?

Cheap shots won't rescue you. I doubt if your engineering studies enlightened you enough.

@ Tudor

So you see, proteins don't necessarily need DNA  afterall.

Don't confuse the proteins. And do not overlook the fact that our cells do not make synthetic proteins. There are synthetic amino-acids that can be isolated in a lab, or what we call D-isomers, but they cannot be used by the body to make real natural proteins that function in the cells.

Bear in mind that the attempt so far, as it relates to making synthetic proteins, has not gone beyond that. So in the context of cellular processes which are countless, don't expect synthetic proteins to function as natural proteins would do. 

Besides, since scientists tend to associate natural forces with how the first cell began, and since natural forces could not have produced D-isomers that can only be separated in a lab, then your reference to synthetic proteins is irrellevant, and void.