₦airaland Forum

jayriginal: Lol !!!
Seriously what is wrong with you ?

In fact i heard him shouting, satan, die, die, die! outside their church

I also had a telco with anony and can confirm he makes a strong oral debater. Sadly our reordng of the discussion crashed. We had hoped to post it here.

I hv always been up for meeting new peeps here and have met a few. Puts calm reality to things.

O Plaetton, i disagree with you on meeting Enigma. He is way too sensitive and dogmatic, but i still perceive a very decent guy ovrall.

Here's the chap i believe -

http://glorychristianministries.com/index.htm

Image123: two years after, hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha calls for sober reflections maybe

Well better late than never. I thought better of it after a conversation yesterday.

On close reflection, I am now persuaded that it would have been right to name the Church outright. It was Gloryland Christian Centre, located in Isolo, on the Apapa-Oshodi Expressway.

@ thehomer, I heard you are in real life a Pastor at Mountain of Fire and Miracles.

Pastor AIO: I never said that Justcool and I had the same position. I said that I felt that I was coming closer to his position.

When you say 'developed' then that suggests a process that requires time. However I am not talking about cultural history as a linear phenomenon but rather as a cyclical phenomenon.

You and this linear vs cyclical thing sha. Aite.

Pastor AIO: I don't have time to go into this fully right now, maybe over the next couple of days I'll get round to it. I see western european culture as an interaction between 2 cultural strands, one decadent and the other robust. I identify these as the Latin culture and the Germanic culture. The mix of the two are what make up western european culture. (this is not a standard academic notion, but rather a product of my own observations).

Latin culture comes from the remnant of the Western Roman Empire that once included Italy, Spain, France, England (up to Hadrian's wall), and North Africa, and had it's natural boundaries at the Rhine River to the east and the Danube river. When it was the Full Roman empire it was all the land that surrounded the Mediterranean sea. In fact they used to boast that the Mediterranean was Rome's private lake.

Beyond the Rhine and the Danube were the barbarians, Germania. When the Western Roman empire began to decay the barbarians seized the opportunity. The Saxons (a germanic tribe) crossed the channel and attacked england. They and the Angles. They pushed the Romans (called Britons) all the way back to Wales. The welsh are in fact tbe true indigenes of Britain. The people we call english today were mostly invaders.

The Franks, another germanic people, invaded France and took that over. The lombards invaded Northern Italy and took that over. The Vandals invaded north Africa and took that over. etc etc etc.

That is why I didn't accept the idea of a special German nation. Most of these western europeans are germanic, albeit mixed with Latins. Even the Germans in modern day Germany are mixed with various other tribes. The French are of germanic stock, the English too, and the Northern italians, and even some North africans (mixed with arab and other bits too). Personally I do not think that there is any such thing as a pure race of peoples.

I'll have to get into what I think is a young culture as opposed to a decrepit culture at some later time. All I want to say is that at the fall of the Western Roman Empire the result was a mix of Roman Latin culture and an influx of A fresher more vigorous Germanic/barbaric culture.

Fair enough. And this is why i think justcool's position in this matter is rather utopian and cannot be acheived: not that if it could be acheived, i would support it: no: I regard it as a very dangerous teaching which would have terrible implications for the free expression of love and harmony amongst humanity.

I'm still watching that series on the 2nd world war, and I must repeat yet again that Hitler being a "called one" would make an absolute mockery of Divine plan and divine omniscience. A total mockery. Also, the "volition" which caused the separatist barbarisms could never be pure volitions whatsoever. They are manifestly divisive, dark, and hate inspired volitions.

Ihedinobi: I'm sorry I do not. I see it rather uphold that notion. However the more obvious interest here is His humanity.

Please go and read your post again. How on earth can you speak about Jesus having an independent and free choice and at the same time not see that this renders him a separate person? How on earth can you speak about Jesus saying he can appeal to his father who can send him angels to help him, and at the same time fail to see that this renders him a different person?

Look at this sentence you further wrote -

That says that He had the choice to go or not and His Father would have completely honored it. Had Jesus then demurred, He would have been causing no offence. His Will had to be at total unity with His Father's for Him to go to the Cross. And while His Father did wish it, He would not have accepted an unwilling atonement.

How on earth can you write this and fail to see that this shows Jesus to be separate from the Father?

Really are you being serious?

Ihedinobi: I'm willing to join Mr Anony to discuss the Trinity and Deity of Jesus if you wish it. But here I'll deal only with the issue of Jesus's willingness or not to go to the Cross.

Even were there no issues of translation as to whether it was no "man" or no "one", which it seems there is, there is the end part of His statement which intimated that the charge/instruction/command that He had received of His Father had been to of His Own Will, Desire or Power lay down His Life. He was under no compulsion even from His Father. In fact, that fact explains what He said later on when Peter tried to rescue Him by force from the mob that came to arrest Him.

He said to Peter, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? Matthew 26:52,53 RSV

That says that He had the choice to go or not and His Father would have completely honored it. Had Jesus then demurred, He would have been causing no offence. His Will had to be at total unity with His Father's for Him to go to the Cross. And while His Father did wish it, He would not have accepted an unwilling atonement.

Hence the picture there that angels were on standby to cancel the whole "project" if Jesus wanted. But He chose the Cross. He did not demur or offer an unwilling sacrifice.

I hope you realize how violently everything here clashes with any notion that Jesus is himself God.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Deepsight, I believe you understand the bible quite well. Are you willing to discuss the deity of Jesus Christ based on the bible?[/quote]Yes. But I have done so a great many times already.

If you must discuss it, can we start from addressing these verses please -

Jesus said not to call him " good " as only God is good.[Mark 10:18].

Jesus said he was only a human mediator [1Timothy 2:5].

Jesus said the Father is greater than he is [John 14:28].

Jesus said not to hold on to him, because he too has a God, he said clearly that he worships God, and that he would ascend to his GOD [John 20:17].

Jesus said he was a mere messenger of God and that believers should know God only [John 17:3].

Jesus said he is not omniscient and that there are some things he does not know but only the father knows. [Mark 13:32]?

Omniscience is an attribute of God and so Jesus cannot be God.

Peter wrote that Jesus has a God and Father [1st Peter 1:3].

Luke wrote that Jesus was only a mere man accredited by God [Acts 2:22]

Jesus prayed to God to forgive sinners. [Luke 23.34].

Jesus showed the possibility of a dichotomy of will between himself and God in his Gethsemane Prayer.[Luke 22:42]

The parable of the Vineyard is also cardinal. [Mathew 21: 33-46].

On top of all this, Jesus is described in scripture as the only begotten son of God. The relevant source greek word is monogenes. Being begotten indicates having a beginning. As such, since Jesus had a beginning, he cannot be God, because God is eternal and self existent and has no beginning.

Ihedinobi: Jesus was not unwilling.

Really?

Your argument does not fly for the simple reason that his petition was to GOD and not to men - as he said he received this command from God - and not from men. It is thus God he petitioned to avoid it "if possible". As such,the statement "no man taketh my life from me" does not negate the fact that he was unwilling to go through with it.

I have oft said that the prayer in Gethsemane is one of the most potent scriptural pointers against the doctrine of the Trinity.

I posted this arguing this same point with Davidylan years ago -

Here we go again: If Jesus were God, why would he stop a man from calling him good, insisting - no - "only God is Good? " Did Jesus (" God " become less good by dint of being upon the earth?

Did the import of 1 Tim. 2:5 miss you when it states that “there is ONLY ONE GOD, and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Jesus Christ.”

What do you understand by the word “mediator”? Can you realistically claim that a mediator is the same person as one of the entities he is acting as a go-between for? You know that is frankly absurd.

Can you tell me if Jesus is equal to the Father. If he is, can you educate me on what he could possibly have meant when he stated : “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).

Most importantly, can you shed light on Jesus’ repeated references to “his God.” He clearly showed himself to be worshipping God, even praying to God on several occasions. Could God pray to God?

[b]The most spectacular of all his prayers, for me, is the statement in Gethsemane – “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt”

This statement shows something cardinal: if Jesus were God, as you lot like to claim, his will, and the will of the Father would be absolutely inseparable! This prayer shows clearly that the Father’s will could be different from Jesus’ will, when he says – “not as I will, but as thou wilt”. For me this is the most damning verse against the idea that Jesus is himself God. Because it shows a clear dichotomy of WILL between the father and the so called “son.” But I expect that in your usual fashion you will disregard Jesus’ own words in favour of your dogma.

In defending this, don’t you even dare bring up the lame line that it was his “human fear” that was speaking. Even mere mortals have shown great courage at the point of execution, or in battle, and you want to convince me that ALMIGHTY GOD, in human form, was not capable of stout hearted courage (especially when he was divine, and knew the purpose of his mission on the cross, and how sacred it was).[/b] Mere men have laid down their lives for their countries, happily and without asking for the cup to be removed from them. Gallantly! Now GOD himself, in human form, is not capable of such courage, to save his creatures?

Finally it is most pertinent to note that Jesus showed what sort of relationship he had with God when he says – “I am ascending to your father and my father, my God and your God”. [John 20:17]

This makes it pretty clear that in the same way as God is father for us, he is Father for Jesus, and that in the same way as God is God for us, he is God for Jesus.

No wonder 1 Pet. 1:3 – “Praise be to the God and father of our lord Jesus Christ!”



https://www.nairaland.com/344297/dr-david-sheds-some-light/1

plaetton: Thank you.
This is quite interesting. So Jesus was merely making a request, and there was no gurantee of acceptance.

hhhmm.

Should we assume that all prayers for forgiveness are mere requests and do not offer any gurantees of acceptance?

what about when priests, catholics especially, pronounce forgiveness after confession? Is that just a feel-good gimmick?

plaetton: According to the gospels, shortly before his death on the cross, Jesus asked god to forgive those that crucified him because they did not know what they were doing.

In typical fashion,christians are always quick to make reference to this act of forgiveness.
But when I think about this, I am puzzled by its broader implications.

So, do you really think that god forgave those that crucified Jesus?

When we contrast this with the fact that Christ is said to be God himself. . . . then well, oh well, absurdity of absurdities!

[quote author=PAGAN 9JA]he had a child with a prostitute. that is so lowly of him. cant he have a grip on himself [/quote]No: True LIGHT would not discriminate in such a hypocritical fashion. Is a prostitute not a human being? Did he not say that he came for the sake of sinners and the lowly? If at all she was ever a prostitute, did she remain a prostitute after meeting him? These are the issues an honest person will consider, not just jumping to attack just because its Uncle Jesus being discussed.

I'm afraid I see no purpose to this thread. Even if it is true that Mary Magdalene and Jesus had an affair, and even if it is true (as Rosicrucians claim) that Jesus had a child with her, who was taken away to Gaul (France), and even if it is true that she was a prostitute, none of these do anything to vitiate the message of Christ or his ministry.

MacDaddy01: I dont open threads on NL everyday (cough* frosbel)

YOU DON'T ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Deep Sight: Honestly, all things considered, be it ancient aliens, pre-history, pyramids all over the place - the Americas, Africa (even giant ones in ancient china, i now learn) - not that these are proof of ancient aliens - but I absolutely insist - and this, I say that anyone who denies must be totally irrational - namely, that there is a massive lacuna in human history somewhere which is yet to be accounted for. The very supposed age of homo sapiens alone does not abide the scenario we now have in history whereby less than 10, 000 years is known of: and worse: even far less consists of recorded civilization. This does not tally. A huge massive giantatic chunk is missing somewhere.

Now, just to put in context what I was trying to say here. Let's have a look at the history of humanity. It is thought that mankind in its present modern form appeared on the scene on the earth a mere 200, 000 years ago. And only reached behavioral modernity a mere 50, 000 years ago.

Now as far as evolutionary postulations go, human-like creatures, (homo-erectus, etc) have been around for millions of years preceding this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_history

But let us just take human beings as haven existed for the last 200, 000 years on this earth.

Does it seem strange to anyone that humans would exist for such a fairly long period of time, and we would as yet only have the very first civilizations as far as we know, being recorded at only as early as 10, 000 years ago? What happened during the 190, 000 preceding years? The humans were presumably just loitering dumb in the forests and picking fruits and then suddenly woke up in 8000 BCE?

Now, mind you, this 8000 BCE that I am talking about is just such developments as farming, very basic agriculture, and the like. Even animals do such. Ants keep livestock.

As such, in terms of proper and "aware" civilization, in terms of recorded civilization, we are talking more like 4000 - 3000 BCE at the furthest. Overall, what this means is that we do not have more than 6000 years of recorded civilization. I don't know is it is only me, or this just seems very odd in a history that is supposed to go back many hundreds of thousands of years. 6000 years simply means that you and I, assuming roughly a century for each generation, cannot trace our grand-fathers back more than 60 grandfathers, in the entire history of global civilization.

Is it just me or this looks absolutely incongruous. There are gigantic gaps: these simply do not add up.

What all of this suggests to the reasonable mind is that there is indeed massive pre-history: much of our history which for one reason or the other is not recorded in the canon of modern history. In this context, i find it unfathomable that people cannot or will not be open minded towards many different possibilities regarding the pre-history of man.

I really don't know what is so special about the form of the pyramid that would make ancients scattered across vast reaches of the planet - in absolutely unreachable distances - from Central America, to North Africa, to Far away China - all build virtually similar vast structures of stone pyramids. I am sufficiently incredulous to regard this as a strange co-incidence - especially for the ancient times.

And so if some one wants to discuss Atlantis, I am up for it, if someone wants to discuss gods descending from the sky, I am up for it, if someone wants to discuss Yahweh and Zeus and Thor, I am up for it, because there is far too much hidden in our pre-history for us to make a mockery of myth: there is no smoke without fire: myths derived from somewhere.

Deep Sight: Everyone knows catholic means universal. But it is more than intellectually dishonest for anyone to pretend that the work or collation or activities of the Roman Catholic Church, WERE in fact works of some other vague amorphous "catholic" - [universal] church - which did not exist at the time - [size=16pt]nor has ever, or since. [/size]

Shamefully dishonest.

Martian: An Island inhabited by fauna, flora and devoid of any human is almost completely wiped out by a Tsunami. Is this “evil” or just a natural occurrence?
An adjacent Island inhabited by Christians gets wiped out. Is this “evil” or just a natural occurrence?

In both situations, the sharks in the sea have "good" food.

AH ahn, do you mean you still say very sensible things sometimes. Wow. This one is good sha, i agree.

plaetton: Eternity is immeasurable time expanse of time. Since there will always tangential points upon which time can be measured, eternity(time without measure) can only exist as a concept.

Please this refers only to finite time and not to TIME.

^^^ I can't make sense of what you are saying. Are you suggesting that if human beings did not exist to conceptualize eternity, then eternity would not exist? That is patently false and eerily similar to Idehn's argument that things only exist in our heads. It is a horribly illogical argument. I opened a thread to show this to Idehn but he never addressed it - - - >

https://www.nairaland.com/970734/contentions-idehn-existence-god-time

Please read and respond to the arguments there.

plaetton: From the bolded you do admit that god is Nothing. Think about it.

Is eternity nothing?

If it is nothing, how do things exist in it?

Do things exist in nothingness?

YOU think about it.

Secondly, you are saying that we are at liberty to imagine god as eternity, lost in time or not part of time.

Very Interesting indeed. Yet When I put it to you that God is created in the mind of man, you vehemently disagree.

I have described my view of time repeatedly. Again, I ask: is eternity nothing? There lies your answer.

seyibrown: I am ashamed that Bishop Oyedepo has not apologized publicly (or even privately) for what he did publicly and that any defence of his actions is even being put up. If this is what he does in public, what does he do in private? If the poor girl had physical bodyguards would he have slapped her? I don't think so. I put myself in the shoes of that helpless girl; It was her against thousands and thousands of people in that auditorium, and she'll carry that emotional and psychological wounds of that assault until someone helps her find proper healing! What is stopping Bishop Oyedepo from issuing an apology ?? Pride, arrogance .... definitely not fruits of the spirit! He has possibly alienated that girl and thousands of others from christ by assaulting her and continuing to refuse to apologise. That ain't Christ-like! If justice took its proper course in this matter, the Bishop will be liable to pay compensation to the girl! We should not tolerate ANYBODY abusing women and children in the name of them being witches/wizards!

Word!

[quote author=PAGAN 9JA]and now 5224 (within a 4 min. gap) this is all marketing! [/quote]Sharrap. What's ya problem? Didnt I explain to you that NL is a bizness? Dyu think its a charity?

Everyone knows catholic means universal. But it is more than intellectually dishonest for anyone to pretend that the work or collation or activities of the Roman Catholic Church, WERE in fact works of some other vague amorphous "catholic" - [universal] church - which did not exist at the time - nor has ever, or since.

Shamefully dishonest.

busayobrig: This reminds me of the false allegations placed on Jesus Christ before his death and resurrection. I only pity the lawyer standing for the creature you all can a girl. We will see the powerful of God from that drama soon.

May God in his infinite mercy and wisdom rain down ceasless curses upon you and render you permanently subject to the likes of Oyedepo, whilst bringing you to a recognition of the pathetic "creature" that you truly are.

Dirty, brainless pathetic pig.

MacDaddy01: Theres no harm in a little ego trip once in a while.

You know I'm a boss but you dont want to accept it, why?

Well, to answer your question, I don't consider prankster little kids to be my "bosses". . . . . .

thehomer: This depends on the part I'm playing.

As a pastor or prophet, it's the offering time. Especially in churches when they collect 2 or more offerings + tithes.

As a congregant, it's a gable between the preaching - for sleeping, holy communion - getting something for my money and closing time - chance to escape without looking odd.

Lol! I second every word!

Mr . Wicca, e nor shame u say you are virtually the only contributor to this thread?

Doesn't that make it obvious to you that people see thru ur scam?

Abeg, give it uo already, we nor buy.

MacDaddy01: Please, send e-mails to logicboy01@gmail.com


I dont use my nairaland email. Also please notify me on NL before sending me something so that I can easily address ur emails


Cheers

Please quit the self-obsession and try to think of things more profound than self.

Honestly.

[quote author=PAGAN 9JA][size=16pt]LOOK AT NOW WHAT TOPIC MADE IT TO THE FRONT PAGE! THIS IS THE DOING OF MODS FROM THIS SECTION[/size]:

https://www.nairaland.com/1037138/which-church-advice-new-convert

Topic: Which church would you advice to new convert?

THIS IS HURTING OUR RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT. NAIRALAND PREFERS TO ADVERTISE CHRISTIANITY ON THE FRONT PAGE TO GAIN CONVERTS AND BRAINWASH! our sensible posts of Pagans and atheists are always ignored! [/quote]Nairaland is a business. Is there a large population of christians in Nigeria? Now ask yourself about target market.

GBOW! GBOW! [Assassins run away as Vito Corleone's fruits topple to the ground beside his corpse].

Nothing personal: just bizness, bro.

foluberry: I don't think any believer should comment on dis thread. Let's leave d likes of muskeeto or wo'eva to a field day. D battle is absolutely d LORDS and oyedepo wil NEVER be a victim. All y'll can do z blab behind ur handles and probably gain cheap publicity sumday thru d same means of 'hungry' lawyer igbinedion.

Foul-berry, or is it fool-berry; it is my earnest prayer that you will continue under the leadership of the said Oyedepo until and unless you develop the capacity to think for yourself. Carry on. . . . . .it will do you well. Olodo.