₦airaland Forum

@ Mr. H. Simpson -

I vehemently disagree that time is a thing that can be 'created' at all: much less by the big bang. I do not subscribe to the notion that time was created at the moment of the big bang. Please review the arguments here and let me have your comments -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=328837.msg4649034#msg4649034

And also to discuss the nature of Time -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-327706.0.html

^^^ So do you reject the notion, and on what logic, then?

Does the law of cause and effect not presuppose an ultimate cause for all things?

Homer Simpson -

Might I ask you this -

Is it the Religious Theist's perception and definition of GOD that you reject OR -

Do you entirely reject any notion that may be propounded as to the existence of a supreme creator.

If for example that creator is defined as - "An eternal self-existent element responsible for all that exists" - would you have a problem with such?

Thanks for resuscitating this interesting discussion. I wonder where Viaro has disappeared to.

That is fine. I entirely understand the hesitation at stating it. Although I will note that it is intriguing that no such hesitation is to be noticed in terms of stating who Jesus is. It thus appears rather strange that this is not also the case in stating who Abd Ru Shin is.

Is the one a more sensitive issue than the other?

Thank you Nwankwo. Your explanations are most useful.

But why resile from discussing Abd-Ru-Shin? That would be useful too.

All dis masculinity inside the Godhead sef! Why no be daughter God come get? Ehn? Ehn?? Ehn Why e no be "God the Mother" and "God the Daughter" sef?

Abi God sef na man?

The domineering patriachal culture is at the root of these deifications.

^^^ I dont see how that says anything. Baptism in the name of Deep Sight, Deep Sight's Son, and Deep Sight's powers does not in anyway render Deep Sight Three persons in one, does it? ? ?

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=497445.msg6636954#msg6636954 date=1282735512]Hi Deep Sight. Your assertion above is not what the Grail Message teaches and I have on several discussions drawn you attention to the point that Parsifal is not the Holy Spirit. I will again remind you the position of the Grail Message on this issue and hopefully you will see the teaching of the Grail Message on this issue even when you disagree with it. The Grail Message teaches that Imanuel is the Holy Spirit. Parsifal is the Primordial Spiritual clock of Imanuel. Parsifal is created even though he is the first in creation. Thus it is the HolySpirit or Imanuel that is a son of God just like Jesus, not Parsifal who is the highest created being. The Grail Message teaches that Jesus is the inborn son of God the Father and Imanuel is the outborn son of God the Father. As always,stay blessed.[/quote]With much respect I have to disagree with you sir. And in this by no means do i propose to address to you that which you certainly know better than I do: but I wish to draw your attention to what I believe amounts to hairsplitting.

Let us imagine a human spirit which incarnates on earth as a human being in a physical body. Let us call the human spirit "X."

Going by your analogy once X incarnates on earth in a physical body, we would state that he is no longer "X." We would state that the human being on earth is a different personage. As you can see this is absolutely untenable. The accurate perception will be to say that the human being in the physical body is indeed X himself in a physical body.

It is abundantly clear that the Grail Message teaches that -

1. Imanuel is the Holy Spirit

2. Parsifal is the Primordial Spiritual Cloak of Imanuel.

Thus as is the case with the human example i gave above, it is abundantly clear that Parsifal is indeed Imanuel with a Primordial Spiritual Cloak. As such it is very strange indeed that you can say (a) Imanuel is the Holy Spirit and (b) Parsifal is the cloak of Imanuel - and yet contend that Parsifal is not the Holy Spirit. This is exactly analogous to saying that X in the example above is not the human being incarnated on earth. You will agree with me that this amounts to a grievuous degree of hairsplitting which cannot be said to convey the truth.

If your statement were to be accepted, then it would equally follow that Jesus of Nazareth as incarnated on Earth was not the Son of God BUT A DIFFERENT PERSONAGE! I hope you see this clearly.

Now if you insist that Jesus was actually the Son of God incarnated on EARTH then you CANNOT state that Abd Ru Shin, the writer of the Grail Message was not Parsifal! This is absolutely ineluctable.

At the end of the day, you have spoken about radiated beings. This must perforce be the same process by which the supposed son of God, Jesus, was radiated to Earth: or do you assert it not to be so? Once you call Jesus the Son of God, then it per force follows that Abd Ru Shin is indeed also that other son of God and is thus the Holy Spirit - Imanuel - in a physical body.

Imanuel - - - -> Parsifal - - - - > Abd Ru Shin

Are these not THE SAME PERSON in different cloaks?

I therefore regard it as eminently strange that you would claim that the Grail Message does not assert Abd Ru Shin to be the son of God who is teh Holy Spirit.

If you will insist on this, perhaps it will be apt for me to extract word for word what the Grail Message does say and post it here?

"begotten not made" is simply another human contradictory creation trumped up to prop up an illogicallity.

I have said enough on the word "monogenes" and you have offered nothing of substance to rebutt that which I have set forth.

I therefore leave it to the objective observer to examine that which has been posted and see what is "scientific" and what is not.

Well I gave this -

Deep Sight:
The word translated "only begotten" is monogenes. This same word was used by the scripture writers to refer to human children who were single children. It is thus eminently obvious that the term monogenes contains the connotation of having been brought into existence. We can go onto the etymology if you wish.

Monogenes is a cumulative derivative from the Greek words ‘monos’ and ‘genos’.

The word Monogenes comprises two components as stated above.

Monos (mon'-os) is defined as: sole or single - alone, only.

The Second component is -genos (ghen’-os) which means an offspring or kind. It is translated ‘Born’ in Acts 18:22 and 18:24. It is translated ‘offspring’ in Acts 17:28.

In greek the derivative root of the term Monogenes is ‘ginomai’ - which is defined as; to cause to be ("gen"-erate or to be born)}, and thus is thus accurately rendered as ‘only begotten’.

There is no doubt and no escaping the implications of the root word “gi nomai” – which has a clear indicative meaning as “to be caused, generated or born.”

If Jesus was begotten, then he came into existence at a point. God, by contrast, is eternal and always existed.

And this -

Deep Sight:
Now regarding the term "monogenes" -

CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THE SAME WORD IS USED TO REFER TO BEGOTTEN SINGLE CHILDREN OF HUMANS?

In fact it is never used save in this context! So when applied to Jesus tell me EXACTLY WHY WE SHOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION - If not simply to escape the obvious!

The self same Greek writters used the same word four other times -

- Luke 7: 12 “And when he drew near to the gate of the city, and behold, a dead [man] was being carried out, [size=16pt]a monogenes[/size] in relation to his mother, and she [was] a widow, and many people of the city [were] with her.”

- Luke 9:38 “And behold, a man from the crowd called out, saying, ‘Teacher, I am begging you to look at my son, because he is [size=16pt]monogenes[/size] to me.’ ”

- Luke 8:42 “And behold, [there was] a man who was named Jairus, and he was ruler of the synagogue. And he, having fallen at the feet of Jesus, was exhorting him to enter into his house, because he had a [size=16pt]monogenes daughter[/size] about twelve years [old], and she was dying.”

- Hebrews 11:17. “In faith, Abraham, when he was tested offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up [size=16pt]the monogenes[/size] (he) to whom it was said that, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called.’ ”

IN [B]ALL[/b] of these verses the word referred to single begotten children. ALL!

SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHY WE SHOULD SUDDENLY DEVELOP A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION WHEN USED WITH REFERENCE TO JESUS? ? ? ? ? ? ?

- And so I would expect that it is YOU who should give a "scientifc" and "intellectual" rebuttal of the specific points contained therein - instead of merely asking me to "research further" - which is escapist at best.

^^^ I am afraid you have not said anything really. I laid out 4 clear contexts of the use of the word which prove my point. You cannot revert asking me to "research further" - and expect that that suffices as a rebuttal.

And you should also be aware that given your explanation of your use of the words "shallow" and "ignorant" - everybody will be entitled to view everybody else as shallow and ignorant - once they have different views.

@ Enigma -

I will not be so kind as to address you in the way you have addressed me as "shallow" or "grossly ignorant" - I would rather as always prefer to stick to the issues and not obsess on the nature of the person I may be discussing with.

Now regarding the term "monogenes" -

CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THE SAME WORD IS USED TO REFER TO BEGOTTEN SINGLE CHILDREN OF HUMANS?

In fact it is never used save in this context! So when applied to Jesus tell me EXACTLY WHY WE SHOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION - If not simply to escape the obvious!

The self same Greek writters used the same word four other times  -

-   Luke 7: 12 “And when he drew near to the gate of the city, and behold, a dead [man] was being carried out, [size=16pt]a monogenes[/size] in relation to his mother, and she [was] a widow, and many people of the city [were] with her.”

-   Luke 9:38 “And behold, a man from the crowd called out, saying, ‘Teacher, I am begging you to look at my son, because he is [size=16pt]monogenes[/size] to me.’ ”

-   Luke 8:42 “And behold, [there was] a man who was named Jairus, and he was ruler of the synagogue.  And he, having fallen at the feet of Jesus, was exhorting him to enter into his house, because he had a [size=16pt]monogenes daughter[/size] about twelve years [old], and she was dying.”

-   Hebrews 11:17. “In faith, Abraham, when he was tested offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up [size=16pt]the monogenes[/size] (he) to whom it was said that, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called.’ ”

IN [B]ALL[/b] of these verses the word referred to single begotten children. ALL!

SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHY WE SHOULD SUDDENLY DEVELOP A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION WHEN USED WITH REFERENCE TO JESUS? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Quote from: m_nwankwo on April 13, 2010, 12:06 PM
God is one and he is known as God the Father. God is not divisible but God can will that small unsubstantiate divine essence of his can emanate from from HIM and take on a conformation, that is take up a form. It is not the unsubstantiate essence that has the form  because this unsubstantiate essence has no form but it is the cloaks through which it radiates that gives it form. Thus imagine God the Father to be a human body, then imagine that his right and left arms to be Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit. If God essense is inexhaustible and infinite as you correctly sensed, then you see that God can will that his left and right arm to leave HIM and work outside of Himself and yet if you see this "body" of God after the left and right arm has left, the left and right arm are not missing but still intact. Thus a separation has not occured as you seem to imagine. This is a crude picture as their is no concept that can give a true reflection of the process but this crude analogy is for you  to see that there is no separation or division. It is simply God the Father who works as Father, Jesus Christ and the Holyspirt. If you again imagine atlantic ocean to be infinite and inexhaustible, then, one cup from this ocean can be liked to Jesus Christ and another cup of this ocean can be liked to the HolySpirit. You can only see a separation between the two cups of water and the ocean because of the cup, the vessel that contains a small part of the ocean. If you pour the cups of water back to the ocean, then they are one again with the ocean and no separation. Thus, because Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are small "parts" of God the Father, God the Father is greater in human conception than Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Thus even though the cup of water from the ocean has the same essense as the ocean, it will be incorrect to say that it is the whole ocean. The correct description will be to say that it is a small volume of water from Atlantic ocean.

Although I have the most profound respect for the views of M_Nwankwo I firmly believe it is a significant misperception to imagine that an element which is -

1. Intangible and

2. Infinite

- May be "divided" or may be spoken of as having "parts."

Such can only be said of finite things, and not the infinite God.

At the end of the day, these notions of the Divinity of Jesus spring solely from the human instinct to deify spiritual (and sometimes political) leaders.

Nothing more.

PS: I hope you are aware that the adherents of the Grail Message - from which M_Nwankwo's views are sourced, also believe that the writer of the Grail Message, Mr. Abd Ru Shin - is the earthly incarnation of a being called Parsifal - who they believe is the Holy Spirit himself and part of the Trinity. Perhaps you are also willing to swallow that?

A favorite analogy of the Athanasians was the following: Light is continuously streaming forth from the sun. (In those days, it was generally assumed that light was instantaneous, so that there was no delay at all between the time that a ray of light left the sun and the time it struck the earth.) The rays of light are derived from the sun, and not vice versa. But it is not the case that first the sun existed and afterwards the Light. It is possible to imagine that the sun has always existed, and always emitted light. The Light, then, is derived from the sun, but the Light and the sun exist simultaneously throughout eternity. They are co-eternal. Just so, the Son exists because the Father exists, but there was never a time before the Father produced the Son. The analogy is further appropriate because we can know the sun only through the rays of light that it emits. To see the sunlight is to see the sun. Just so, Jesus says, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." (John 14:9)

1. The sun is a star: stars do not emit light at every stage of their existence: so on a physical level that kills your analogy DEAD.

2. The etymology of the word monogenes applied to Jesus also kills your analogy DEAD. You have not read or understood the etymology.

3. Light emanating from the sun is analogous to energy emanating from an entity: this would suit my description of what the holy spirit is! - namely - God's energy or will! It is altogether inappropriate for that which is said to be a personality - an individual - begotten by God!

alaper:
This smells like a case of pareidolia Check these out!!
http://www.skepdic.com/pareidol.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

That drawing up there gat absolutely nuffin - zilch - zero - to do with Pareidolia.

Ok, o.

^^^ Nope, I disagree - and here's the proof -

Quote from: jesus. on Yesterday at 09:00:42 PM

which handle are u talking about? Giving advice now means having handle similar to that of another person?

Which readily shows Mr. Jesus did not grasp the usage.

- but its none of my business anyhow. I should shut my mouth and await noetic/ thehomer to progress the original discourse.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=436863.msg6600008#msg6600008 date=1282213761]Here's the question, Nuc:
The Hindus have millions of gods. Christianity, in part, has a doctrine in which there are three Gods in one, or One God manifesting in three ways.
The Hindus believe all their gods is just one God manisfesting in a million ways; from Shiva to Ganesh the elephant god, they're all manifestations of one single entity. You and the Hindus believe the same thing. Do you find that faith-affirming in some way? Do you have thoughts on that? The difference is only a matter of degree: you believe God manifests Itself in three ways, they believe God manifests Itself in millions of ways. Different numbers, same doctrine. [/quote]The connotation of each of the three expressions of God as defined within the Trinity doctrine is in stark contrast to the connotations of the manifestations of the millions of hindu Gods.

I am surprised that the mere fact of "manifesting" could be sufficient to lead you to conclude that they are the same doctrine, merely distinguished by degrees of manifestations. I would have thought that rather than look at mere numbers, you would be so circumspect as to look at the meanings and connotations of EACH of those manifestations and see if they are in any way similar.

^^^ Mr. Jesus, the word "handle" as used by thehomer refers to a pseudonym - "psuedonym" here refers to the adopted name you use on nairaland. The adopted name you use on nairaland is "jesus". For this reason thehomer simply means that since you adopted that name, perhaps you might also have some perspectives on the famous one called "Jesus of Nazareth."

Don't push it. Its embarrasing you ddn't get that.

^^^ Indeed, that is not what is sought: simply that all parties should focus issues and not persons. All parties.

For Ilosiwaju -

I drew this very rough image and I hope it will make some sense to you:

Surprises and coincidences only exist for those at groud level. Those with a bird's eye view see the pattern ahead of the event, and will be able to forsee the event.

ilosiwaju:
@Deepsight.
One does not really need to believe in coincidence as the word itself means something(s) happening without planning mostly in a surprising or remarkable way.

Events may be surprising to us as we do not have a bird's eye view. To one who has a bird's eye view of the whole of creation there can be no surprise or coincidence.

Even at that I state to you that there are persons who have foreknowledge of the future. I do not wish to dwell on this as it is not a subject about which I am prepared to offer proof of any kind: but I will tell you in all earnestness that there is nothing significant that has ever happened in my life whithout my having seen it in a dream 7 - 20 days in advance. If I do not see it, one of my family members does.

We all see this once in a while. Let me give you an example: long time ago, there was i time i greeted you on nairaland asking where you've been and you said you recently came back from dubai. I have not finished reading that post when my phone rang and an uncle of mine who is a LAWYER, called me that he just touched down from DUBAI and he'll be coming to abuja so i should expect him. This is an incidence that had no connection that directly links three of us(you, me and my said uncle). _{I cant believe i'll ever mention it sef}. Anyway, i dont care about the details of his flight and co but what if you guys were on the same plane? what if you bumped into each other somewhere?what if he sat beside you? What?? He knows he'll call his nephew who will still ask an NL friend(deepsight) about his whereabouts only to learn he(DS)just came back from dubai too.

Quite frankly I do not suppose that every finicky detail is the subject of destiny. . .but I certainly suppose that all life-defining events are subjects of a pattern.

Let me ask you a question, since you raised the context of air travel.

DO you suppose that in the event of air-accidents where a large amount of persons perish in a single plane crash, that the persons aboard such an ill-fated aircraft are a random selection of people?

Do you regard the selection of persons on board as being perfectly random?

Whats all these? As humans, we are pattern-seeking creatures and with our first-class simulation software in the brain, we will attempt to connect any kind of situation in our environment as part of trying to be in control. Three children from the same parents survived a plane crash and some folks are quick to believe the parents had given the children "ajemonu", if only one survived, they'd also be quick to quip that there was special purpose for that particular child;s life being spared.

Everything indeed does have a rhyme and reason. This is borne out by the philosophical fact that it is impossible for a pure illogicallity to exist.

Well for thoughts influencing matter, if i think of breaking a bottle and i eventually do break the bottle, how has the thoughts influenced the matter? Its clear in this simple example:
brain/thought of breaking the bottle- - - ->brain/finally deciding to break the bottle- - - ->hands/smashing the bottle- - - ->bottle smashed,content wasted(matter influenced).

1. Is everything in the earth matter?

2. If everything in the earth is matter then one form of matter can be utlized to control another form of matter

3. If that is the case then you can have a thought that can move your hand. . .and your hand can move the air, and the air can move energies within it to affect a distant piece of matter. Many different permutations are possible. I think you need to remove your mind from the strictly materialist approach and recognise the brilliant multiverse of infinite possibilities that does indeed exist: and which mankind is steadily developing into.

That's one way to put it. What i think is the tough sell is staring at the bottle with the thought of breaking it and that really happening. You are a man of facts i can safely presume and while i admit there are certain things we dont currently understand, thoughts influencing matter phenomenon is what i really require hard facts come evidence for.
Over to you, wise one.

But thoughts are already used by science to control artificial limbs, no? Why imagine that this cannot be built upon? Especially if all that exists between a man and a bottle on a table is all matter. . .which can be controlled. . .

@ Nuclear - I feel there is much too much personal emotion in the post you have above.

As always I would adjure you towards the issues being debated and not the persons doing so.

It seems to me that this has regrettably become the standard that you set forth in more recent times; and I would very much like to see a return to focus on issues and not persons: as that is in every respect more salutary than that which has recently and regrettably been the case.

Cheers.

^^^ As a certain respected poster on this forum often states - The rays of the sun are not the sun.

The Holy Spirit is as the rays of God. Not God.

Here -

^^^ The questions were a response to Mazaje, and as such are directed at him.

Please do not address my person or my history: address the logic -

1. If we are each unique and different - does it not make sense that God will approach us in myriad unique and different ways?

2. Do you expect the voice of the spirit to sound like human words?