₦airaland Forum

noetic16:
God CAN kill Himself. . , He did so 2000+ years ago, by allowing Himself to be crucified.

1. That is assuming that your Prophet is God himself, which is not a given

 2. Even if it is a given, that death was a death of a physical body and as such had no reference to "destrying God." Even mere human beings are not destroyed by physical death. . . how much more "God? ? ?"

Now here you wildly contradict the foregoing by AFFIRMATIVELY agreeing with me -

But God cannot cease to EXIST simply because He is beyond the scope and definition of existence . . . . thats an ontological FACT that naturally defines God.

There you have it.

You have EXPLICITLY accepted that God cannot cease to exist - thereby agreeing with me that ceasing to exist is ONE thing that God CANNOT do on account of his self - existent nature.

So what do you make of your "omnipotence" now? ? ?

Ehn? Ehn? ? ?

noetic16:
To believe that the "God" concept cannot be "divided" contradicts the ontology of God u subscribe to , . .this ontology affirms that God is omni-potent.

The issue is largely the POTENCY of God to manifest Himself in several ramifications and not a case of divisibility. If your understanding and ontological definition of God does not include omni-potency . . , than u are referring to another entity and not Jehovah God.

This is the difficulty a lot of people seem to have regarding understanding the omnipotence of God.

Gods is omnipotent regarding creation, his creations.

God’s omnipotence does not extend to irrationality and logical impossibilities. God himself remains bound by self existent realities beyond which nothing can be changed.

To prove this in absolute terms I will set forth to you a number of things that God cannot do.

1. God cannot kill himself – because God is self-existent.

Let us look at the above. A superficial understanding of omnipotence will insist that God can do anything – however God’s self existent nature means that he cannot cease to exist and thus this already represents ONE thing that God cannot do – he cannot destroy himself.

This is what I meant by saying that God’s omnipotence is circumscribed by self-existent realities because God himself is self-existent. God therefore cannot change self-existent and immutable things – such as himself.

2. God cannot make a stone that is impossible for himself to lift and then proceed to lift it.

This is a famous philosophical example. If God creates a stone that is impossible for him to lift, and then lifts it, then the stone was not impossible to lift. An inescapable logical conundrum.

What this example shows is that all reality is compelled along lines of self-existent logic, and that not even God can over-reach or supersede such, nor would he so seek to do, being self-existent himself.

The summary of the two instances above is that God does not and cannot contravene self-existent reality.

God himself is self-existent.

Thus when it is said that God being intangible and infinite cannot be divided, this is a self-existent principle of logic which not even the presumed omnipotence of God can alter.

what u need to explain is why it is impossible for God to be manifest in two or more places at the same time?

I have not said that this is impossible. I would only wonder why one manifestation would worship another manifestation or be called the servant of another manifestation. Or why one manifestation would state categorically that it does not possess some of the key attributes of God – such as perfect purity and omniscience.

Since this is the case in the instance of Jesus, I am compelled to conclude that he could not be God.

^^^ Please lets not resort to pleadings of magic.

Is your "heaven" within three dimensional space and time?

If it is, then it is not a spiritual place.

If it is not, then no three dimensional entity could be compatible with it.

Period.

Are you suggesting to me that Jesus is still chilling right now in the spiritual "heaven" with his material body?

Thus God is in heaven in a physical body.

Wow! I must just leave you to that eminently bizzarre imagination.

Think through this thing before posting, abeg.

Gnite.

Viaro -

Now to squarely address you on your presuppositions –

I will start by saying that I will, as I indicated in my OP, take an existential and ontological approach to this.

Biblically, I believe Noetic has already done the damage, in showing that your belief is diametrically opposed to that which is taught in the Bible. I can only add to that the clear statement in the NT that flesh and blood do not enter the Kingdom of God.

But lets proceed ontologically.

I contend that your assertion that Physical bodies may rise and dwell bodily in spiritual realms is absurd because –

1. A physical body is a three dimensional entity that has a spatial construct and thus can only dwell within space and time: spiritual realms such as “heaven” are said to exist beyond space and time and as such a body with a spatial construct cannot conceivably be compatible with such a realm.

2. Physical bodies are material and tangible and as such it is inconceivable that they could “enter” into a realm said to be intangible.

3. Physical bodies CANNOT survive outside the atmospheric conditions that make their continued existence possible: thus a physical body runs on blood, which is fuelled by oxygen which the physical body must breathe - and energized by material food. Since it is inconceivable that such things as oxygen and material food exist in intangibility (wow, are we even discussing this?)  - then I directly posit that a physical body cannot survive in an intangible spiritual realm.

4. A physical body cannot function in a spiritual realm: viz – every single function of a physical body is tied to, and works based on the physics of its physical environment: thus the eyes could not see save for physical light waves in the physical world, the physical ears could not hear, save for physical sound waves in the physical world: the skin could have no sense of touch in an intangible realm, and lets not even contemplate the requirement to eject waste (defecate) in intangibility! You see, this is downright comical.

There are more. But we shall start with these first.

I state that the clear incongruity of the idea that physical bodies may rise and dwell bodily in spiritual realms is exactly what makes ALL men bound to death.

InesQor:
I have to ask YOU how you imagine that intangibility indicates indivisibility?

The above directly contradicts this -

I wont even like to use the word "divided" because its not about divisibility, its more of a multi-location, for lack of another word.

So what then?

Tell me exactly how something intangible can be divided.

Intangibility directly connotes indivisiblity.

Can you hear yourself? Who said Jesus was Heaven? (a la Martian being planet Mars?)

Mars here refers to the origin of a martian.

You claimed that the origin of Jesus was “God” – that he came from “inside” God.

So that’s his original location, no?

Besides might I ask you where ALL living things come from?

- Inside God, or –

- Outside God.

Of course the former is the case; so what makes Jesus special in that regard?

noetic16:
There is no reason to believe that Enoch or Elijah went to heaven/realm of the spiritual. . . . .and there are several notions that support this truth . . . ,

1. Jesus stated categorically in John 3:13 that no man has EVER ascended into heaven . . .except for the son of man that descended from it. To allege that Elijah or Enoch ascended into heaven is to call Jesus a LIAR.

GBAM.

2. The case of Elijah is interesting because while we readily ASSUME that Elijah was taken by the whirlwind into heaven, the prophets who knew of the event did not assume so. In 2 kings 2:17, 50 men set out to search for Elijah based on the assumption and belief that he was probably dropped off in an unknown island.

GBAM.

3. Elijah would later write a letter to the reigning king, long after his whirlwind experience when he was supposed to be in heaven 2 chronicles 21:12-15. This suggests that Elijah was close by, else how did he get to send the letter? or are letters written from the spiritual realm?

GBAMEST GBAM! GBAM!! GBOSA! ! !

Oya, Inesqor, Viaro, where did the letter come from?

“Heaven?”

^^^ That speaks to nature of beings - Thus if Jesus came from Mars he would be a Martian.

That would NOT make him the planet Mars.

InesQor:
@noetic: I don hear. I suggest you take time and pray about the nature of heaven as God's dwelling place, and the Holy Spirit will gladly explain it to you like he did to me. Cheers.

What arrogance. What if you are the one who needs to pray for further understanding? Why do you presume the "Holy Spirit" has not explained this to Noetic?

I am more likely to believe that Noetic would have such "contact" with the Holy Spirit given that we are yet to see in him a certain predilection to duplicity and deceit which you suffer from. Could that predilection also be a gift from the Holy Spirit? ? ?

InesQor:
Jesus is God. Jesus as man existed independently on earth, physically, but in the spiritual, he was still right where he had always been. GOD.

Does this really resonate with you?

I have to ask again how you imagine that intangibility may be divided.

karo93:
@InesQor
conclusions i draw from your widow of Zarephath's flask of oil that never ran out-feel free to correct.

1.if God "poured" himself into a human body then there was no God the son before then.

2.there is a main and higher form of God who is not jesus.jesus is a lesser portion of God.

3.whatever happens to jesus does not happen to God so jesus is not God but a part of God which can exist independently but his absence does not change the composition of an infinite so God can do without him.

4.i take it God the father is the source of the oil so the father is greater than the son so the son has all qualities of the father but is not the father.

5.the son is ONLY priviledged to have part of the father and thus the son was made by the father.

Although i do not accept any aspect of the doctrine of the trinity; your summations are lucid and make more sense than most others.

You are able to deduce the distinction between Father and Son as may be propounded by a more rational approach to Trinitarianism.

Not that I regard Jesus as "Son of God " anymore than You or Me, though.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=429591.msg5887115#msg5887115 date=1271197992]Any separation between God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit will lead to errors in conception. My perception is that it is a small essence of God the father that is Jesus Christ and another small essence of God the Father that is the Holy Spirit.[/quote]1. Can the Holy Spirit be described as a “small essence” of God the Father? My impression is that the Holy Spirit is a reference to the all pervading power, effect, radiation and emanation of God. This is not a “small essence” but the outward expression of God’s will in its entirety.

In other words it is God the Father that works in three fold as the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Being "parts" of the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are eternal, uncreated and have no beginning.

2. If this can be true of the Holy Spirit (as defined above) can this be true of Jesus?

3. Because if Jesus always existed separate from the Father and not as THE FATHER, then Wwe are irrevocably saddled with tri-theism – namely the fact that God was never ONE: but always separate.

4. Let us carefully note that your position is different from that advanced by Inesqor to wit; Jesus did not exist separately from the Father before incarnation on Earth – according to Inesqor – he was THE FATHER.

Jesus and the Holy Spirit has always existed as they are parts of God the Father, but there unveiling or revelation to the creations of God has a beginning.

5. Again, this presupposes that Jesus ALWAYS EXISTED as a separate being from the Father. That leads to TWO GODS that always existed – and certainly does not connote monotheism – which Christianity professes to be.

It is erroneous in my view to consider the birth of Jesus into various planes of creation as the beginning of Jesus. Before creation Jesus is, Before being born into the divine  worlds, then the spiritual worlds, then the material worlds, Jesus is.

6. Why then is he said to be “begotten” of the Father? – Jn 3: 16

7. Why then is he described as the “Servant” of God? – Acts 3: 26

8. Why then does he worship God?

Your description entails Jesus being “very God of very God – I AM THAT I AM” – and the envisaged entity CANNOT be said to worship ANY being.

Yet in-spite of being one with the Father, Jesus remained personal in the work of Love and redemption.

Clarify for me please; is this a hint that the Father himself is NOT “personal?”

^^^ Well Inesqor I am afraid your analogy does not resonate with me because whereas Oil is Physical and finite, and can clearly be "poured", separated or even divided into bits, I do not believe that this can be said for an intangible entity.

Reflect on it careflly and perhaps that which i am saying may strike a nerve with you.

God is absolutely intangible and infinite. Do you recognise the implications of this?

Intangibility is not something that can be "divided" - and this is why i raised the question in the OP -

.  . .   Is it possible to speak of “parts” of the Great One Spirit at all?

Because the issue is the intangible nature of God.

Such a being (or I might say a such a "reality" is transcendental, infinite and immaterial and as such your analogy is not apt for it in the least.

I might also say that you can only speak of a "part" of a finite thing.

Not an infinite thing - because it is altogether borderless.

Moreso given that it is intangible.

^^^ And what's your own perspective, Inesqor?

^^^ Do you not realize how poetically that is also representative of YOUR approach -

You choose to view every verse that MIGHT INFER of Jesus being God - as literal

-and on the flip side-

You[i] choose[/i] view every verse that CLEARLY INDICATES He is not God - as symbolic.

Thank you so much M_Nwankwo.

Am going for dinner right here in - wait for it - Dar es Salam! - and will revert once done.

^^^ That is my perspective. I regard it as irrational, especially if one reflects on what it means to state - "immaterial" or "intangible" realm.

What say ye, Noetic?

JeSoul:
1 Tim 3:16  And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

The manifestation of God in the flesh does not mean that Jesus is God.

It simply means that the love of God was manifested through Jesus Christ. This is the understanding preached in the bible.

This is proved by the fact that it also says. . .”seen of angels”. . .

Reflect on this.

Was there any time that Jesus was not “seen of Angels?” Jesus was always seen of Angels once incarnated. Thus it could not be a reference to the person - Jesus.

It is rather an obvious reference to the great love of God which had been shown to all and sundry through the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

Secondly it should be noted that in Acts 3:26 it states – “When God raised up his servant, Jesus,[/b]he sent him first to you people of Israel, to bless you by turning each of you back from your sinful ways."

This makes it very very clear that the manifestation of Gods love is what is referred to in Tim 3;16 – and not the [b]person of Jesus who the Bible explicitly refers to as God’s servant.

-Heb 1:6 But of the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever

This again is symbolic. How could God’s servant (Acts 3:26) be the one being called God? Rather it is obvious that what is meant is that the son (as described in the  bible) had glorified the father by his life and as such affirmed the eternity of God’s [/b]throne.

-Col 2:9 [b]For in Christ Jesus, there is the fullness of God in bodily form

Of course: since Christ was supposd to be a perfect personification of God-likeness – that, is living in the perfect will of Almighty God. Thus the fullness of God is thus said to dwell in him. This should be the case for even you once you live perfectly within the Divine Will.

This also explains your next quote -

-Phil 2:5 "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

- A clear inference that Christ was living in the perfect will of God. Even mere man is said to have been originally made in the “image of God!”

-2 Pet 1:1 To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:

Yes, by the Righteousness of our God, AND also by the righteous example of Jesus Christ who was called the SAVIOUR. The sentence is disjunctive and not conjunctive and so refers to God AND the Saviour.

-Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus [/color] [/i]

Same again. The appearing of our Great God AND the appearing of the saviour, Jesus. Two persons.

^^ just to mention a few. Is it your position that all these verses from the corresponding books are also illegitimate books in the bible? And going by the above, does it seem so outlandish and far-fetched that anyone would believe that Jesus is God? and that He is a part of the Trinity? can you at least admit that it is not an unreasonable position to hold by any stretch?

Now having answered your posers on Jesus being God, Let me ask you; does it not seem outlandish that you promote one EXPLICITY called a Servant of God by the bible into being God?

What do you say of the legions of verses which suggest clearly that he is NOT God?

Do you need me to post them all over again, or can I safely assume that you remember them all?

aletheia:
You are the one who introduced Oneness Of Infinity into this thread. It's your stress.

That is not true. I did no such thing.

What God?

The Creator of all that exists.

What you need to understand is that being different people will always have different perspectives. And this applies across worldviews and religions.

It thus goes without saying that we cannot all apprehend the same attributes of God.

This does not in anyway suggest that we do not still refer to the One Creator God.

For example –

~ The Christian views God as a Trinity

~ The Muslim denies this

~ The Yoruba Traditionalist has a view of Olodumare (Oluwa) the creator who sent down certain personages to build the Earth starting at Ile – Ife.

~ The Deist perceives of a creator of all things but does not subscribe to the Trinitarian perspective.

Now it is ridiculous in the extreme to assert that all of these groups are referring to a “different” God.

It is rather the case that each group while apprehending the existence of the Supreme Creator, is only able to apprehend some of his attributes according to their worldview.

Thus your constant refrain – “which God” – makes no sense given that it is already stated that we refer to the Creator.

I would thus adjure you to question the applicability of the perceived attributes – rather than constantly saying – “which God” – because that makes no sense.

To elucidate the point further EVEN AMONGST CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS THERE ARE DISAGREEMENTS REGARDING THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD - these disagreements surely do not mean that they refer to “different” Gods!

Jehovah’s witnesses for example reject the Trinity. Catholic ideas on the nature of Christ differ from some protestant ideas.

I ask you – does this mean that they worship different Gods? ? ? ?

Is it not rather obvious that while worshipping the SAME God, they have disagreements about some aspects of his nature? ? ?

Thus if I as a Deist have a disagreement with you as to the nature of the Creator, that is not sufficient to claim that we do not refer to the same Creator God.

I expect that this is the last time I should hear the tiresome refrain “which God” – from you.

What an illogical and incoherent worldview. Balderdash. Your foundational statement is absolute rubbish: Nothingness does not imply timelessness (eternity). A house built on faulty foundations will fall. You couldn't prove it on the other thread. Is it here you will prove it?

Simple question for you – Can nothingness be said to be imbued with time?

Since Nothingness refers to “nothing” – it therefore cannot have time.

Thus it is timeless.

Capisce?

And now that the inconsistency and illogic of your position is been shown you try your usual tactics:
1. Argue about the meaning of words?-You are yet to answer why the monotheistic Jews use a plural word (Elohim) to describe YHWH who revealed himself to them as One.

I provided the Wiki description which made it clear that the users of that word used it in a singular context when referring to God.

2. Keep conveniently quiet about points that undermine your position-You are yet to respond to my challenge on Psalm 22

I still see no reason why almighty God (Jesus) would begin to quote in a moment of anguish as verse which talks about being forsaken by God.

3. You try to cloud the issue by raising several irrelevant objections-You are yet to provide the evidence that prompted you to say Jesus of Nazareth is a messenger of God.

Sir, what part of my statement was hard to comprehend?

I stated that anybody who preaches love and harmony is preaching the message of God.

Jesus preached love and harmony. He was thus a messenger of God.
Just like the Dalai Lama.

What’s so hard for you in this?

Please at least show me a capacity to see and apprehend simplicity if you are to retain my interest.

You make this statement: In 2010, I remain astonished that educated persons can believe these things (Jesus is God). While conveniently forgetting that in 2010 it is astonishing for educated persons to believe your spiel about nothing being = eternal. Again I ask you: aren't you just being the hypocrite?

See above. Nothingness is undeniably timeless.

Unless you wish to propound the illogicality that there is time in nothingness.

^^^ Here -

viaro:
I don't know where the Bible makes any claims that physical bodies do not reside in spiritual realms. Rather, I know that the Bible declares that the bodies of the saints shall be "changed" whereby "this corruptible shall have put on incorruption" (1 Cor. 15:51-54). Beyond that, the Bible shows indeed that physical bodies have been taken into the heavenly realms - as in the case with Elijah and Enoch.

Also -

viaro:
It is very conceivable for the material to enter into the spiritual or 'intangible'. Such was the case with Enoch, such is the case of the ascension of Christ, and such is the case of His appearing among His disciples while the doors were shut (John 20:19).

It is not illogical - your own argument is both extreme and illogical. When Jesus rose from the dead, His disciples were able to touch and handle Him (John 20:27). With that same glorified body, He ascended into heaven (Acts 1:9).

Also I asked him this Question -

“Again the very make of the physical body is designed to deal with a physical atmosphere – in all its functions. Do you really suppose such a body with such functionalities can enter into a realm said to be intangible?”

His response -

viaro:
Absolutely.

I have no worries about that - and yes, I do believe it affirmatively.

Edit.

Of Course Odunnu! Please go ahead.

Alright my dear friend.

I apologize in advance for going back to a dead horse.

I just cannot wrap my head around this one – your statement – and repeated confirmation of the statement – that you believe that physical bodies may rise and dwell bodily in intangible immaterial spiritual realms.

I want to discuss that concept here – if you can manage it, objectively – and devoid of any unnecessary inferences or tangents from past discussions. Let us discuss it from an existential or ontological point of view applying what little knowledge or understanding of such things as the Almighty has provided for us.

For my part, you know already I do not believe that it is possible for a physical being to dwell bodily in a non-material realm.

I have been taken aback by your belief to the contrary.

Definitions –

<sub>“Great One Spirit” – refers to God.

“Great Book” – refers to The Grail Message

“Great one from Nazareth” refers to Jesus of Nazareth

“Writer of the Great Book” – refers to Abd Ru Shin, the writer of the Grail Message.

"The monk" - refers to . . . who do you think?"</sub>

Lonely, the huddled monk gathered his robes snugly around his creaking frame, the chill of the night seeping painfully into his ageing bones.

Bones thirsty for truth, bones weary of seeking.

The darkness about the mountain pass was compelling: through dimmed old eyes the seeker felt he could just reach out and squeeze it.

What is darkness, he thought.

He cast a glance down below, and shimmering in the distance he could still see the many majestic worlds and universes he had journeyed through.

Lifetime after lifetime, and he had slowly ascended to the mountain pass.

Now a thick darkness enveloped him, and he could go no further.

What brilliance, what light, what consciousness he wondered. . .

. . may stifle my being. . . shrivel my countenance. . . cast down my raised eyesight. . .

I PRAY FOR THE LIGHT, MY LORD.

Soothed, as his nerves always were, by that simple prayer, he floated into sleep again.

And the questions came back to haunt him –

1. Is the oneness of the Great One Spirit divisible

2. Is it possible to speak of “parts” of the Great One Spirit being “severed . . . . ?”

3. Is it possible to speak of “parts” of the Great One Spirit at all?

4. Is the Great One Spirit not One only, only one, and indivisible?

5. So why did the Great Book speak about a “severance” of a part of the Great One Spirit? And that severance becoming the Great One from Nazareth

6. So why did the Great Book also speak about a “severance” of another part of the Great One Spirit? And that severance becoming the Lord of Creation. . .the one called Parsifal. . .

7. Was it not Parsifal who walked the Earth and wrote the Great Book?

8. Does this not mean that the writer himself. .

. . . is a severed part of the Great One Spirit. . .

. . . that he is that spirit. . .

. . .that he is God.

In a frenzy of anguished screaming the monk arose from the nightmare. . .

. . . as derangement settled within his mind.

M_Nwankwo – you are the Oracle of Nairaland. Please decipher.

Apologies in advance.

aletheia:
In 2010, I remain astonished that educated persons can believe things like the Oneness of Infinity. Aren't you being the hypocrite?

There we go again on the Oneness of Infinity.

Last time I checked this thread is about the Trinity.

Never mind that your own Bible describes God as ONE and INFINITE.

I wonder what’s the stress.

"Doubtless a messenger of God"? Once again, your very own words. What are you trying to do? Hedge your bets? What evidence do you Deep Sight have that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was a messenger of God?

Anybody who preaches love and harmony is in my view preaching the message of God and as such is acting as a messenger of God.

This applies as much to the Dalai Lama as it does to Jesus of Nazareth.

OOI is a transcendental truth? Give us a break man. You abandoned that thread because you were murdering mathematics, logic and language in a laboured effort to prove your god, but we would have none of it. We established. . .nada on that thread.You have a habit of making tendentious claims.

Please address the logic set forth and stop dribbling my friend.

I summarized it for you and yet this is all you can write in response.

Come on. You can do better. We both know that.

I challenge you to give me a point-by-point response to this summary –

1. That nothingness in itself implies timelessness

2. That a timeless state will remain eternal

3. That eternity is therefore implied in a state of nothingness

4. That a timeless state is indivisible and therefore ONE

5. That the intangible reality that has always existed is therefore both ONE and INFINITE -

6. Hence the term "Oneness of Infinity" which i use to describe the nature of God

That’s the summary. Address it point by point and I will hear you.

1. I am a Christian and I dispute that term. God describes Himself, His attributes and His nature in the bible. You only offer a god of your own imagining, an idol fashioned out of the desires of your heart.

There we go.

I predicted this.

Even if we describe God as loving and just, you have affirmed that you will dispute it - despite being a christian.

Tell me – if you have confirmed this – is there any use discussing the subject with you further?

streetwize:
You seem to totally misunderstand the concept of BEING
Ontology makes it quite clear( as sartre did, that being is not individual) According to ontology(the study of being) a "being" refers to ones state of expressin or manifesting the attribute "to be". U can see where thats goin so I wont waste time

In essence God Is a being that consists three manifestations or if you prefer three persons. .  the father, son and holy spirit. Just as you are a being that consists of a spirit, a soul and a body. you are also three in one or howd you think your being could still manifest when your body is left to rot on earth.

You have referred me to the spirit, the body and the soul.

1. What about the mind? Has it no place in your dimensional human ontology?
2. What is the difference between the spirit and the soul?

In essence, I state to you that a human being is a SPIRIT.

For the short sojourn on earth, it requires a material body (never mind that some of your Christian cohorts believe such bodies to be used in heaven as well, lol).

There is no reason to suppose any “Trinity” of the human ontology: and I assert to you that that inference is made ONLY to support the paganistic and distinctly polytheist doctrine of the trinity. And please don’t waste my time with talk about tri-theism: I am not the one indicating a triad of any sort – you can go and sort out the mystical details of your paganism yourselves.

Jesus was the physical manifestation of the member of the God head called God the son.

Do you realize that this applies to every human  being? We are all a manifestation of God, no?

Indeed everything in existence is a manifestation of the mind of the Godhead.

Why should we presuppose one to be God and another not God?

God is compound, infinite, and omni-inherent in all things, (if I may use the word). This presupposes that you and I are sparks of spirit germs that emanated from God. No different from Mr. Jesus from Nazareth, no?

God the son did not die he was. . . if you want me to put it like this. .  the soul of the being whose total entity we called Jesus. It is just as your body will die and your soul will continue to live on.

Now you are invalidating the sacrifice of Christ.

For if he died as any normal mortal does, only to take up his soul again – which is the normal trajectory for all beings – then what was so special or different about his death? Indeed it emerges that he laid down nothing – because he was immaterial before coming to the world, used his material body in the world, and departed from it at death. So what exactly did he lay down? Not his immaterial essence, surely. Thus he laid down nothing.

I am not certain that you understand the business of the supposed sacrifice on which you hinge your faith.

Talking about sacrifices, I am sure you detest ritualists who engage in Human Sacrifice?

Why then do you ascribe such barbarism to God? Is God into human sacrifice? [/b]If Christian dogma is to be believed, he clearly revels in such.

AND YOU – you actually hinge your “salvation” on a supposed human sacrifice.

[b]I cannot think of any pagan spectre more ritualistic, sinister or repulsive than this.

Now for your very last and very careless statement. You say that the finite cannot hold the infinite?? what is your basisfor this silly rodomontade. .

The finite is limited. The infinite is limitless. A limitless being cannot be held in a limited vessel. That’s simply illogical.

so that I last longer that the t-shirt I am wearing means that I cannot wear the t-shirt. .

Your body is not infinite. It is very finite.

And for your information, it was actually the infinite that contained the finite

Yes. Looks like you are getting confused. Of course the finite can be contained within the infinite exactly because the infinite if limitless and can thus contain all limited things. But the reverse is logically impossible.

what your saying is like saying that because the distance from (1-2) cannot be expressed on the numberline because the number line is infinite, but (1-2) is finite. . .

Nice attempt. But those numbers are merely abstract indicative integers. It cannot be said that [1 – 2] is a “vessel” which contains infinity. It is not a vessel. It is an abstract indication of integers, and we may express integers infinitely.

This is different from a Cup – which like a human body is a finite vessel.

If an ocean is said to be infinite, no cup can contain it.

Thus no human body can contain God.

InesQor:
@Deep Sight does not seem to get the irony of the fact that his beliefs cannot withstand the same scrutiny he dishes out to other worldviews. Meanwhile you are dishonest to say I disagree because its Deep Sight. Posting as mavenbox, I was like maybe the only person who added a bit of context to your posts and I agreed with you on some points but where I believe you were crapping, I outlined as well.

Alright. Sincere apologies there. Sometimes it just feels that way. I feel certain that if i were to state that 1 + 1 = 2, you and some others would be inclined to disagree with that and inquire if that was revealed to me by OOI. I find it tiresome.

As to the containment, or rather, subsistence of God in human flesh, I guess it was people like you that also strongly believed that a single DNA strand of a man can never perfectly capture his physical essence of being.

This is a POOR example because DNA is NOT infinite in any terms. Moreso in the sense of the INTANGIBLE INFINITY of God.

You are yet to show me that an infinite element can be captutred in a finite vessel.

This is iron-cast logic that you cannot escape.

JeSoul:
thanks for the response DS

Raised a gracious gentleman who would never ignore a lady's inquiries.

So what is your explanation of John 1 -
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God . . .
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,
who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. 

  I am interested in your take on this scripture where we're clearly told Jesus was the Word, and the Word was God and the Word was at the same time - with God.

If you will read the greek in which Jn 1:1 was written, you will see that it does  not suggest tthat Jesus was God. Jn. 1:1 contains a mistranslation.

Aside this, the Gospel of John was written more than a century after Christ died and it is clear that the human tendency to worship spiritual leaders had begun to set in; which is why that gospel singularly contains more allussions to divinity that the synoptics.

^^^ God is an intangible being who is the compound of a transcendental reality and as such it makes no sense to ask after his address as though he is the boy next door.

Mazaje get serious.

Maybe there is something you need to get off your chest because I am at odds with the constant obsession with OOI? If it is such a dead idea, why are you lot so obsessed with it? Why will you not let it die in peace? Why is it that if Deep Sight says - "Kenya is a country in Africa" - you must all respond with "OOI this or OOI that?" ARE YOU NOT ABLE TO FOCUS ON THE PRESENT ISSUES BEING DEBATED.

At all events, if you were able to follow the thought-development i set out in that thread (admittedly not everyone can) - you would understand that we were able to establish the following -

1. That nothingness in itself implies timelessness

2. That a timeless state will remain eternal

3. That eternity is therefore implied in a state of nothingness

4. That a timeless state is indivisible and therefore ONE

5. That the intangible reality that has always existed is therefore both ONE and INFINITE -

-  Hence the term "Oneness of Infinity" which i use to describe the nature of God - a term which no Christian should seriously dispute because the Bible itself describes God as being ONE and INFINITE. It thus emerges that your faith in every particular agrees with the description of God contained within the term "Oneness of Infinity"

This idea is so inherently simple that i am blown away by the failure to grasp it.

At all events any attempt to explain the nature of God must end in insanity: thus i blame myself and myself only for attempting to communicate that which i apprehend within my mind. It has often been said that some things cannot be explained in words.

I will leave you with this only (though i am wary that you will find it of no use) -

Perfection is the tipping point to nothingness.

In this alone: the mystery of God's existence is perfectly captured.

@ Streetwize -

I am in transit at an airport now and cannot write much.

I will just drop a few thots.

1. What does the oneness of the GODHEAD mean to you?

2. If God is presumed to be one supreme intangible being, do you suppose that intangible oneness is something that can be "divided" [/b]or broken up into parts in such a manner as to permit one part to reside on earth as a man and another part to remain in its transcendental realm? Does this make any sense to you, or do you belong to the christian hoard who are bent on insisting that the founder of their religion, a man called Jesus from Nazareth, is almighty God? I urge you to examine the facts for yourself objectively - you will find that the doctrine of the trinity has no biblical support: and even if it did that would not in any way validate the elevation of a mere mortal to almighty God any more than the existence of any Hindu text can justify the ascription of Divinity to cows.

In 2010, I remain astonished that educated persons can believe these things.

JeSoul:
You questioned where the Trinity is "even hinted at" in the bible. I ask you, how would you [b]biblically classify or explain or categorize the relationship between each of these:

- The Father
- Jesus Christ
- The Holy Spirit . . .

1. amongst themselves, and
2. in relation to God almighty

I understand "the Father" to be a reference to God.

Jesus Christ is a late human being. A proven mere mortal. Doubtless a messenger of God, but no more eminent than any other messenger of God such as Moses. Why should i presuppose him to be in any "trinity" with almighty God? You might as well suppose the Buddha, Mohammad, the Dalai Lama, Confucius, Lao Tze, Guru Maharaji and Olumba Olumba Obu to be part of the Godhead as well? ? ?

The Holy Spirit is simply a reference to the power, spirit and radiation of God which permeates all existence. There is no reason to think of it as a separate being in any terms. It is simply the activating power of God.

InesQor:
@streetwize: Deep Sight is not an atheist, he believes in deity. He is a deist, but his own brand of deism does not seem to understand itself so as much as he is the acclaimed prophet of the Oneness of Infinity, he is also the only one who knows and is known to that intangible Oneness of Infinity (OOI) which some of us asked him to discuss and when he began to murder mathematics and logic and we prevented him, he fled the thread. Since January.

It was and remains apt that i abandoned that thread for I realized that it might make no sense attempting to expound transcendental truth to persons whose only object is to dispute every rational word simply on account of a dislike of the person who speaks it. When you learn to address the message and not the messenger, perhaps we can make progress.

O, and by the way, if you will read that thread again, you will see that we were able to establish at least the following -

1. That nothingness in itself implies timelessness

2. That a timeless state will remain eternal

3. That eternity is therefore implied in a state of nothingness

4. That a timeless state is indivisible and therefore ONE

5. That the intangible reality that has always existed is therefore both ONE and INFINITE -

-  Hence the term "Oneness of Infinity" which i use to describe the nature of God - a term which no Christian should seriously dispute because the Bible itself describes God as being ONE and INFINITE. It thus emerges that your faith in every particular agrees with the description of God contained within the term "Oneness of Infinity" - but YOU have chosen to self-contradict and deny this simply on account of some imaginary feud with the proponent of the description - Mr. Deep Sight.

Verily, the day will come when i will describe God as loving, just and perfect, and you will disagree - simply because it is i who states it.

@Deep Sight: Can you please present your logical rationale for your assurance that God CAN NOT take any form he so desires (e.g. Man)

An intangible and infinite reality such as the Godhead is, CANNOT be reduced into ANY FORM WHATSOEVER - and that includes the form of a man.

The reason rests in the very ineffability, intangibility and infinity of the Godhead.

The finite CANNOT contain the infinite.

Chrisbenogor:
LOL david you shot yourself in the foot, you sounded like olabowole there "how can God die self" LOL

Honestly i dont know what to say. Wemust open a thread to celebrate this.

David has finally conceded to the logic of Abuzola and Olabowale.