₦airaland Forum

Maven - Yes, i dey hear you.

But in all of this do spare a second to reflect if you are coming up with ingenious explanations that negate that which is obvious within the scripture i quoted. In other words i hope its not a situation of - no matter how clearly scripture negates your ideas, you will find a round-about explantion that suits you.

Be honest with yourself in reflecting on if that is the case. In doing so one good parametre will be to ask yourself if ANY scripture that has EVER been presented to you contradicting your views has ever changed your perspective, or if you have rather found ways to explain such sciptures to suit your perspectives.

This demands self honesty.

I am still listening. Ride one.

^^^ So why not publish accounts?

simmy:
like the RCC?, and so, ALL pentecostal churches are now of the devil abi?

: Hmmm, do u worship in KunleOshobs ministry/church?

When the hell did you hear me say anything about the devil?

Why the hell can they not simply publish their accounts, eh?

Nuclear - you have not answered the posers i raised from the bible about Jesus and the Father.

In this, please remember that even if ONE GOD manifests as three persons, it is manifestly unlikely, nay, impossible that the different manifestations should disagree or that one manifestation would petition another manifestation requesting the shelving of a divinely ordained event, as happened in Gethsemane.

Capisce?

Simmy - Why do the pentecostal churches not publish their accounts and financials the way the old orthodox churches do? ? ? ? ?

simmy:
quick question, assuming i have a genuine desire to serve God and start a church/ministry, how do you intend i source for funds to run the church?

With all the hoards of churches already running in Nigeria (sometimes like 2 - 3 of a single denomination on a single street) WHY EXACTLY DO YOU NEED TO OPEN A NEW ONE? WHAT IS THE NEED? WHY NOT JOIN AND HELP BUILD EXISTING ONES? WOULD THE MONEY FOR BUILDING A FRESH ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY CHURCH NOT GO BETTER TO MOTHERLESS BABIES HOMES OR DONATED TO HUNGRY PEOPLE IN RWANDA? ? ? ? ? ?

WHY EXACTLY MUST EVERY TOM DICK AND HARRY START A FRESH CHURCH IN NIGERIA? ? ? ? ?

Tudor - The results are a secret for Mauric Iwu A K O to announce at INECS his absolute discretion

Mavenb0x:
1Jn 5:7  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (I am not debating Trinitarianism here, i am using this to indicate that they are in agreement)

Maven do me a big favour and scour through this verse in any modern version of the bible, not the KJV.

The words above have been removed from ALL modern versions! I'm serious, go check it out.

Reason: the discovery of older manuscripts after the printing of the KJV in the 17th century showed that the earliest manuscripts did not contain these words. These words were deliberately inserted by the church in order to advance trinitarian dogma.

You can confirm for yourself. Just check out modern bible versions, you'll see that what you quoted above is no longer there.

How curious!

Maven/ Nuclearboy -

As much as i would have liked to progress to the other questions in the OP, you both astound me.

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

Biblically your assertion that the son is the father collapses very very easily indeed as we will see:

1. Jesus positively asserted that the FATHER was greater than him - Jn 14:28

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

3. Jesus makes it clear that the father has the same relationship with us (being our father) as with Jesus (being his father). This is emphasized by the text in Jn 20:17. Even after Jesus had died and risen, there remains a clear difference between the two as Peter writes - "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" - 1 Pet. 1: 3

4. “Of that day no one knows, not the angels, nor the son, but only the Father”. Mark 13:32.

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

It is glaring from the foregoing that Jesus cannot ever be said to be the father. Not even within trinitarian dogma. And the serious inconsistencies above reveal what must perforce happen when irrational ideas seep into what was once pristine truth. I am frankly waiting to see to what bizzare lengths you both will go in attempting to debunk the above and insist that he is the father.

Businesses need to expand. Church business is good business.

Just answer me this: Is Jesus THE FATHER.

MARK MY WORDS: I do not ask if he is God, i ask if he is THE FATHER.

Alright: Let's streamline issues; Is Jesus THE FATHER?

Clarify for me.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=357796.msg5153547#msg5153547 date=1261340142]Point of correction, I posit that life is a consquence of the universe and earth in particular striving towards balance.[/quote]Did you consider this carefully?

Why should the earth need "balance" in the form of life?

Is Mars unbalanced?

You have again conceded that life is the goal of the earth. . .

Mavenb0x:
As for the "was God", the word ἦν ēn (ane) means agree with, take charge of, hold and use.

I hope u recognise that in the above you have conceded that Jesus is not god, but perhaps some sort of Primus Inter pares

Hang on there!

You stated:

Mavenb0x:
Let me start with this verse or prophecy from the Old Covenant:

Isa 9:6  For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father [of Eternity], Prince of Peace. [Isa. 25:1; 40:9-11; Matt. 28:18; Luke 2:11.]

To which i have previously answered on this forum:

On Isaiah – NOTICE that he says that the child born will be called “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father”. I ask you – is Jesus the Father? No – he is the son, and he made it very clear that he is not the Father in two statements –

“The father is greater than I” – John 14:28 and -

“Of that day no one knows, not the angels, nor the son, but only the Father”. Mark 13:32.

THEREFORE it is clear that when Isaiah calls him “Everlasting Father”, it is meant in a representative fashion: to wit – He represents the Father. Thus “Mighty God” must be understood in the same way: he represents God. This is clear because you cannot deny that Jesus is not the father. That much he himself made clear in the two quotes above. So Isaiah’s statement is representative. Please read the Bible with a compound approach.

Happy on Isaiah?

mantraa:
What are the main differences between the beliefs of jahovah witnesses and the vast majority of mainstream christians?

I used to be a Jehovah's Witness.

The main differences between them and mainstream christianity are:

1. They do not believe that Jesus is God but the son of God

2. They do not believe that all believers are going to heaven. They believe in paradise on earth.

3. They do not believe in eternal torment in hellfire. They believe in spiritual death (the second death) as being the end of a spirit that rejects God and goodness.

4. They do not accept blood transfusions

5. They have an academic and rational approach to bible belief.

^^^ I needn't tell. . . It was you who implied that, so perhaps you would be so kind as to explain.

And by the way, you ignored my business proposition. Its taking off soon o.

@ Nuclear - could a divine being (even in flesh) ever request the shelving of a divinely concluded eventuality?

What is divinity?

What is fear?

The last bit. . .

You have talked about His essence being different from his will.


Let us grant that that is the case. It still begs my core question –


“Could the will ever disagree with the personage?”


This is an odd question, but that is the oddity that the Trinity leads us to: I ask again – Could the “Will” of God ever differ from that which resides within the “essence” of God? That is – could the will be of a different or contradictory desire or direction, to the essence


In my view, it certainly cannot, because the will proceeds directly from the person, or, as you put it, the “essence” of God. For this reason the will can only be reflective of the essence, and certainly could not contradict the essence.

Once you accept this, as you per force must, you have conclusively ceded the debate: because as you will see below, God's will could not request of God that God should change God's will to suit the will of God who was on Earth at the tinme.

I dare you to suggest tat the will can contradict the essence, or bear a different desire, and let us see just how far you are prepared to carry this absurdity.


Answer now, and let the issue rest. We have reached a head; with this cardinal question, which will resolve this debate once and for all!


You did answer in the affirmative that Jesus did not become less divine by becoming human, you also naturally agree that he was the perfect embodiment of God’s will (He was God in fact, you say, which ties the noose of wills only tighter).


Given this, the simple question is ask; for the umpteenth time is this –


How could he say: “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt?”


Does this not show God (or Christ, who you stated did not become less divine by becoming human - remember that) willing or pleading for something that was AGAINST the Divine will.


Does this not show a possible dichotomy of wills? That his will could conceivably be different from the Father’s will?


Could the son have a different desire from the father? If he does, would that not do sacrilege to the concept of their “oneness”?


Indeed Viaro – I have a second sure plank of victory (not that this discourse is about victory, of course) – your acceptance that he did not become less divine by becoming human nails away all your assertions about his “human” side, showing up such to have been poorly thought-up excuses for absurdities that your dogma presents.


This debate is effectively concluded against you, based on your own responses and now I think some history is apt. If I might ask, do you know anything of the Arian heresy and the Council of Nicea?

And i am copying my responses there over here too. . .

And the one point I will respond to is – you guessed it – your belabored struggle to separate Christ’s humanity from his Deity.

Perhaps I should at this point, since I promised to be brief, only throw a few posers, and reserve the thesis for a later post.

Here are the posers –

1. Did Christ lose his perfect Divine nature, by becoming human?

2. If he did lose that nature, then the sacrifice was a sacrifice of an imperfect being, and not that of a perfect being, yes? Out-the-window goes all the talk about a “perfect” “unblemished” savior being required, yes?

3. On the other hand, if he did NOT lose the Divine nature, then he perforce remained perfect – thus fully in tandem with the Divine will; such as to make the request in Gethsemane an incongruity and a paradox, yes?

4. Did Christ lose all his knowledge about the DIVINE plan concluded in heaven with his father, about the redemptive work on the cross?

5. If he did not lose such knowledge (as apparently from scripture he did not); then why would he seek, within human form, to change that which he himself as ALMIGHTY GOD had perfected and concluded in heaven?

Man, I hope you see the point clearly; your “hypostasis” on the simultaneous humanity and deity of that carpenter leaves gaping wide holes.

It surprises me that each time I repeat these obvious facts, you resort to empty platitudes about Christ being “human”, and then promise to deal with the issue in future.

Let’s carry on . . .

You spoke about the “Divine will” being different from the “Divine person”.

OH MY GOD, WHAT A GAFFE; DOES IT NOT OCCUR TO YOU THAT IN STATING THIS, YOU DIRECTLY DENY THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY TRINITY, FOR IN THAT TREASURED DOCTRINE OF YOURS, THEY ARE ALL SAID TO BE ONE!

AS A FOLLOW-UP: HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY YOUR SUMMATION THAT THE WILL IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PERSONAGE, WHEN CHRIST SAID A ZILLION TIMES THAT THAY ALL AGREE AS ONE, AND THAT HE WAS “ONE” WITH THE FATHER, AND THAT THEIR WILL WAS IN ONE ACCORD? THUS HOW COULD THE “PERSONAGE” HAVE A DIFFERENT WILL FROM THE “WILL”? YES, THE LAUGHABLE NATURE OF THIS JOKE OF A DOCTRINE IS BEGINNING TO BECOME CLEAR TO YOU NOW?

I HOPE YOU SEE IT’S BEGINNING TO FALL APART IN SENSELESSNESS FOR YOU VIARO – BUT THAT IS NOT SURPRISING: INCOHERENT DOGMA LIKE THE TRINITY MUST NECESSARILY FALL APART. . .

Christ! (No pun intended).

Deal with the five questions above, and then we may take it from there.

Finally – Although I did not want to do it, I am going to introduce more scripture that suggests clearly that Christ DID NOT want to be crucified, and that the crucifixion was in fact NOT the will of God. Go and read up Jesus’ parable of the Vineyard, and then we will address that.

More -

Divinity is the core nature and principle of original existence, or original being. It is eternal, infinite, and accordingly an absolute. It thus is not capable of the sort of whims and caprices attributable to imperfect human beings (or to the Abrahamic God).

To draw wisdom from the Bible itself, might I invite you to appreciate that this is the reason why it is stated that God is the same yesterday, today and forever more. The Divine will is inflexible; adamantine. This is also why it is stated that “heaven and earth may pass away, but the word of the lord abideth forever.” I draw these from scripture, in the hope that your escapism will not be so great as to be desirous of evading the unchangeability of God which is something that is enshrined in scripture, aside from being obvious to the deeply philosophical mind.

It is with the foregoing in mind that your response fell way below the mark.

This Christ is said to be God in human form. He thus had a deep knowledge of the purpose and will of God regarding mankind. From time eternal, being divine, he must know very well the adamantine and unchangeable nature of the Godhead: given its perfection – for that which is perfect cannot be changed.

It is in the light of this that you can begin to appreciate just how ludicrous it is to claim that a personage (who is himself ALMIGHTY GOD) and is fully cognisant of –

1. The nature of the Divine Will
2. The Purpose of the redemptive work
3. The absolute necessity of that work for the salvation of his creatures

- would begin to petition himself to avert the divinely willed occurrence.

This can only suggest that he was either not divine, or had a poor grasp of the adamantine and unchangeable nature of the divine will – especially in the context of such a historical act of redemption?

You MUST accept that the foregoing is simply pushing the boundaries of all reason into absolute insanity. If not insanity, it is at the very minimum, evidence of a woefully failed philosophical schooling – nay – it borders on suspected truancy in English Comprehension classes, in earlier stages of the life of anyone who advocates this incomparably outlandish myth.

Viaro – in this, I demand the most exacting sincerity from you: although I know I will not receive it for one reason: dogma is a terrible blindfold.

Already I have a hint of the fading of your sincerity in this matter as you did not hesitate to tell an outright lie in your desperation to deify the Jewish carpenter whom you worship –


Quote
Now, I'm not calling you A SlowPoke, nor being pejorative against your person; but your assumptions are quite cowardly and not man enough to see that He NEVER at anytime made a "request" that His sacrifice would not take place.
.

Please retract this shocking falsehood; I needn’t paste the whole of the prayer in Gethsemane here before you accept that you have definitely lied here. Christ DID request that the “cup” should be taken away from him - yes, that "cup" which we have defined above, which AS GOD, he must have known all about.


Quote
If anything, not only did He frequently tell His disciples that such an event was inevitable
.

If he knew it was inevitable why in hell would he make that odd prayer in Gethsemane? Was he hoping against the “inevitable?” Just remember that this is almighty God you are referring to.

And given the analysis of divinity and the divine will that I set forth above, that, dear Viaro, positively affirms that he is not GOD, could not be, unless we speak of an inferior god, than that which is divine and unceasing in its perfection.

It was amazing how you also sidestepped the core issue on the evident dichotomy of wills in the statement – “not as I will, but as thou wilt”. You merely stated –


Quote
There is no grounds to assume a dichotomy of 'wills' - if there was, you have not demonstrated such a grounds but are only yapping. I would like to invite you at a set time to discuss why I believe in the Trinity - the time will come. For me, it is not a matter of additions and multiplications, but of subsistence (you can hold me to that statement when the time comes). And yes, in that discussion I will share many matters with you about the divine hypostasis of Christ being both Deity and Human. I shall not preempt it here; but mark my summations until then.

- And left it at that! Good grief, again I ask you, you can accept a possible difference of wills within the Godhead, after all Christ’s statements about being “one” with the father, and all ? ? ? ?

I hope it is now not lost on you that beyond attacking my cosmological theories (which have nothing to do with this dogmatic issue) you made absolutely no sense, and not a single valid point at all in all your responses: because you did not address the issues, but evaded them in favour or absurd taunts.

I shudder at the way in which dogmatic Christians such as yourself are happy to debase the perfection of God in order to justify dogma! What is most terrifying is that you are normally a very reasonable man, but once your dogma is fluttered, you are willing to consign all reason and all obvious truth to the waste bin, in a rabid attempt to justify your worship of a fellow human being, which has been handed to you by your colonial master.

But heck, worship the dead Jewish carpenter all you want. . . you are entitled to do so just as surely as the adherents of the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star are entitled to insist that Olumba Olumba Obu is God. And just as surely as Hindus are entitled to worship cows.

So please even a thorough reading of the garden of gethsemane must indicate that there was nothing Divine about Jesus. . .

And further -

You have talked about His essence being different from his will.


Let us grant that that is the case. It still begs my core question –


“Could the will ever disagree with the personage?”


This is an odd question, but that is the oddity that the Trinity leads us to: I ask again – Could the “Will” of God ever differ from that which resides within the “essence” of God? That is – could the will be of a different or contradictory desire or direction, to the essence


In my view, it certainly cannot, because the will proceeds directly from the person, or, as you put it, the “essence” of God. For this reason the will can only be reflective of the essence, and certainly could not contradict the essence.

Once you accept this, as you per force must, you have conclusively ceded the debate: because as you will see below, God's will could not request of God that God should change God's will to suit the will of God who was on Earth at the tinme.

I dare you to suggest tat the will can contradict the essence, or bear a different desire, and let us see just how far you are prepared to carry this absurdity.


Answer now, and let the issue rest. We have reached a head; with this cardinal question, which will resolve this debate once and for all!


You did answer in the affirmative that Jesus did not become less divine by becoming human, you also naturally agree that he was the perfect embodiment of God’s will (He was God in fact, you say, which ties the noose of wills only tighter).


Given this, the simple question is ask; for the umpteenth time is this –


How could he say: “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt?”


Does this not show God (or Christ, who you stated did not become less divine by becoming human - remember that) willing or pleading for something that was AGAINST the Divine will.


Does this not show a possible dichotomy of wills? That his will could conceivably be different from the Father’s will?


Could the son have a different desire from the father? If he does, would that not do sacrilege to the concept of their “oneness”?


Indeed Viaro – I have a second sure plank of victory (not that this discourse is about victory, of course) – your acceptance that he did not become less divine by becoming human nails away all your assertions about his “human” side, showing up such to have been poorly thought-up excuses for absurdities that your dogma presents.


This debate is effectively concluded against you, based on your own responses and now I think some history is apt. If I might ask, do you know anything of the Arian heresy and the Council of Nicea?

On the question of the simultaenous humanity and divinity of Jesus, i can only post what i have previously argued with Viaro -

And the one point I will respond to is – you guessed it – your belabored struggle to separate Christ’s humanity from his Deity.

Perhaps I should at this point, since I promised to be brief, only throw a few posers, and reserve the thesis for a later post.

Here are the posers –

1. Did Christ lose his perfect Divine nature, by becoming human?

2. If he did lose that nature, then the sacrifice was a sacrifice of an imperfect being, and not that of a perfect being, yes? Out-the-window goes all the talk about a “perfect” “unblemished” savior being required, yes?

3. On the other hand, if he did NOT lose the Divine nature, then he perforce remained perfect – thus fully in tandem with the Divine will; such as to make the request in Gethsemane an incongruity and a paradox, yes?

4. Did Christ lose all his knowledge about the DIVINE plan concluded in heaven with his father, about the redemptive work on the cross?

5. If he did not lose such knowledge (as apparently from scripture he did not); then why would he seek, within human form, to change that which he himself as ALMIGHTY GOD had perfected and concluded in heaven?

Man, I hope you see the point clearly; your “hypostasis” on the simultaneous humanity and deity of that carpenter leaves gaping wide holes.

It surprises me that each time I repeat these obvious facts, you resort to empty platitudes about Christ being “human”, and then promise to deal with the issue in future.

Let’s carry on . . .

You spoke about the “Divine will” being different from the “Divine person”.

OH MY GOD, WHAT A GAFFE; DOES IT NOT OCCUR TO YOU THAT IN STATING THIS, YOU DIRECTLY DENY THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY TRINITY, FOR IN THAT TREASURED DOCTRINE OF YOURS, THEY ARE ALL SAID TO BE ONE!

AS A FOLLOW-UP: HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY YOUR SUMMATION THAT THE WILL IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PERSONAGE, WHEN CHRIST SAID A ZILLION TIMES THAT THAY ALL AGREE AS ONE, AND THAT HE WAS “ONE” WITH THE FATHER, AND THAT THEIR WILL WAS IN ONE ACCORD? THUS HOW COULD THE “PERSONAGE” HAVE A DIFFERENT WILL FROM THE “WILL”? YES, THE LAUGHABLE NATURE OF THIS JOKE OF A DOCTRINE IS BEGINNING TO BECOME CLEAR TO YOU NOW?

I HOPE YOU SEE IT’S BEGINNING TO FALL APART IN SENSELESSNESS FOR YOU VIARO – BUT THAT IS NOT SURPRISING: INCOHERENT DOGMA LIKE THE TRINITY MUST NECESSARILY FALL APART. . .

Christ! (No pun intended).

Deal with the five questions above, and then we may take it from there.

Finally – Although I did not want to do it, I am going to introduce more scripture that suggests clearly that Christ DID NOT want to be crucified, and that the crucifixion was in fact NOT the will of God. Go and read up Jesus’ parable of the Vineyard, and then we will address that.

And -

Divinity is the core nature and principle of original existence, or original being. It is eternal, infinite, and accordingly an absolute. It thus is not capable of the sort of whims and caprices attributable to imperfect human beings (or to the Abrahamic God).

To draw wisdom from the Bible itself, might I invite you to appreciate that this is the reason why it is stated that God is the same yesterday, today and forever more. The Divine will is inflexible; adamantine. This is also why it is stated that “heaven and earth may pass away, but the word of the lord abideth forever.” I draw these from scripture, in the hope that your escapism will not be so great as to be desirous of evading the unchangeability of God which is something that is enshrined in scripture, aside from being obvious to the deeply philosophical mind.

It is with the foregoing in mind that your response fell way below the mark.

This Christ is said to be God in human form. He thus had a deep knowledge of the purpose and will of God regarding mankind. From time eternal, being divine, he must know very well the adamantine and unchangeable nature of the Godhead: given its perfection – for that which is perfect cannot be changed.

It is in the light of this that you can begin to appreciate just how ludicrous it is to claim that a personage (who is himself ALMIGHTY GOD) and is fully cognisant of –

1. The nature of the Divine Will
2. The Purpose of the redemptive work
3. The absolute necessity of that work for the salvation of his creatures

- would begin to petition himself to avert the divinely willed occurrence.

This can only suggest that he was either not divine, or had a poor grasp of the adamantine and unchangeable nature of the divine will – especially in the context of such a historical act of redemption?

You MUST accept that the foregoing is simply pushing the boundaries of all reason into absolute insanity. If not insanity, it is at the very minimum, evidence of a woefully failed philosophical schooling – nay – it borders on suspected truancy in English Comprehension classes, in earlier stages of the life of anyone who advocates this incomparably outlandish myth.

Viaro – in this, I demand the most exacting sincerity from you: although I know I will not receive it for one reason: dogma is a terrible blindfold.

Already I have a hint of the fading of your sincerity in this matter as you did not hesitate to tell an outright lie in your desperation to deify the Jewish carpenter whom you worship –


Quote
Now, I'm not calling you A SlowPoke, nor being pejorative against your person; but your assumptions are quite cowardly and not man enough to see that He NEVER at anytime made a "request" that His sacrifice would not take place.
.

Please retract this shocking falsehood; I needn’t paste the whole of the prayer in Gethsemane here before you accept that you have definitely lied here. Christ DID request that the “cup” should be taken away from him - yes, that "cup" which we have defined above, which AS GOD, he must have known all about.


Quote
If anything, not only did He frequently tell His disciples that such an event was inevitable
.

If he knew it was inevitable why in hell would he make that odd prayer in Gethsemane? Was he hoping against the “inevitable?” Just remember that this is almighty God you are referring to.

And given the analysis of divinity and the divine will that I set forth above, that, dear Viaro, positively affirms that he is not GOD, could not be, unless we speak of an inferior god, than that which is divine and unceasing in its perfection.

It was amazing how you also sidestepped the core issue on the evident dichotomy of wills in the statement – “not as I will, but as thou wilt”. You merely stated –


Quote
There is no grounds to assume a dichotomy of 'wills' - if there was, you have not demonstrated such a grounds but are only yapping. I would like to invite you at a set time to discuss why I believe in the Trinity - the time will come. For me, it is not a matter of additions and multiplications, but of subsistence (you can hold me to that statement when the time comes). And yes, in that discussion I will share many matters with you about the divine hypostasis of Christ being both Deity and Human. I shall not preempt it here; but mark my summations until then.

- And left it at that! Good grief, again I ask you, you can accept a possible difference of wills within the Godhead, after all Christ’s statements about being “one” with the father, and all ? ? ? ?

I hope it is now not lost on you that beyond attacking my cosmological theories (which have nothing to do with this dogmatic issue) you made absolutely no sense, and not a single valid point at all in all your responses: because you did not address the issues, but evaded them in favour or absurd taunts.

I shudder at the way in which dogmatic Christians such as yourself are happy to debase the perfection of God in order to justify dogma! What is most terrifying is that you are normally a very reasonable man, but once your dogma is fluttered, you are willing to consign all reason and all obvious truth to the waste bin, in a rabid attempt to justify your worship of a fellow human being, which has been handed to you by your colonial master.

But heck, worship the dead Jewish carpenter all you want. . . you are entitled to do so just as surely as the adherents of the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star are entitled to insist that Olumba Olumba Obu is God. And just as surely as Hindus are entitled to worship cows.

SapeleGuy:
A similar bogus argument was used as justification for not imposing sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa.

Kobojunkie:
What exactly is the connection between what I have above and what you have here?

Kobo: are you telling me you cannot grasp the simple analogy? In South Africa's case it was said that sanctions would harm the common man and not the elite who liek you said "have one foot out of the country". . . just as you are arguing that destroying the Goose that lays the golden egg in Nigeria (Oil) . . ."would harm the common man and not the politicians".

Your argument is a silly piece that has been used to protect all sorts of despots from sanctions and from serious debilitating action which would cripple their power. . .

Yeah. . .stand back and do nothing because the masses will suffer. . .

The masses always have to suffer to bring in change!

Of what relevance to spirituality is christmas? For me its a good end-of year party, no more.

John 14:28/

John 20:17

^^^^ Mark 10: 18

in order to cover up the fact that they have been worshipping a martyred rabbi as diety.

So true! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

My younger brothers have often advanced this proposition to me.

I accept that my word emanates from me.

Just like my thoughts. Yet no particular thought of mine is me.

On touching myself: i touch my physical body: i verily believe that there is an intangible aspect to me. The real me.

Nevertheless the foregoing remains irrelevant: to the extent that if the word of God is God, then ANY messenger of God bringing the word of God must perforce by your analogy be God himself.

I positively assert that:

1. Jesus brought the word of God - like many others have: this does not qualify any of the truth bringers to be GOD HIMSELF.

2. Is a person who brings the word of God necessarily the singular embodiment of that word?

John 1:1 contains a mistranslation. The word used as "the word was God" when you revert to the Greek, should properly have been interpreted: "The word was divine (or Godly)" This is different from the greek word used in the second refrain where it is stated that the word was "with God." The use of different greek words by the original writer is highly suggestive.

nuclearboy:
@DeepSight:

Please open another thread and I'll go straight to "that" chase there. What I'm trying to do here is different from what you're asking.

BTW, I like your words. Its how I express myself too when something doesn't make sense to me.

as requested:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-369330.0.html

Nuclearboy: as requested -

Would you be so kind as to indulge my own key concerns about "Christianity" -

They are -

1. The claim that Jesus is God

2. The Claim that Jesus is the only begotten son of God

3. The claim that Jesus was born of a virgin

4. The claim that his death on the cross is salvation for mankind

5. The claim that belief in that sacrifice is required for salvation

Because i have a sense that you might bring fresh insight to this that i may have missed in my numerous attempts to discuss same. . .

Nuclear -

The above is interesting general knowledge, but can you cut to the chase please. You talked about all manner of things being said about christianity.

Would you be so kind as to indulge my own key concerns about "Christianity" -

They are -

1. The claim that Jesus is God

2. The Claim that Jesus is the only begotten son of God

3. The claim that Jesus was born of a virgin

4. The claim that his death on the cross is salvation for mankind

5. The claim that belief in that sacrifice is required for salvation

- All of which to my mind, render Christainity the most outlandish admixture of myth, fantasy and ridiculous legend that world religion has ever seen.

Pardon my words, but none of the foregoing seem any more credible to me than the legend that Oduduwa was sent to create the world on a rope from heaven bearing a cockerel and a small pouch of sand and commencing at Ile Ife.