₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
What is the logical reason this so called god, after stating repeatedly how beneath him humans are, he would become a human.

One thing you still don't want to admit openly is that those verses never CLAIMED GOD CAN'T BECOME HUMAN against what the OP said.

Well, the logical reason is very simple God only highlighted Human shortcomings in those verses not that HE CAN'T BECOME HUMAN.

LordReed:
My question is rhetorical.

All the verse verses provided by the OP shows God is placing Himself above HUMAN based on Human characters and not that God is denying that He can't BECOME A HUMAN.

That was the reason I asked you that question.

In other words after repeatedly expressing how much beneath him humans are,

BASED ON THEIR CHARACTER.

there is no logical reason this so called god would choose to be human

There's very strong logical reason for that.

For instance, in one of the verses it says: "God is not a MAN, that HE SHOULD LIE..."
Which mean if God becomes a MAN HE WILL STILL NEVER LIE.

the ability to do so notwithstanding.

This is it!

So which means those verses never say God can NEVER BECOME A HUMAN

It's just OP self interpretation.

22jumpstreet:
Do you understand these two passages at all?

Isaiah 40:18
To whom will you liken God? To what image will you compare Him?

Isaiah 44:6-20
Thus says the LORD, the King and Redeemer of Israel, the LORD of Hosts: “I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God but Me. Who then is like Me? Let him say so! Let him declare his case before Me, since I established an ancient people. Let him foretell the things to come, and what is to take place...

Since you couldn't answer my question and you come with these verses.

Well, no where in the verses you quoted that say God can't become HUMAN BEING.

22jumpstreet:
God is the creator of heaven and Earth

You're very correct.

But you didn't answer my question in the post you quoted.

Explain to me the process whereby a creator becomes part of his creation?

He is the Creator as you affirmed above, so me explaining how it will be possible for A WHOLE CREATOR to be part of His creation means I'm Almighty Myself.

Can you explain how God created the Universe?

I know inosom creates cars in Anambra state.can inosom become any part of the car?...

Inoson is limited, you can't compare him with God ALMIGHTY.

Do you know the meaning of ALMIGHTY?

LordReed:
Why would the god who continuously denied being like a human want to become human?

You didn't answer my question.

And you don't answer question with question.

LordReed:
You are nitpicking a single quote and ignoring all the other places the god says he is not a man. Besides all of them make it make clear the god is supposedly not human whether in form or nature.

So after you read all those scriptures, what you understand from them is that God said He can never BECOME A HUMAN BEING. Is that so?

Meanwhile, some of the scriptures he even quoted has nothing to do about the topic.

AbuTwins:
I can't decide for you as it is not my business!


I have explained MY DEFINITION of "whole" in this context to you!

Na so Jesus spoke Aramaic even his disciples no understand am!

Of course Jesus allegedly did same!
And it made sense to many like you!

Your opinion!

Look at @color part, read it slowly and focus on @underline part, then tell me why I should take you serious.

The funny thing is, this thread is about how some WORDS were misinterpreted (i.e given wrong meanings according to you) meanwhile that's exactly what you did.

AbuTwins:
So what is the answer since it is your question?

I asked you question and you're asking me answer to the question

Here it is again, So in a nutshell, we should discard the New Testament in totality. Right?

Not really dishonest! English language can sometimes be subjective.

I just wished to use "Whole" for an appreciable amount of something!
And rightly so!

You see how arrogance is exposing your dishonesty.

I asked you the question below then, which you dance over it, thinking you're smart. "Do you know the meaning of 'WHOLE' or you want to admit that's not the word you intended to use?

Now, you're claiming what you use WHOLE for is different, which means you decided to give it YOUR OWN MEANING and when you're even being corrected you're still being adamant.

That's bad.

Now since you agree it's not the WHOLE NEW TESTAMENT, then you're wrong with your assertion.

If you mean the dictionary "Whole" then that's not what i meant!

So how will you use a word and decided to give it YOUR OWN MEANING?

DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO YOU?

I see no confusion or contradiction here!

But the confusion and contradiction are well written over your post.

AbuTwins:
Okay, Hell was created for a reason!

This so not answer to my question.

It's English and whole can be used informally to mean an appreciable amount of something!
You should get the usage!

It's evident you don't know what you're saying and very dishonest.

To be whole is to be undivided unit.

You can eat half and still have half!

Then it's not WHOLE.

You see how you exposed your dishonesty

Of cos i can make such claims as there's no contradiction in it!

You're even more confused than before.

Such a shame!

You made a claim yet you can't stand by it with your full chest.

achorladey:
You know how they try so hard to look for means to tarnish image of others just to look good. That's what they are doing with the word gun down.

They know their delusion that if everyone were to be Jehovah's Witnesses there will be nothing like war, famine, murderers na lies and manipulations.

That shooting in Germany na evidence to show that it is just illusion and delusion

And the truth is if everyone were to be Jehovah Witness there won't be:

1. Technologies
2. Agriculture machineries
3. Engineering edifices
4. Medical advancement
5. The whole world will be battling with serious diseases that might have ended humanity or by extension life on earth.
6. No car, airplane, ship Keke Napep, Okada
7. No Internet and Zoom.
8. In fact there won't be anything like Jehovah Witness since the Gospel won't have been held by Russell in the first place
9. All these because Jehovah Witness forbids acquiring Higher education

Now imagine after Armageddon how they will:

1. Commucate from US to Nigeria without internet or how they will navigate themselves without car, plane, or helicopter.

2. Cope with billions of dead bodies and debris around the world when there won't be any machine to assist them.

3. Cope with the aftermath of radioactive waste of the industries

4. Deactivate all the Nuclear Warheads that won't be destroyed during the Armageddon as well as other military artilleries around the world.

And many more....

AbuTwins:
That one no be my business!

If it's not your business you won't create this thread.

So answer my question.

Yes ask any Christian they'll tell you the NT is all about Jesus! And they'll interpret it to be just like that with the trinity mindset...

That is Christian and leave them out of it.

I'm asking you AbuTwins, do you know the meaning of 'WHOLE' as you used it above?

Of course it is possible!

You mean it's possible to eat your cake and also have it...you must be joking.

Jesus said God is one!
Christians interpret it to mean Three in One!
One is still there!

Nobody ask you this

Let's established the authenticity/fraudulent of the New Testament first.

Which is what you have been dodging for the reasons best known to you since.

My point is simple, you can't claim "there's an atom of TRUTH and at the same time affirmed that THE WHOLE New Testament was TAILORED (fogged) to make Jesus Divine"

AbuTwins:
Most likely. I think Erasmus didn't even used his Textus Receptus fully well...and that's why the KJV has too many grave errors!

Both and also the councils from Nicaea onwards fixed a lot of things!

So in a nutshell, we should discard the New Testament in totality. Right?

There's no confusion except the one you want to create. There can be truth even in the midst of an entire fraud!

A politician can make a budget of N70Bn for a project and can use only N7Bn for the same project in reality!
The N7Bn is the true value of the N70Bn project cost!

Do you know the meaning of 'WHOLE'?

So how can you say "there are ATOM of truth in the New Testament yet your first sentence read "Of course, THE WHOLE OF New Testament was tailored to make Jesus Divine"?

It's evident that you want to eat your cake and also have it. Which is not possible!

AbuTwins:
It is more than translation error! I will go back and forth when it's not only you i respond to here!

Which means you agreed that what you read in your translation(s) is what the translator(s) understand from the manuscripts that were used, is that right?

The book being tailored to make Jesus divine does not mean there won't be some truth therein.

Does this tailor come as a result of TRANSLATION or what was pen down before translation?

There's no confusion in this!

There's confusion and it's because you want to eat your cake and also have it.

Here is the confusion again: "So there are ATOM of truth in the New Testament yet your first sentence read "Of course, THE WHOLE OF New Testament was tailored to make Jesus Divine"

How can you say there's an atom of truth IN THE WHOLE OF WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE FRAUD?

Do you know the meaning of 'WHOLE' or you want to admit that's not the word you intended to use?

AbuTwins:
Of course! The whole New testament was tailored to make Jesus divine. But the job was done woefully!

You can see you're just going back and forth.

At first you wanted to pin it on TRANSLATION

Which means reading the New Testament one will conclude that Jesus is God.

Even in anything fake there may still be some atom of truth!

"For example, Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one" is a true statement that is believed from time immemorial as a statement of Prophets.

So there are ATOM of truth in the New Testament yet your first sentence read "Of course, THE WHOLE OF New Testament was tailored to make Jesus Divine"

This shows the level of your confusion.

You enter this confusion because one part of mind still believes that Muhammad was mentioned in the same TAILORED New Testament.

Janosky:

Gun down meaning "to kill by means of firearms."

Emusan LYING miscreant exposed by the screenshot.
Dunce for life.

Shame on you LYING miscreant !!

I've addressed this with your deluded brother, you don't just rush to post a part that suits your and this is exactly how Watchtower do to the scriptures.

The first screenshot is from Cambridge Dictionary.

Second screenshot normal Google meaning

Third screenshot is from Collins Dictionary

Fourth screenshot is from Oxford Advance Learning.

I put forth these four screenshots from a reputable source to show how dishonest and manipulative you are.

You pull your screenshot only from Wiktionary but decided to close your blind eyes to other because you must lie as the son of your father the Devil your are.

It's evident that you deliberately lie and misinterpreted my post to mean "30 people were killed"

Typical jws!

AbuTwins:
All of the above and more!

So, by this statement "the New Testament was created to make Jesus God" you're referring to the whole New Testament right?

Lastly, do you mean the New Testament is fake all through?

AbuTwins:
Was that response for you?
Why are you jumping from yours to others?

This doesn't answer my question.

I can jump to anywhere or is it not the same issue we're addressing?

AbuTwins:
The doctrine of the Council of Nicaea and Constantinople affirmed the creed of trinity and divinity of Christ!
This is the creed that you all use to interpret the Bible!

Let's recap from here, is the problem you have is BIBLE INTERPRETATION (which means you agree all Bible text are correct) or HOW NEW TESTAMENT WAS CREATED TO MAKE JESUS GOD?

AbuTwins:
The originals does not exist! And as usual copyist error always crept it when voluminous books are copied as far back as about 2000 years ago! There's no originals to fact check the copies!

The copies of copies can't be like the originals!

Of course i will reframe my point.

The King James Version (KJV) was translated using the Textus Receptus.
The Revised Standard Version (RSV) on the other hand uses the Masoretic Text and the Greek critical texts! Hence the writers of the latter affirms grave errors in the Textus Receptus used for the former!

They said:
The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus.

Here is the issue!

If the original does not EXIST, how come we have COPIES?

Just like you said, KJV is a VERSION not a manuscripts.

If this was true then then the Arian controversy won't have existed!

Arius was a Christian priest in Alexandria in the 4th century.
He believed that Jesus was a created being and not equal to God the Father.
His teachings led to the Arian controversy, a major theological dispute in early Christianity.

Good! So where did the Arian get their own book from that proves Jesus is a created being and not equal to the Father?

Do you have this book today?

You should convince me otherwise!

That's what I'm doing here.

But you said the manuscripts were the same! Where did the error come from? Can you believe that God would allow millions die on a error filled version of the Bible? KJV has been translated to many languages even the ones in Nigerian languages are mostly KJV!

I said MAJORITY of the manuscripts we have today are the same.

You don't get it, KJV is a version and as we're speaking there are THOUSANDS of Bible translations out there.

This is clear in the OP!

And you couldn't answer my question.

Do you then mean the New Testament we have today is fake?

Another thing I can infer from your post is that you're talking about translation.

So it it translation you have problem with or the WHOLE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT for you to conclude that the New Testament was CREATED TO MAKE JESUS GOD?

By translating the word which means bowing or kneeling as homage to mean worship whenever Jesus is around!

That's the true meaning of those words.

Jesus was worshipped and He accepted Worship.

In the Old and New Testament, men of God were greeting with bowing and kneeling!
The word worship was only used when God was around!

You're right!

But the claim of Jesus makes Him more than just man of God. That's why He accepted worship.

Then in the new testament people bow and kneel for humans like themselves but the word worship was never used!

It can't be used because they Are not God!

Whenever Jesus was in the picture the bowing and kneeling turns to worship!

Because Jesus is God

And when Jesus put his face to the ground to pray...that was not called worship!

You don't expect them to add to it. If the word worship was used there it will be added.

AbuTwins:
Go to the OP!

From the OP

Who are those who made Jesus God for the Christian?

The statement is ludicrous!

It's not! If it is you won't call the authority.

The smokescreen is the truth!

Never!

You always disregard context and just pick verses on face value!

You do that not me.

I will call the authority on you so that you won't be lynched by those who take laws into their hands!

Good! This is because you know the gravity of that statement even though you want to shy away from it causing you nothing.

But the truth is, for you to say PEOPLE WILL LYNCH ME says a lot which I'm very sure you're the first person who will start the lynching.

AbuTwins:
Of course this if a false conclusion!

Wrong conclusion yet you claimed the New Testament was created to make Jesus God.

Where did you derive your point from then?

No, i won't call for your head as i am not authorised to do that! But i can help the authorities to catch you for the law to try you.

Good which means you know the gravity of that statement.

The interpretation is easy! The Biblical context does not exist in the Qur'an!

Allah already said He begets no one nor is He begotten!
And there's no one comparable unto Him!

The Biblical context is clear
Furthermore, the Father judges no one, but has assigned all judgment to the Son, so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not come under judgment. John 5:22-25

Does "honor" here mean "worship" to you?
The word in red shows Jesus was a messenger!
God is not sending himself message!

Honor the messenger as you would honor the sender of the message!
This does not mean we should call Jesus God!

This is just smoke screen.

You already stated above that you'll call the authority for me because you know the gravity of that state.

So, why will you call the authority for me?

AbuTwins:
There is no first copy! All manuscripts available are copies of copies! You must have researched this already instead of you covering up this with a counter accusation! All Bible scholars are agreed on this! The originals does not exists anywhere! And no one ever memorized the NT in Greek to preserve it by such method!

You're still confusing yourself here.

That scholars says the original does not exist doesn't mean there's no ORIGINAL, what that means is that of what we have today, we haven't discovered the very WRITING OF REVELATION pen down by John himself.

But before copy THERE MUST BE ORIGINAL.

I am not a fool. I read the KJV then the RSV writers claim KJV is marred with great defects....! What the heck!
How will i believe such when millions died reading and believing the KJV hook, line and sinker!

KJV is just a version NOT A MANUSCRIPTS, RSV is also a version translated to English Language.

So I don't know your point here.

Where did Jesus himself say he is God? The councils made Jesus God! And this interpretation was made into the Bible.

You're going back.

I've already told you that New Testament text already in existence before those councils.

So the councils can't made Jesus God, rather it was The New Testament the Council derived that Jesus is God.

Mention two manuscripts that is exactly the same to the letters?


Where was it written?

What are their names?

Where is the original?

Who are they?

Where is your proof?

Where is your proof? Christianity is a name first used by non-christians!

No need to drag this for long.

Just answer my question,

Do you then mean that the New Testament is fake?

So why did the RSV writers claim the manuscript Erasmus used in compiling the KJV is marred with serious defects?

Do you know who Erasmus was? Is his manuscript too copied from the originals as you said?

KJV used Textual Receptus for the New Testament. You can't blame them if there's any error on it.

But this supported my claim that the New Testament was not manipulated as more manuscripts were discovered to compare with each other.

If you asked me who copied the Qur'an into one book and all those questions i asked which you refused to answer i will answer you! You don't need divert at this point!

No point here!

If someone without prior knowledge of trinity as Christians believed it nowadays reads the Bible he would only see a worshipper of God in Jesus not him as God!

So how did you come with your statement "How the New Testament was used to create Jesus as God?"

These are false!
Jesus didn't make any claim to be God!

Answer the above question then

Some of the proofs has been stated at the OP in the beginning of this thread!

Then you're contradicting yourself.

You claimed "The New Testament was created to make Jesus God" and on the other hands you are trying to claim the same New Testament proves Jesus isn't God.

So make your final decision and stop preambulating.

AbuTwins:
Where did Jesus say he is God?

You are bringing other's opinion of Jesus!

Paul said..
John said..
Luke said..
Translations and retranslations....

This is the reason why, you're trying to claim what is not.

With this, it's evident that reading New Testament alone one can conclude that Jesus is God.

Where did Jesus mentioned himself to be God?

Where did Jesus preached "I am God" or "Worship me" to anyone he ever preached to?

About this let's me use this approach (if only you will not run away from it).

If I stand in front of you and I tell you 'from today I want you to honour me JUST AS you honour Allah's

1. Will you call for my head as blasphemy?
2. How will you interpret that?

AbuTwins:
You are the one not making sense!

You claim Allah is not your God. Then you should have created another name for your God in all languages!

Yes Allah isn't my God and that of Arab Christians because our God has A Son, His Son died for our sin and we call Him Father.

Using Olorun, Allah, Ubangiji, etc in the respective languages shows you subscribe to the supreme being in that language

But the spellings are same! Whatever it means exists only in the minds of the readers and the translators!

So if you know this WHY ARE YOU ARGUING blindly?

You just confirmed my point.

This is the reason why Arab Christians God is different from Allah of Islam.

QED.

We many need to check if that person is first sane! Your guys have been doing that in buses and other public spaces and no one attacks them! Now coming to our private space of course necessitates at least some generous stokes of the cane!

No need for that.

You already established the fact above.

AbuTwins:
They are all copies of copies!
There's no original manuscript anywhere!
And even at that, no two manuscripts is exactly the same!

But there must be the FIRST COPY which is original.

You're lying

Majority of manuscripts are the same.

How will i believe something as clearly dubious as that!

So why do you want me to read it, if you don't believe what was written there?

It is unfounded yet read into the Bible so much so that you'll think it is written there in black and white!
And the way the Bible translators are removing trinity verses and readding it later needs to be studied!

This has not proved your point that THE NEW TESTAMENT was created to make Jesus God.

Now, can we agree that The New Testament actually attested that Jesus God?

So that we move to next line.

Even if you have such manuscripts that's about a hundred years after Jesus! There are many manuscripts but no two manuscripts are exactly the same!

Stop this lies.

Majority of the manuscripts we have in possession read the same and this is the reason why people can compare them to each other.

What do you know about the manuscripts? Who wrote it? Where was it copied from? Who preserved it? When was it written? Are the writers Christians and of sound memory/moral character?

Manuscripts are the written of the olds we found and are using today.

The original writer wrote it.

Copied from the Original.

Those in possession of it during their time preserve it.

Each have the date as we know today.

Yes! They are all Christians.

Or is it Muslims who wrote them?

So which of the manuscripts you have is the original?

This is senseless question.

All manuscripts are their own original but the first WRITING where those manuscripts copy from are different.

It can be manipulated!

Yes! Just like Quran too but the fact that we have different manuscripts written at different time and places shows there are not manipulated to much extended.

Let me give you an example in the Old Testament to ginger you!

How old was Saul when he became King?
How long did he reigned over Israel?

1 Samuel 13:1
1.NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION
Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty- two years.

2. ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION
Saul lived for one year and then became king, and when he had reigned for two years over Israel.

3. KING JAMES BIBLE
Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel

4. NET BIBLE
Saul was [thirty] years old when he began to reign; he ruled over Israel for [forty] years.

5. NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE 1977
Saul was forty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty-two years over Israel.

6. JPS TANAKH 1917
Saul was --years old when he began to reign; and two years he reigned over Israel.

7. AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION
Saul was forty years old when he began to reign; and when he had reigned two years over Israel

8. YOUNG'S LITERAL VERSION
A son of a year is Saul in his reigning, yea, two years he hath reigned over Israel

We're talking about the New Testament and who it was created to make Jesus God.

So, do you agree that reading the New Testament one can actually conclude that Jesus is God?

So that we move one.

I lie you not!

https://www.nairaland.com/8067594/abu-chats-two-christians-bible

You lied!

I don't need to be directed to another thread.

In Summary:

1. You can't proof that the New Testament was CREATED to make Jesus God.

2. One reading the New Testament can actually conclude that Jesus is God.

These are the two points.

AbuTwins:
It is Allah with idolatrous attachments!
They don't call on the same Olorun but uses the same name in the Yoruba Bible?

This why you should know that you're not making any sense.

So far, idol is attached it means it's not the same Allah.

Very simple.

I know you want it to the same Allah but it's not.

If one those you claim mistakenly enter Mosque and shout Jesus is Lord, I know it will only take the grace of God for such to come out alive

SIRTee15:

If Jesus is indeed is the son of God, should he be worshipped?
If Allah has a son, should the son be worshipped?

For them to keep dodging these simple questions means they know what they are actually doing.

AbuTwins:
But it is still the same Allah with a trinity attachment!

It's not the same Allah. To them Thier Allah has A SON, does Muhammad Allah has a Son? No!

To them their Allah is A Father, does Muhammad Allah a Father? No!

Just as, as a Yoruba Christian I don't call on the same ỌLỌRUN that the traditional worshippers call.

This is intellectual dishonesty to claim so.

AbuTwins:
You mean the person that did that will write down his name in what he did?

So the person doesn't have a name.

You claimed there's no ORIGINAL!

So to you all the NEW TESTAMENT copies we have today ARE ALL FAKE, RIGHT?

If you want the truth you can read the two prefaces to RSV 1952 and 1971. Your Bible DDs did revealed a lot in the ways they've been toying with your brains!

So you believe what RSV wrote and don't believe their translation.

Well, this isn't where we're going.

Your claim about trinitarian Bible etc!

So what makes it complicated?

If this was true then the councils won't needed to have happened! The councils fixed so many things unproven in the Bible. And then it was gradually read into it.

Are you serious?

So you don't know we have manuscripts that dated back to the early 2nd century.

The activity of the church fathers, the councils, the copyists errors, the canonisation of the books of the Bible while excluding others, etc was tailored to meet such criteria!

If they are copies it means there's original.

Or are they copy from empty space?

But there are manuscripts to back it up.

So, definitely it can't be manipulated without changing the manuscripts.

You don't have point here.

Yes, and the more latest manuscripts are discovered the more the translations increases and the more errors are discovered in past Bible translations!

Pure lie.

Provide your evidence.

Your claim that New Testament was created to make Jesus God is false.

AbuTwins:
That's what was created for them!

The pagan Arabs once believed Allah is the supreme diety and all the idols they worshipped only gets them close to Him.

These are idolatrous attachments. The mission of the Prophet of Islam was to get them to worship Allah alone without those attachments and believing in Him properly!

Story!

The fact is Arab Christians don't call on Muhammad Allah they call on The God who has a Son and Send His Son to die for mankind.

AbuTwins:
The original no dey in the first place!
All Christian theologians agree to this!

So, which copies was tailored, translated and retranslated to make Jesus God and By who?

I will be expecting!

Alright.

Not really, but it's complicated!

What do you mean by this?

The councils of Nicaea, Constantinople and others were done to fix these!
There was never a consensus on it from the Biblical manuscripts.

But the manuscripts we have in possession today predated all these councils.

So, what do you mean by THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS CREATED TO MAKE JESUS GOD?

The NT manuscripts we have today is the only source of information for now.

AbuTwins:
It is the same supreme deity with some absurd attachments!
Olu-orun is the owner or Lord of heaven!

It's not!

They don't call ON THE SAME GOD.

That is fact.

Every tribe/language/cultures has the name for the Supreme being, but with unnecessary idolatrous attachments and beliefs!

The attachment already complicated everything, which means THEY DON'T CALL ON THE SAME GOD.

The Allah Arab Christian called upon, Has A Son and His Son died on the Cross. So it can be the same God with Muslim Allah.