Enigma's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Enigma's Profile › Enigma's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 (of 198 pages)
Deep Sight:ijawkid:- - - And Psalm 45 SAYS NO SUCH THING! ![]() |
Deep Sight: ^^^ Bros, I thought you allotted me only one response? You are in generous spirits today, I must say. . . .I just wanted to show up your idiocy --- once again And of course, the subtlety in my post is lost on you --- as usual; the unstated thing in that post which you are too thick to discern is that I should not even have replied your first question at all; (though I achieved my aim with the response). It is just not worth it in your case. Waste of time as already pointed out twice on this thread. Finally, take the same advice I gave the other fellow: continue in your ignorance and/or deliberate dishonesty. ![]() |
Hebrews 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. ![]() |
^^^ You need to go and read up; in this kind of situation I tend to recommend starting with "consubstantiality"; you can start from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiality What I notice is that you don't really understand what it means to say: The Father is God AND Jesus is God AND the Holy Spirit is God. This of course would then mean that you really do not understand the Trinity doctrine. Finally, I do not wish to force you or convince you to believe the doctrine. It is entirely up to you to satisfy yourself about what you believe. ![]() |
A demonstration of why some types of people are simply best ignored ![]() 1. Previously posted here: https://www.nairaland.com/497445/trinity-doctrine-invented-council-meeting/2#6979732 I might as well add this post from elsewhere [/b]here as well.And guess who was the chief antagonist on that thread? ![]() 2. And even before then, previously posted here: https://www.nairaland.com/531625/evidence-deity-christ/2#6979524 3. Oh, by the way any genuinely intelligent and honest person can easily see that the author of Hebrews applied Psalm 45 to Jesus ------- as I had already pointed out on two previous occasions. 4. And speak of pot calling (electric) kettle black --- would it not have been an easy exercise to quote all the relevant bits of Hebrews 1? Dishonesty, much? ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Whatever! ![]() You already have my advice: continue in your ignorance or deliberate dishonesty. ![]() Next!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ![]() |
Ptolomeus: Let's see.Yes, let's see indeed. 1. You insult me by asking me to read something other than the Bible. That is very daft of you; extremely daft. ![]() 2. You spread falsehood here. I am entitled to point out that you are spreading falsehood. At first, perhaps ignorantly; but if after being given better information, you continue to spread the falsehood, then it is reasonable to suspect you of deliberate dishonesty because of some pathetic agenda of yours. 3. You now call me an illiterate! And you do not have enough sense to see how verily daft that is! ![]() ![]() |
^^^ ![]() God The Father Himself referred to The Son as God. ![]() Hebrews 1:8 But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. ![]() |
Ptolomeus: We pull the same thing, right?Please continue in your ignorance and, most probably, deliberate dishonesty as well. ![]() ![]() |
No and totally Wrong. If you read properly, you would have seen by now that Christians accepted Jesus as God and accepted The Trinity loooong before the Nicaea Council. Of course, people can choose to be ignorant or to continue peddling falsehoods. ![]() |
Christians had recognised Jesus as God and had recognised The Trinity looooooooooooooooooooong before the Nicaea Council. It is ignorant or dishonest to continue to refer to the Council as the source of a concept that predated the Council. ![]() |
Deep Sight: ^^^ Hi there. Just one question. Lets say you are adderssing a genuinely confused christian. Do you not think that there is sufficient scripture within the bible to suggest to anybody that perhaps Jesus is not God - and as such, become genuinely confused - Or is it your view that anybody who sees verses that suggest that to him, is simply being dishonest.I will answer only this question from you on this thread; I was heavily tempted not to answer but have chosen to do so solely for reasons of my own. 1. As for Christians who may be confused about "The Trinity", I will advise them to study the Bible carefully; learn, read up on and understand and not be/remain ignorant of important doctrines of the historic Church. 2. As to the point about "dishonesty" ---- I have referred to three things: (a) ignorance, (b) intellectual dishonesty, and (c) intellectual fraud. ![]() |
For the benefit of those who ignorantly or dishonestly still continue to claim the Nicaea Council as the souce of Christian recognition of Jesus as God, I repost a rather long old post from here: https://www.nairaland.com/497445/trinity-doctrine-invented-council-meeting/2#7181702 I would like to add this Wikipedia entry to this thread and for a graphic presentation will actually make an extensive quotation of the entry. I would argue that it should be clear that to maintain or insist that the 'Trinity' was 'invented' at a council meeting smacks of either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty if not indeed intellectual fraud. From Trinity of the Church Fathers The Trinity formula, in the sense of an expressed conjunction of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit occurred very early in the history of the Christian Church. This conjunction appears in two New Testament texts: 2 Corinthians 13:14 and Matthew 28:19. The context of 2 Corinthians 13:14, which is the closing of a letter, suggests the church's conjunction of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit may have originated as a doxological formula, while the context of Matthew 28:19 shows that the verbal conjunction of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was used early on as a baptismal formula. The oldest extant work in which the exact word "Trinity" (Greek Trias, triados) is used to refer to Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is Theophilus of Antioch's second-century To Autolycus. The relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was not explicitly expressed in the writings of ante-Nicene Church Fathers exactly as it would later be defined during the First Council of Nicaea (325) and the First Council of Constantinople (381), namely as one substance (ousios) and three persons (hypostaseis). But their Trinitarian concepts did become defined with greater detail over time in this period. Early second century: Ignatius of Antioch |
^^^ Ask yourself why Jesus called Himself "The Almighty". ![]() Rev 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." ![]() |
^^ Jesus is God The Son. ![]() His Father is God The Father. ![]() |
It is a LIE that Christians had to wait till the Council of Nicaea to recognise Jesus as God. This LIE has been previously put to rest. Anyone interested in learning and in intellectual honesty can start from this old thread: https://www.nairaland.com/497445/trinity-doctrine-invented-council-meeting ![]() |
jmoore: I ignored it because it is a waste of time and you gave the wrong interpretation, you also did misinterpret the quotes I gave. . . . .Of course, it's a waste of time. Jesus IS God! End of. ![]() ![]() |
@ijawkid I understand your line of thought but can I suggest you read about William Wilberforce? Starting e.g. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce ![]() |
Goshen360: Good morning guys. Can we continue verse by verse please.Please continue but I don't think I will join in each verse; I will chip in contributions now and then. ![]() ![]() |
I like to add one thing especially for the benefit of ijawkid. When it says "if there be tongues, they shall cease" ---- it does not necessarily mean that the gift of tongues has ceased for the whole Christian church. It does not necessarily mean that God by the Spirit can still not give a particular person the gift and power of tongues today. One way of looking at it is this: even if an individual is given the power or gift of tongues, it is temporary anyway and he will not always (continue to) speak in tongues. So, "tongues shall cease" is not necessarily a dispensational thing; but can be seen as a realistic acceptance that the individual given the gift, at any time in history including today will not necessarily always have it. Even for the people in Acts, it is just recorded that they spoke in tongues the once, we don't know that they repeated it. The only hint we have that it could have been a repeated experience for some is Paul saying "I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all." However, even that does not suggest that it continued indefinitely for him. One interesting thing so far on this thread is that the active participants seem to be agreed that the most prevalent practice today does not match what the Bible says. ![]() |
@Bernimoore With the background of slapping "witches for Jesus" etc, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to also highlight two more things from the scriptures you quoted: [size=14pt]- temperate - not violent[/size] ![]() |
Yep, but we must first humble ourselves. To be honest, "all" that we really need to know to relate with God are very simple. The "intellectual" stuff are additions really; they can be very good if we handle them carefully; but they can be stumbling blocks if we handle them wrongly -------or if we fail to do the first thing i.e. to humble ourselves. ![]() ![]() |
Cool ![]() We all have sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much to learn. If only we all realise this . . . . ![]() |
Very good questions, Goshen. I offer one explanation, one viewpoint. For the first question i.e. "no one understands": paint this scenario. I come to visit you in New York and we meet with you and your family/crew. We decide to 'fellowship' together. Then, I start to speak in Chinese. None of you and your family/crew understands Chinese; even I do not understand Chinese. But here I am, on the face of it, praising God in Chinese. No one understands me! Even I do not understand; only God does! You see now that in such a situation, I am uttering "mysteries" unto God? "Mysteries" as far as my company, your family/crew, is concerned; "mysteries" even as far as I myself am concerned. Only God understands the "mysteries". To part 2 of question 1 i.e. praying in tongues: of course if I'm speaking to God, praising God, speaking His wonderful works ----- I am thus praying to God. If I do it in a language that I do not understand, e.g. Chinese, then of course my understanding is unfruitful since I do not even know what I am saying! The positive is that I am "edified"; I am uplifted, I am elated, that the Spirit is evident in me and has spoken through and in me. There is a little key to understanding these points: Paul is concerned about what the people were seeking. He was saying the people should be more concerned with spiritual gifts that will benefit the whole assembly e.g. prophecy; that is what they should be seeking more to receive; and less so gifts that could only really benefit an individual or so among the assembly. Bear in mind also, that Paul reminded them of the original purpose of "tongues" as first given in Acts ----------- to witness especially, though not only, to unbelievers! What real use was it then among the Corinthian church at that particular time that it was what people were seeking instead of gifts that would be more beneficial to the whole community? To question 2 i.e. that the tongues in Acts was understood by men: but of course! It was human languages; foreign human languages --- at least as heard and understood by the people in Acts 2. In Acts 10 Peter confirmed that the tongues of Cornelius' household was as that of Acts 2 ---- thus we can conclude that that as well must have been human languages. We have no reason to believe that the tongues in Acts 19 was any different. Turning to 1 Corinthians 14 --- if we bear in mind that the people were seeking to speak in tongues, and this is what Paul plays down, then the logic that the 1 Cor 14 tongues as well must be human languages is easy to follow. The people too were seeking to be able to speak foreign human languages; Paul plays it down in saying it is not a bad thing per se for them to seek that (i.e. to seek what happened in Acts) but that it is better for them to seek even higher spiritual gifts. Hope this helps. ![]() ![]() |
@Goshen360 Let us try one more exercise. From verse 6 in 1 Cor 14, Paul was discouraging the people from seeking so much to speak in tongues (or at least he was discouraging them from abusing speaking in tongues). Could you go through the chapter again and consider: which type of "tongues" was Paul speaking about in the chapter? Was it the tongues spoken as in Acts or was it the "unknown" tongues? ![]() |
Graffito somewhere or other: "God is dead" - Nietzsche ![]() |
Sorry, I'm not contributing anything of particular substance. However @ Master 1, I suggest you google the words 'Alvin Platinga'. ![]() ![]() |
@Goshen360 Neither Paul nor any of the other apostles made this distinction you are making between tongues "spoken" and "unknown" tongues. Let us start with the word "unknown". If you look carefully in the KJV the word "unknown" in the context of the gift of tongues is always written in brackets like this - [unknown]. Do you know why? Simple, the KJV added the word "unknown" for purported clarification. Check other Bible versions/translations and see if they all add the word "unknown". For Paul and the apostles, as far as we can see, "tongues" was just "tongues". The evidence we have is that it refers to languages ---- languages that are not the [primary] languages of the person(s) given the gift of tongues. This is why I kept asking if the "unknown" tongues was 'languages' or not. As there is no distinction made by the apostles as to 'tongues' ----- just 'tongues' ---- and as the evidence we have is that the 'tongues' spoken by the early Christians refers to languages, the conclusion is that 'tongues' whether in Acts or in 1 Corinthians refers to languages. ' The one quibble that someone can raise is the statement of Paul in 1 Cor 13 i.e. 'if I speak in the tongues of men or of angels'. Context suggests to us that he was speaking figuratively. Compare "if I swim the oceans or climb the mountains". There is no evidence or even indication that any of the early Christians spoke in the "tongue of angels". The only "tongues" they spoke were languages ------------ tongues of men. Praying in the Spirit does not automatically mean praying in "tongues". The Spirit could even enable one's prayers in one's own language or 'tongue' e.g. Yoruba. What I have said by no means suggests that the Spirit cannot still give a person the gift and power of tongues today. However, the picture I would expect would be of someone not previously knowing a foreign language being given the power and gift to speak that language in witness --- e.g. a Nigerian being given the gift and power to speak in say Chinese, Japanese or Arabic. ![]() |
So how do we know: 1. whether the tongues in Acts 10:46 were "spoken tongues" OR unknown tongues? 2. whether the tongues in Acts 19:6 were "spoken tongues" OR unknown tongues? 3. whether the tongues in 1 Corinthians were "spoken tongues" OR unknown tongues? Also, please clarify where Paul or any other of the apostles made a distinction between "spoken tongues" and unknown tongues. I realise I'm simply asking questions for now; I will also be happy to present another view of understanding "tongues". ![]() |
I read your post well, Goshen. ![]() I understand you are saying the tongues in Acts (edit including my two examples) were used to spread the gospel. But I have just shown you (my) two examples of "tongues" in the same Acts that were not used to spread the gospel! Also, I still would be grateful (not compulsory of course) if you would answer this question: are unknown tongues also human languages? ![]() |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 (of 198 pages)


