₦airaland Forum

Nimshi: .
.
Links to Jehovah's Witnesses' child r.ape enlightenment

These are links to www.silentlambs.org, an organisation floated by Jehovah's Witnesses tired of the policy of their organisation as a haven for child r.apists

For seeking reform, the Jehovah's Witness organisation booted these people asking for justice out of their congregations

1) http://silentlambs.org/OaklandLawsuit.htm - $21 million punitive damages against Watchtower

2) http://silentlambs.org/Mcleantoronto.htm - Ministerial Servant Jehovah's Witness hiding from police for raping children

3) http://silentlambs.org/Kozelisky.htm - Ministerial Servant, son of City Overseer, molester of childtren

4) http://silentlambs.org/Brotherallen.htm - Jehovah's Witness Brother Allen

5) http://silentlambs.org/BrotherCook.htm - Jehovah's Witness Brother Cook

6) http://silentlambs.org/Perfettobustedagain.htm - Jehovah's witness Brother Perfetto

Note: Jehovah's Witnesses do not prevent known rapists of children to carry a bag and 'preach' from house to house

Note: the above cases are reports from Western countries

Note: the problem exists in Nigeria too

.

Remember: "This story illustrates the key issue with p.aedophiles. They never stop and the average molester will hurt over 200 children in their life time. "

.

Is it not glaring that you are shying away from something?

What stops you from answering my post? The source you are feeding from fits you perfectly - sites from apostates aimed at tarnishing the image of the witnesses.

Prove you are not a liar by answering the question that arose from some of your previous links.

Like I promised you, I will keep reposting it so that all will know what you are running away from.

Nimshi: .

Fresky : I have one question for you:

In what year did the JWs recognise 607 BCE as the date for the destruction of Jerusalem?

If you don't know, go and find out and return.

Don't copy/paste anything yet, just answer that question with a date, and the reference from Watchtower literature.

That ought to put a break on the repetitive stuff you've been posting.

So:

In what year did the JWs recognise 607 BCE as the date for the destruction of Jerusalem?

.

First and foremost, thank you very much for unknowingly giving people opportunity to gain more truth. I strongly believe you know what I mean.

I know its pains you to the marrow to see those posts. I promise you, I will keep on posting same till you show the world how 587-B.C.E. blends perfectly with various scriptures that relate to it

For your information, I don't easily get distracted, for i know that is your intention.

Should your common sense not tell you to first of all prove false what I have posted and Justify 587-B.C.E. scripturally?

Remember, lots of people know Jehovah's witnesses already. Many live with them and have them as their good friends. They have witnesses around them. The world's governmental authorities know how law-abiding they are. Hence, your lies give me little or no concern. What mattered most to me is what I have done. I am still anxiously waiting to see how you will rise and fall in a bit to justifying your 587-B.C.E.

Note: better do, for if you fail, you are rather proving to the world who you truly are.

Nimshi: Nimshi: Maximus85: it is quite brave of you to come up here to defend your religion.
I have some questions for you.
1) Why is 1914 very important to your religion? BECAUSE IT MARK THE END OF THE SEVEN TIMES. BEGINNING FROM 607 BCE. Google the year Babylon destroyed Jerusalem. http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm IN 1914 JESUS CHRIST BECAME KING AND HE SENT SATAN AND HIS ANGELS AWAY FROM HEAVEN DOWN TO THE EARTH.

**** What link? See this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(587_BC) And, for your information, it is bunk to refer to some nonsensical link as proof. I am now convinced you only repeat what your masters in Brooklyn tell you to say; you have no knowledge of the relevant issues.

Recognized authorities accept 539 B.C.E. without any question as the year Babylon was overthrown by Cyrus the Great. The following gives a small sampling from books of history representing a cross section of both general reference works and elementary textbooks. These brief quotations also show that this is not a date recently suggested, but one thoroughly investigated and generally accepted for the past one hundred years.

"Cyrus entered Babylon in 539 B.C." (Encyclopœdia Britannica, 1946, Vol. 2, p. 852) "When Cyrus defeated the army of Nabonidus, Babylon itself surrendered, in Oct. 539, to the Persian general Gobryas."—Ibid., Vol. 6, p. 930.

"In 539 B.C. Babylon fell without a struggle to the Achaemenid Persian, Cyrus the Great."—The Encyclopedia Americana, 1956, Vol. III, p. 9.

"Babylon was captured by Cyrus in 539 B.C."—Yale Oriental Series · Researches · Vol. XV, 1929, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, Dougherty, p. 46.

"The Persians took the city in 539 B.C." (The World Book Encyclopedia, 1966, Vol. 2, p. 10) "In 539 B.C., the Persians conquered Babylonia." (Ibid., p. 13) "Nabonidus, the last king of Chaldean Babylonia, who reigned from 555 to 539 B.C."—Ibid, p. 193.

"The downfall of Lydia prepared the way for a Persian attack on Babylonia. The conquest of that country proved unexpectedly easy. In 539 B.C. the great city of Babylon opened its gates to the Persian hosts."—Ancient History, Hutton Webster, 1913, p. 64.

"In 539 B.C. Babylon, too, was captured by Cyrus."—The Story of the Ancient Nations, W. L. Westermann, 1912, p. 73.

"In 539 B.C., however, Cyrus advanced for the conquest of Babylonia. . . . Sippar was taken without a blow and, two days later, the van of the army of Cyrus entered Babylon."—History of the Hebrews, F. K. Sanders, 1914, p. 230.

"It is not likely that there was a long interval between his [Nebuchadnezzar’s] death and the fall of the Chaldean Empire before the onslaught of Cyrus in 539."—The Biblical Period, W. F. Albright, Reprinted from The Jews; Their History, Culture and Religion, edited by Louis Finkelstein, 1955, p. 49.

"Cyrus entered Babylon on October 29, 539 B.C. and presented himself in the role of the liberator of the people."—The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, 1965, p. 193; see also pages 93, 104, 198, 569.

"Nebuchadnezzar had surrounded Babylon with huge walls, but after the defeat of Belshazzar’s army the city surrendered with slight resistance in 539 B.C."—World History at a Glance, Reither, 1942, pp. 28, 29.

"When the Neo-Babylonian Empire fell to the Persians, Babylon opened its gates to Cyrus in 539 B.C. without opposition."—The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1962, p. 335.

"In the seventeenth year of Nabonidus (B. C. 539), Cyrus captured Babylon."—The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopœdia and Scriptural Dictionary, Fallows, 1913, Vol. 1, p. 207.

"Cyrus the Great, in 539 B.C., added the Babylonian to the other empires which he had acquired and consolidated with magical ease and celerity."—A New Standard Bible Dictionary, 1926, p. 91.

"The city [Babylon] was taken by surprise B. C. 539."—The Universal Bible Dictionary Peloubet, 1912, p. 69.

"539 B.C. marked the collapse of Semitic hegemony in the ancient Orient, and the introduction of Aryan leadership which continued for at least a thousand years. This conquest of Babylon by Cyrus laid the foundation for all the later developments under Greek and Roman rule."—Darius the Mede, Whitcomb, 1959, Introduction, p. 2.

"It was Cyrus, also, who conquered Babylon in the year 539 B.C. and thus became master of Mesopotamia and Syria."—Ancient and Medieval History, Hayes and Moon, 1930, p. 92.

"Nabonidus (Nabunaid) . . . was the last King of Babylon (555-539 B.C.)."—The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907, Vol. 2, p. 184.

"In 539 the kingdom of Babylon fell to Cyrus."—The New Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia, 1952, Vol. 10, p. 3397.

"The Chaldean Empire, with its capital at Babylon (Second Babylonian Empire), lasted, . . . until 539 B.C., when it collapsed before the attack of Cyrus."—The Outline of History, H. G. Wells, 1921, p. 140.

"Cyrus conquered Babylonia in 539 B. C."—The International Standard Bible Encyclopœdia, 1960, Vol. 1, p. 367.

"In the year 539 Cyrus conquers the city Babylon, Babylonia becomes a province of the Persian Empire."—Translated from the German Bibel-Lexikon, edited by Herbert Haag together with associates, printed in Switzerland, in 1951. See page 150 under Babylonia.

With the date 539 B.C.E. so firmly fixed and agreed to by so many scholars, now let's consider the following scriptures:

'And this whole land shall be a desolation and an astonishment, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. ‘Then it will come to pass, when seventy years are completed, that I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, ’ says the Lord; ‘and I will make it a perpetual desolation.' -Jeremiah 25:11-12 (NKJV)

'For thus says the Lord: After seventy years are completed at Babylon, I will visit you and perform My good word toward you, and cause you to return to this place.' -Jeremiah 29:10 (NKJV)

"Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia" (at least before the spring of 537-B.C.E.) ..."the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia"... He issued the famous edict permitting the Jews to return and rebuild God’s temple. - Read Ezra 1:1-4 (NKJV)

It is now a simple formula to determine when the seventy years began. One has only to add 70 to 537 to get 607.

Now, let compare the two dates (587 and 607)-B.C.E. to see which is in harmony with the scriptures.

607 - 537 = 70..........................................number of years that the Jews were in exile (it's in harmony with the scriptures)
The book of Haggai and Zechariah were written in 520B.C.E. and 518-B.C.E. respectively (years after the Jews had returned to their homeland). Biblical chronology of 607-B.C.E. fits in perfectly with the above dates.

587 - 537 = 50...........................................number of years that the Jews were in exile, according to secular chronology. (False and it's out of harmony with the scriptures).
Again, if 587 is correct, the desolation would have ended in 517-B.C.E. (587-70 = 517), when houses had already been built and crops grown for some 20 years in Jerusalem before their return.This would also suggest the Bible books of Haggai and Zechariah which were written in 520B.C.E. and 518-B.C.E. respectively, were written before the return of the Jews.(Huge discrepancy!)

Considering the above, 607-B.C.E. [/b]is the only date that fits perfectly with the Bible as the date for desolation of Jerusalem, [b]not 587-B.C.E.

Nimshi: Nimshi: Maximus85: it is quite brave of you to come up here to defend your religion.
I have some questions for you.
1) Why is 1914 very important to your religion? BECAUSE IT MARK THE END OF THE SEVEN TIMES. BEGINNING FROM 607 BCE. Google the year Babylon destroyed Jerusalem. http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm IN 1914 JESUS CHRIST BECAME KING AND HE SENT SATAN AND HIS ANGELS AWAY FROM HEAVEN DOWN TO THE EARTH.

**** What link? See this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(587_BC) And, for your information, it is bunk to refer to some nonsensical link as proof. I am now convinced you only repeat what your masters in Brooklyn tell you to say; you have no knowledge of the relevant issues.

It is true that many secular historians point to 587/586-B.C.E. as the date for the desolation of Jerusalem. If they are correct, then Daniel and all those who had prophesied that Jerusalem would remain desolate (uninhibited) for 70 years were wrong. Well, a closer look at some Bible prophecies and related events show that the proponents of 587-B.C.E. are rather wrong.

virtually all historians agree that 539-B.C.E. is the date of the overthrow of Babylon, for there is much evidence pointing to this. Therefore, 539-B.C.E. is a pivotal and an absolute date for determining when Jerusalem was desolated.

Daniel 9:1, 2 reads: ‘In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the lineage of the Medes, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans— in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, understood by the books the number of the years specified by the word of the Lord through Jeremiah the prophet, that He would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.' - Daniel 9:1-2 (NKJV)

According to the Bible, Jerusalem was a desolate waste (uninhabited) for 70 years. Then if Babylon was destroyed in 539-B.C.E., and Cyrus released the Jews in his first year (as Ezra 1:1-4 tells us), the date that Jerusalem was re-inhabited was 537-B.C.(allowing two years for the eventual release and return of the Jews to Jerusalem). Counting back 70 years from 537-B.C.E. brings us to 607-B.C.E.

But if (as historians say) Jerusalem started its desolation in 587-B.C.E., the 70-years of the Bible record would bring us to 517-B.C.E.

Is it possible that 517-B.C.E. was when the Jews returned? No, for by that time, as both the books of Zechariah (written in 518-B.C.E.) and Haggai (written in 520-B.C.E.) show, the Jews had built houses, planted crops, and were working on the Temple. Why, Jerusalem had definitely been inhabited for quite some time before 517-B.C.E. So, 587-B.C.E. doesn’t fit into the prophecy or the Bible record. If historians are correct, it would mean Jerusalem only remained desolate for about 50 years, and not 70 years that the Bible had foretold.

Therefore, 587-B.C.E. is not the correct date of Jerusalem's desolation, rather it's 607-B.C.E., and it fits perfectly with the Bible. No other date will fit with the Scripture!

Ihedinobi: Thank you, my dear brother, for helping me. I have to get off the thread for a bit now to cool off. I have no doubts regarding your ability to answer for the position that I have presented because I'm sure that it is yours as well. Perhaps I will be brought back here by the Lord but for now, I must leave.

@ijawkid, I assure you that you weary me and annoy me with your roundabout arguments. But I will accommodate you one last time and leave you to my brother from now until I see that coming back will not harm you.

Jesus Christ was Man. Jesus Christ was God. As Man, of course, He was not equal to God. That which is created is never equal to that which created it. His humanity, His form as a man, was a created thing, therefore in that form, He was lower than, not just God, but the angels as well, until God exalted Him to His Right Hand above all other creatures. This was in His form as man. But in His form and nature as God, He is equal to God. He cannot be lower than God in that form. Some things written about Him are written of Him as a Man, others as a God. It is an intellect under the government of the Spirit of God that sees the total unity of the two in one Person.

Also, I have never said that Jesus and the Father are one Person. I said that the Father is one Person and Jesus is Another and they both are God individually and together. I explained why there are not multiple Gods even though there are three People with the God-Nature. You cannot effectively refute my argument if you create it yourself. My argument is that there are three People each having the God-Nature and Ability, but their love for One Another binds them together so powerfully that they are essentially One and never disagree. If they loved one another less, we would have been created in a chaotic multiverse and been characterized by war. And if we had a Gospel at all, it would not be one of loving one another and bearing one another, but fighting one another and proving greater strength than the next person. That is my position. It is Frosbel who says that God is one Person with different manifestations, not I. Address my own arguments, not your twisting of them. Read them as I have written them and answer them according to them.

@all, I beg you all excuse me. This debate has grown too frustrating for me. My objective was to explain the Christian's true nature in the light of his Progenitor. If God is something other than Love, then the Christian cannot claim a Nature of Love. And if God is Love, then there must be fellowship in God in which this Love is expressed and to which the Christian has been added because of the Nature he received at the New Birth. The Trinity of God is crucial to the Christian's understanding of what he is and what he isn't. It was no mere talk that the Bible said that the test of truth in any man or spirit is in what light they hold Christ. The Christian holds that Christ is God-become-man because that putting on of flesh by the Son of God was in order to give the Christian what God intended for Adam's race when He created Adam but which Adam failed of attaining to: fellowship with the Most High. It is then necessary to understand what this fellowship is that we who have become Christians and those who will yet be added are called to. Had it not been so, I would not make this thread. I have, but continuing the wrangle with some of the commenters here will corrupt the meanings that I was commissioned to deliver, therefore I leave right now that those meanings may be preserved.

You should rather commend Ijawkid for his ability to put up with your arrogance and insults.

Your lengthy, but empty write up, is a reflection of your arrogance and overblown sense of self-importance and knowledge.

You raised false expectations by making your trinitarian brothers think you have something solid to offer. I am sure many of them are disappointed somehow.

Do you remember the saying about an empty sac?

I am glad you appreciate the effort made by Mr Anony at readjusting you. Many would have done the same, perhaps they doubt your type admits mistakes and takes corrections.

Among other things, your unchristlike attributes belie your claim of having divine calling

Mr_Anony: Answer: How can God be everywhere at the same time?

Answer at least one of the six question first and we shall see if really God is everywhere as you claim. It's good to take one thing at a time to minimize digression.
Or, are you trying to shy away?

Note: I can accept 'I don't know' as an option, it's a mark of humility, considering the fact that you admitted Trinity is a mystery.

Mr_Anony: That is the point of all I have been saying: The two persons are One God. Jesus is referred to as the Word who is God and was in the beginning with God. The same Word (God) became flesh and walked among us.

I now know your stand on trinity.

At luke 1:67, Zacharias is said to have been filled with the "Holy Ghost",........ 'God the holy spirit'

During this time, Jesus ('God the son') was about three month's old baby still developing in the womb of Mary.

MY QUESTIONS:

1. Who is the Holy Spirit that filled Zacharias when Jesus was about 3 month's old in the womb of Mary still developing?

2. Did the 3 month's old in the womb momentarily become 'God the Holy Spirit' in order to fill Zecharias?

3. During his 9 months stay in the womb, was he administering to the affairs of the world from there?

4. Who occupied his throne in the heaven, was it vaccant or he took it with him to the womb?

5. When he died for three days, was the world then existing without the Almighty God?

6. Who is that God in Acts 2:24,32 that resurrected Jesus?

Please don't be offended, for I do appreciate your efforts and great zeal. Let us try and unravel this graet mystery called, 'Trinity' once and for all.

Mr_Anony: Genesis 1:1 also says 'in the beginning'.......... 'In the beginning' of what?

I have not quoted Genesis 1:1 in any of my posts. Is this how best you can explain John1:1 and tell me which of the two Gods therein is Jesus?

Mr_Anony: The Word who is God (John 1:1)

I have read John 1:1 and it's giving me a picture of two distinctive persons/Gods staying with each other.

Remember, I was asking about who Jesus is and you quoted John1:1

Please can you be a bit more specific by identifying these two persons by their names?

Again, that John1:1 says in part: 'in the beginning'

'in the beginning' of what?

Mr_Anony: A singular God is everywhere at the same time, has no beginning and no ending, knows everything, and is able to do all things? No wonder God is a mystery.

I think we are beginning to understand each other now.

Then who is Jesus Christ?

Mr_Anony: I did this earlier in the thread, I'll quote myself again:

[Perhaps at this point I should tell you who I know God to be (note: as much as possible, try not to assume something I haven't said)

I believe God is One, He exists in three Persons and the three are One and the same God. They are not parts of God or types of God but one God. They are three in absolute unity and oneness. It is a mystery. The closest (though not perfect) example of this that I can think of is how your soul and your body are both you and not parts or types of you.
God is Perfect, He is perfectly Good, God is Love, God is all-sufficient, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-merciful, perfectly just, ever-present e.t.c. infact God describes Himself best when He says to Moses "I AM!"]

A singular God exists in three (multiple) persons? No wonder it is a mystery!

Can He exist in three or two persons at the same time?

Mr_Anony: Your argument has holes. If you claim Jesus was created, you have to show from the bible because the bible tells us that in the beginning was the Word. or you'll have to tell us that there are at least two uncreated 'Gods'.
Now if you have a problem with the Holy Spirit being poured upon all flesh, then you must also have a problem with God being everywhere at the same time.

The problem is that everywhere you turn, you see the same qualities of God being used to describe the Son and the Spirit but you are bent on denying them.
The question you really should be asking is: What exactly is Trinity, who exactly is God? Don't just say that God is not a Trinity when you don't understand what Trinity is.

I will appreciate it if you tell me your version of trinity. Some posts are tailored to the stand of some individuals.

Ihedinobi: Please reconcile this position with "Love...is not self-seeking" - 1 Cor 13:5.



Please explain what you mean by this "joy of life".
Explain also what you mean by "like him".



(a) Please explain how perfection could be sold out and a perfect man can sin. If perfection can become less perfect, explain how we can trust God to remain perfect and never fail of expectation of fulfillment of His Promises and obligations.

(b) Justify your statement that the first Adam was a perfect man by the Scriptures.

(c) You seem to be implying in the last paragraph that it was God that Jesus had to buy back the perfection from. Disregarding the difficulties in the assumptions upon which your answer is based, reconcile God's taking back perfection from Adam with "God's gifts and His call are irrevocable" - Rom 11:29. If my understanding concerning the last paragraph is wrong, then indicate from whom Jesus was to buy back man's perfection.

(d) Please explain the Justice of God in sending His "perfect son", who was not God and therefore not responsible for creation, to take responsibility for creation's failure. If God is just, why does He lay upon an entity the moral responsibility rightly belonging to another entity both of whom are in the same moral position before God?

(e) What was this relationship that we had with God that got damaged? How did the Death of Jesus Christ suffice to repair it?



(a) Per the two bolded statements, please provide the Scriptures upon which they are founded.

(b) Please explain how the presence or absence of a name affects the personality of an entity.

(c) Finally, show that John 16:13-15 does not satisfactorily explain why the Holy Spirit is little known as to its/his own personality.

You exist because you were created. God could have chosen not to creat you, but he didn't. Under normal condition no one would like to die. Why? Life is a precious and joyous thing, both to man and God. There is joy in living and existing. God loves us and wanted man to experience this.

God created Adam as a sinless and umblemish being. Adam had lived as a sinless being for some times before he sinned. He was perfect until he sinned. Notice what God said at Genesis 1:31 after creating him.

A perfect being can sin. Angels who later disobeyed were once perfect beings. The bible talks of Jesus' obedience to his Father, what should that tell you about being perfect? You can chose to obey or not to.

Adam had a good relationshionship with God prior to his sin. His sin marred this relationship and alienated him from the Almighty. This also made him God's enemy. By inheritance, we also became sinners and God's enemies. Read Romance 5:1-21 for confirmation of above and answers to some other questions.

Satan is a spirit being. Demons too are spirits in form. They are all wicked spirits.

Yahweh is a spirit being and He is holy. Jesus and other angels too are spirits in form and they too are holy. They are all holy spirits.

If you feel it's meaninless for one of the trinitarian Gods (the Holy Spirit) to have a name, a personal identity, how will you differentiate 'him' from other holy spirits whenever the bible mentions spirit or holy spirit?

Consider the following impersonal usage of the holy spirit in the scripture:

People are urged to become FILLED WITH holy spirit instead of with wine. (Ephesians 5:18)

People are also spoken of as being FILLED WITH holy spirit in the same way they are filled with such qualities as wisdom, faith, and joy. (Acts 6:3; 11:24; 13:52)

At 2 Corinthians 6:6 holy spirit is included among a number of qualities. Such expressions would not be so common if the holy spirit were actually a person.

When 70 capable men were appointed to help Moses, God said to him: "Then I will come down and speak with you there, and I will take part of the spirit that is on you, and will put it on them, and they will bear some of the burden of the people with you, so that you do not bear it all by yourself."—Numbers 11:17. New English Translation(NET)
Here, part of the holy spirit(one person of the three Godhead) is to be taken and distributed among 70 men. How

The first part of Acts 2:17 reads: "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will POUR OUT of my Spirit upon all flesh...' KJV. Could God POUR out a portion of a coequal God?
Remember, the spirit is just one person, but would be poured out as if it were anointing oil, upon all flesh. How?

Has any of the above or the like impersonal usage ever being used in connection with Yahweh or Jesus or even humans? No! It can only be used in connection with non-persons.

darlingbas: My only concern about the topic being discussed is that Jesus never called or referred to himself as God, i don't think it would be out of place not to refer to him as one.I think we all agree that he is the son of God which will suffice for now, given that we have a very limited understanding of God,i am sure he will not count it as a sin on our part for not referring to Jesus/the holy spirit as God. Personally I'll rather play safe and and not risk blasphemy.
All parties on this discussion have done a swell job, i am learning a lot from you all

EXCELLENT!

Ihedinobi: I hate foolish, emotional and directionless arguments, and you appear determined to deal in them. But I'll proceed and extract from all that...(don't know what to call it, for the life of me)...some clear definition as to your stand.

- You do not accept equality between Jesus and the Father, and you seem to be saying by that that Jesus is not God.

- You appear to agree with truthislight that the Holy Spirit is also not God, so you reject a three-person God.

These two things could be broken down into the same positions I extracted for truthislight from his own post, lest intellectual laziness prevents you from looking up those positions and dealing with the difficulties in an orderly manner, I'll proceed to lay out for you what I perceive your positions to be and I ask you to address the difficulties associated with them. There really is no sense in all the haranguing. Just either accept the positions as rightly describing yours or modify them to suit what you think yours are and address the difficulties associated. Where you modify them, I will edit the difficulties if necessary so that you can go on to address them.

I perceive your positions to be

- that there is only one person who is God

- that that person is not Jesus

- that that person is not the Holy Spirit

- that the Trinity is not Biblical.

Here are the questions,

- How is God Love if He is only One Person? How did He express His Nature of Love before He created anything?

- Why did God create at all?

- How does Jesus's sacrifice save anyone if He was not God?

- How do the Scriptures show that the Holy Spirit is not God?

I am hoping against hope that you'll lay off the beer for a moment or two and actually blow us away with your answers.

- How is God Love if He is only One Person? How did He express His Nature of Love before He created anything?
Love is inner quality and an individual can possess and display it. You can express love to yourself and others. Even when alone, you can express love to yourself.
Remember the saying: 'love your neighbor as you love yourself'

God loved himself even before we were created. He is described in the Bible as a happy God. He is not selfish with His love. Out of love he created us. The greatest display of his love is when he sent his only begotten son to come and die for sinful humans.

- Why did God create at all?
He created us because he loved us. He wanted you to share the joy of life like him. Think about the things he put in place on earth for you and how wonderfully you were made. This explains partly why it pains him greatly when the ones he created out of love disobey or insult him.

He never intended for any of us to suffer, grow old, hunger, feel pain, get sick and die. All these odd things happen now because our first human father/Adam disobeyed God.
To make sure the purpose for which we were created is realized, out of His love, he sent his only begotten son, the last Adam to come and undo what the first Adam did.

Jesus' death restored the hope of benefiting from God's original purpose for man whom he created out of love and best intention.


- How does Jesus's sacrifice save anyone if He was not God?

Jesus sacrifice was a ransom that needed to be paid to buy back what the first Adam sold out, namely, perfection and prospect of everlasting life.

The first Adam was perfect before he sinned and lost perfection and eternal life, to balance the scale of justice, a perfect man was also needed to correspondingly ransom man from sin and death and thus repair our damaged relationship with the Almighty. This would reconcile us again to the Almighty and put us again in line for everlasting life.

Recall that the first Adam was not the Almighty God, but a perfect man, so the ransom by another perfect man, the last Adam, was just enough to balance the scale of justice. That is why the ransom provided by Jesus can also be described as "A corresponding ransom". Sending His perfect son was enough for the ransom.

Again, when a ransom is paid, someone else must be there to receive the ransom price. That is why after the death and resurrection of Jesus, he went first to heaven to
present himself to his father, the Almighty God.

- How do the Scriptures show that the Holy Spirit is not God?

The scriptures show that the Holy Spirit is not God by never referring to it as God.

Though it is personified just like many other things in the Biblie, it impersonal ussage on several occasions in the Bible shows it is not a person.

The holy spirit lacks personal identity. It is virtually the only nameless 'God'/'person' in the universe.

Mr_Anony: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God [/b]moved upon the face of the waters. [/i]Genesis 1:1-2

[i]In the beginning was the [b]Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made John 1:1-3

The two passages clearly show the Father, the Word and the Spirit existing at the very beginning of existence uncreated. I hope I have satisfied you sir.

The expression: 'the spirit of God', is self-explanatory. It is a possession, something that someone has. It emanates from God himself to accomplish his will.

What you have is not you. You use what belongs to you to accomplish your will.

Satan also uses his spirit to accomplish his will.

If the spirit of God is a person or God as you claim, can we also say: 'the spirit of the spirit of God'?

bamto: The concept of trinity is a mystery that possibly cannot be fully unearthed using human language. Jesus, by his teachings, did not mince word as to the positions and roles of the triune God. Its central aim is to underscore the hierarchical order in heaven inspite of their equality- an example unto christian homes and the church. As regards the intricacies of trinity, I do not have full understanding. Jesus is said to be sitting at the right hand of the father (suggesting two personalities) yet God is said to be one. The best illustration is that of water that manifests as ice, water or steam. God perhaps manifest sometimes as 3 separately or at the same time even though he is 1. In all, He is Omnipotent and Omniscient. When we know everything about him, he ceases to be God.

When he manifested as a son and died for three days, was the world without a God in those three days?

Trinity is mysterious because it's pagan.

Would you make yourself or your true form of existence mysterious to your children?

Knowing who the Almighty God is, is very fundamental to our worship and Satan knows this fact.

He knows if our worship is directed to someone else other than the Almighty, our worship will be in vain.

Sadly, he has gotten many through trinity.

Mr_Anony: And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one [/i]1John 5:8 KJV

Notice your clever wordplay? Clearly, verse 7 and verse 8 are not saying the same thing.

I'll give you another verse to chew on:

[i]For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6

I hope you do realize that Isaiah was prophesying about Jesus Christ's coming. I have highlighted some interesting titles this child has.

.........maybe it is the evil latin vulgate at work again

God's purpose was for man to live forever.
Through the sin of the first Adam(our first earthly father), the prospect of living forever was thwarted, but through the second or last Adam(Jesus Christ), that hope of Iiving forever became restored. He did this when he died for all so that through him all obedient servants of God might have everlasting life.

The first father, Adam sold us to sin and death, but the last Adam (Jesus) bought us from sin and death and restored our hope of living forever.

It is based on the above role by Jesus that Isaiah prophetically called him, 'everlasting father'. Again, where is the first Adam/father? He died. Where is the last Adam? He is still alive and will live everlastingly.

Does the above role by Jesus make him equals to his father? No! Isaiah proves this by prophetically calling Jesus, 'Mighty God', and not 'ALMIGHTY God', a title that exclusively belongs to Jesus' father, Yahweh.

OLAADEGBU: 1 x 1 x 1 = 1

Therefore,

Father x Son x Holy Spirit = God. Simples

Please make sure no kid sees the above.

Some of them in primary or secondary school would know that Father x Son x Holy Spirit = Father x Son x Holy Spirit ...............and not = God

This is the most illogical way of explaining the concept of 3Gods in 1 I have ever seeing by a trinitarian.

OLAADEGBU: Who except you doesn't know that apples are different from oranges? Multiplication is different from addition in case you are unaware. If you can't understand simple logic which is elementary how then would you understand complicated maths?

I am happy you are back to your senses. You cannot add or multiply dissimilar objects ( even if they are of the same family like Gods, Fruits or Alphabets) and get a unit result. I knew you will 'fumble over' the mathematical expressions. If you show them to any capable mathematician he will tell you I am correct.

Father * Son * Holy Spirit = Father * Son * Holy Spirit........... not = 1...............The Father is different from son and holy spirit (they are dissimilar)

Note: I use * as multiplication sign and not exponential.

OLAADEGBU: Is it not mathematically correct? If it is then Romans 1:20 gives you no excuse to plead ignorance to the divine nature of the Godhead.

It is not mathematically correct. Consider the following:

1apple * 1Orange * 1mango = 1apple * 1Orange * 1mango.................................not = 1 fruit

1apple + 1Orange + 1mango = 1apple + 1Orange + 1mango...............................not = 1 fruit

X * Y * Z = X * Y * Z ......................................................................................not = 1 alphabet
X + Y + Z = X + Y + Z ....................................................................................not = 1 alphabet

Similarly,

1 Father * 1 son * 1 Holy Spirit = 1 Father * 1 Son * 1 Holy Spirit .........................not = 1 God

1 Father +1 son + 1 Holy Spirit = 1 Father + 1 son + 1 Holy Spirit .........................not = 1 God

I challenge you to fault any of the above mathematical expressions.

Note: Your failure or inability to fault any of them will simply mean you are mathematically wrong in your expression of 3 Gods as 1

tomakint: I don't seems to get it why this doctrine has generated so much confusion even in Christendom! My take has always been God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are three distinct (separate) Supernatural Beings United in Agreement of purpose, vision, spirit and the likes and not what I hear around that they are actually three entity in one unified body all in the name of - its a MYSTERY! when the BIBLE clearly states the supremacy of God the Father over and above all as attested to by our LORD JESUS CHRIST! Please what is your take on this?

Your take on "TRINITY" is one of the reasons for the "Furore"

The highlighted expression shows you believe in three Gods.

However, I agree with you that God, our heavenly father, is greater than his son, Jesus Christ. The bible references you made in your subsequent post explicitly support that.

Can you please do the same regarding the [b]holy spirit [/b]by referring me to where it is called "God" in the bible?

Area_boy: I've just copied from that thread and put it here for ease.

"Two questions posed to me. I'll obviously take the easy one on first.

When are we gona find this life?. Well, we only just discovered that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around less than 400years ago. As science progresses, more answers will come.

Now to the big one about evolution. Since you have refused to go read.

Unicellular organisms doesn't have to jump into a multicellular one over night to prove evolution. A series of minor alterations occur over time as the system acquires new "attributes" and "traits" that eventually leads to a multicellular one. This can be thousands of years or more.

While we battle about this seemingly difficult question to grasp, we might as well go into a much simpler one that certainly proves Modern Human beings having a common ancestor with our ape cousins.


Now, from the fossil records and close examination of bone structure of our ancestors, Science was able to make a link between us and the great apes. However, less than twenty years ago this fact was proven beyond all reasonable doubt by Genetics.


Now we know that the genetic codes of great apes as well as humans have been sampled properly and viewed under different light. So, if we have a common ancestor with these apes, our DNA structure should confirm that by resembling that of the modern apes (chimps, gorilla and orangutan)

Under close examination, the Human Genome differs from these apes with two less chromosomes giving us 46. Instead of the 48 chromosomes other apes have (23 from each parent for humans and 24 for each parent for apes). This goes against everything evolution has suggested and threatens to discount the idea

We cant simply say we lost two as that wont make any sense since all information for us are pre-registered in there. So the explanation of this apparent loss of TWO chromosomes must be in the human genome somewhere.

Observe the picture below. To the left is a sample of what one chromosome looks like (a representation). with the blue markers called telomere (as it is always found at the tail end of the chromosome) and the red markers centromere (cos its always found at the centre of the chromosome).

Since we only have 23 pairs of chromosome, then an explanation must be in there somewhere why we seemingly "lost" a pair or even why the apes "gained" a pair. Given that the three apes all have 48 each and only us have 46 it is wise to start the search in us (the odd one out)

https://img835.imageshack.us/img835/7807/chromosomesketch.jpg

You know what? the second picture on the right basically is the smoking gun!!! Human chromosome number 2 clearly shows telomere and centromere where they do not belong! correctly suggesting a FUSION of two chromosomes into one. This is UNIQUE to our lineage. hence giving us one less pair and making us significantly different from our cousins.

Happily concluding the fact that is EVOLUTION. We evolved from something that used to look like apes and took a different path and here we are today.



If you don't understand the maths, check here

p1....p2 ( p1,p2 is simply Parent 1 and parent 2)
24....24 ( take two each )
2....2 ( what have we got left?)
22....22 (is all we got left)

the 4 (2, 2) we have above will now fuse their neigbour to become 2 (1, 1)
1....1 (after fusion)
22....22 ( add back the 22)

23....23 ( modern Human)


Im not even a biologist or a genetic scientist and I understand this its so simple and flawless it almost wants to make me say the "work of god" LOL




If you still have doubts about evolution, this time TRY and read "Ring Species". Simple display of evolution in todays world"

Evolutionists assume that chromosome numbers are an indication of an evolutionary relationship between ape and man. If this logic were valid, then man would have a much closer relative than the chimpanzee.

Stable Antelope and Reeve's muntjac have 46 chromosomes like human.

Beaver, Dear mouse, Gorilla, Hare, Orangutan, Potato and Tobacco have 48 chromosomes like Chimpanzee.

The above shows that the concept of genetic similarity as regards the number of chromosomes constitutes no evidence for the theory of evolution.

Genetic similarities among living things are actually evidence for creation rather than for evolution. It is perfectly natural for the bodies of humans and other living things to exhibit molecular similarities, because all living things are made up of the same molecules, use the same water and atmosphere, and consume foods made up of the same molecules. Naturally, their metabolisms—and thus, their genetic structures—will tend to resemble one another. However, this is no evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.

All the buildings in the world are constructed from similar materials—bricks, metals, woods, cement, and so forth. But this does not imply that these buildings evolved from one another. They were built independently, using common materials. The same principle applies to living things.

Apart from the superficial similarity between human beings and apes, there is no question of their being closer to each other than to other animals. In terms of ability, a bee producing honeycombs that are geometrical miracles, or a spider weaving a web that is a marvel of engineering, are much closer to man than are apes. In some respects, one can even say that these invertebrates are superior to apes.

Yet the huge gulf between human beings and apes is too vast to be bridged with evolutionist claims and myths. Apes are animals and, in terms of consciousness, are no different to horses or dogs. Human beings, on the other hand, are conscious, possess free will and are capable of thought, speech, reasoning, decision-making and judgment.

No physical similarity can bridge this widest gulf between humans and other living things.

Area_boy: your question sounds like, why is a dog a dog and a wolf a wolf. i'm sure if you look deep down in the behaviour of these animals you'll find what you are looking for

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, no one is saying evolution has stopped. We just happen to meet it at this level. who knows what will happen a hundred thousand years from now?

Your response sounds like: I don't know, let us wait and see if it will happen again in the future.

Evil Brain: This is actually a nonsense question. I'll explain why later on.

But first, let me just point out that there are plenty of examples of intermediate species, both living and in the fossil record. And just as the vast majority of species that have ever existed are now extinct, the majority of intermediate species are also extinct. There are a few nice ones that are still alive though.

My favourite example is sea sponges which are intermediate between protozoans and animals; as well as between unicellular and multicellular organisms. This is probably the biggest evolutionary milestone of all time, far more significant than the difference between humans and chimpanzees. We also have platypi which have features of both mammals and reptiles. I could probably come up with 5 or 6 more off the top of my head. And of course, if we were to include extinct species then there are hundreds of good examples.

Which brings me to why your question is nonsense. Let me ask you, what is an intermediate species? And if I was to point you towards a living, newly discovered half man, half chimp; whats to stop you from demanding for a three-quarters man, one-quarter chimp? No matter how complete the fossil record is, there will always be "missing" intermediate forms. The only way to avoid this would be to dig up every single living thing that has ever existed including all your dead grandparents which is obviously impossible.

In any case, chimpanzees/bonobos are technically intermediate between humans and gorillas given that they share many characteristics with both. Lizards are intermediate between humans and frogs. Amoebas are intermediate between humans and archeobacteria.

Mr "sense maker", I have seen the sense you are making. Thump up! Please make more sense here:

Today, Gorillas (ancestral group) and Chimpanzees (intermediate group b/w Gorilla & man) are still in existence, what stops gorillas from evolving to chimpanzees and chimpanzees from evolving to humans (derived descendant group)?

Again, what prevents frogs (ancestral group ) from evolving to lizards (intermediate group b/w frogs & man) and lizards from evolving to humans (derived descendant group)?

Deep down within you or in your mind's eyes can you see any of these evolutionary transitions taking place today or in the future?

ghostofsparta: Imagine such a mumu response ^^

Okay let me ask you ode....

What purpose do those millions of fossils unearthed serve for us? Is it to think they are just there for the sake of been there which would b a religionists' responde, or for curious minded people to study them under Archaeology, Anthropology, Palaeontology, Evolution and Genetics in order to know how they got there, why they have such structures. Have you heard about carbon dating before?



My candid question to you and all religionists and their ignorant defenders is..........if those of you smart enough to at least accept the fact that truly do these fossils exists including the ones of Dinosaurs...then who/what put them there in wherever they are been excavated today? Is it Jeovah/Allah that dropped them there out of various mistake in his experiment with creation?

Try to ruminate on my question and I demand an answer.

Read through my question and your comment and tell me whose response is mumu.


Is the question beyond you?

Area_boy: You see, that's the problem. Evolution never said we evolved from apes. All it says is we have a COMMON ancestor with apes. which means we branched off to what we are today and they branched off to what they are. I did make a detailed post about chromosome fusion that makes us slightly different from apes. This proves beyond all reasonable doubt where we came from.

There are so many transitional species. when you pile them up, you can see the tree line of how gradual minute changes made all the difference over hundred of thousands of years

No biologist has actually seen the origin by evolution of a major group of organisms. Living things on earth today are not seen to be evolving into something else. Instead, they are all complete in form and distinct from other types. Some modern geneticists have observed that the living world is not a single array . . . connected by unbroken series of intergrades. Charles Darwin conceded that "the distinctness of specific living forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.

Millions of bones and other evidence of past life have been unearthed by scientists. If evolution were a fact, surely in all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind of living thing evolving into another kind.

This failure of the fossil evidence to support gradual evolution has disturbed many evolutionists. In The New Evolutionary Timetable, Steven Stanley spoke of "the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another." He said: "The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution]."

however, since you have denied that ape is your ancestor I have modified my question to suit your postulation.

In Darwin's evolutionary tree of life, who is your closest ancestor and where are the intermediate forms of life between you and your ancestor?

Evil Brain: You've completely misunderstood the theory of evolution. Apes are not inferior to humans. They are extremely well adapted to their natural environment: dense jungle. They can move quickly from tree to tree, are very fast on the ground over short distances, and can eat coarse, uncooked food. Humans on the other hand, are adapted to living on flat plains and most wouldn't last a week in the bush were chimanzees thrive. Don't forget that chimps have been evolving for just as long as people.

In evolution, no species is better or more advanced by any other. Evolution has no aim or intention to make living things more advanced. If evolution leads to more complexity, it's only because that complexity makes the individual organisms more likely to survive. Evolution could just as easily do the opposite if there was a survival benefit (that is probably where viruses came from).

You need to read more about evolution from real scientists if you want to really understand it. You can't learn evolution from creationists because they either don't get it, or they deliberately twist the theory tofavour their own weak arguments.

And you've completely misunderstood my question. I know you were swerved off the point by the highlighted portions and comments made by Area boy. As usual he chosed a comfort zone and you toed his path.

If apes could survive, what happened to intermediate forms of life or "beasts" between you and apes? Answer the question with the theory of evolution in mind.
If you are rather an adherent to the theory of "punctuated equilibrium," we can still talk on that too.

Area_boy: wrong!


Let me put you in a cage with a chimp or a gorilla and we'll see who is inferior.

They only developed down another line. We gained brains, they gained strength. Pros and cons can be debated openly anytime

Area boy, it appears you don,t understand the question. Now look at it in other words.

For gradual transitions from one major group to another there must be intermediate forms of life. For example, apes did not jump suddenly and become humans. Apes are still in existence and you are alive, where are the intermediate beasts/forms of life between you and apes? Going by evolutionary theory, the intermediate beasts or forms of life should be more capable of surviving than the apes.

MacDaddy01: So, the majority of scientists are mumus? Go back to your biology class...human are from the same family as apes.


Seriously, do you go to a doctor or pastor to treat your disease?

Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the "inferior" ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution?

Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no "ape-men." Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced links between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?


Why should we go to doctor for disease treatment and not wait to be treated by "chance"?
Doctors are mere intelligent beings, I would rather prefer to be treated by "chance"

Ubenedictus: this is the worst thing i have ever heard, you are saying Jesus is and arch ange[/b]l, where did you hear that! Which bible says so?

The Bible contains five references to the mighty spirit creature Michael. Three occurrences are in the book of Daniel.

At Daniel 10:13, 21, we read that a dispatched angel is rescued by Michael, who is called "one of the foremost princes" and "the prince of you people."

At Daniel 12:1, we learn that in the time of the end, "Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people."

A further mention of Michael occurs at Revelation 12:7-9, which describes "Michael and his angels" as fighting a vital war that results in the ousting of Satan the Devil and his wicked angels from heaven. [b]No other angel is portrayed as having such great power and authority over God's enemies.

Notice that in each of the above-mentioned cases, Michael is portrayed as a warrior angel battling for and protecting God's people, even confronting Jehovah's greatest enemy, Satan.

Jude verse 9 calls Michael "the archangel." The prefix "arch" means "principal" or "chief," and the word "archangel" is never used in the plural form in the Bible.

The only other verse in which an archangel is mentioned is at 1 Thessalonians 4:16, where Paul describes the resurrected Jesus, saying: "The Lord (Jesus) himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet." So Jesus Christ himself is here identified as the archangel, or chief angel.

Both names—Michael (meaning "Who Is Like God?" and Jesus (meaning "Yahweh Is Salvation"—focus attention on his role as the leading advocate of God's sovereignty. Philippians 2:9 states: "God exalted him (the glorified Jesus) to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name."

Aside from the Creator himself, only one faithful person is spoken of as having angels under subjection—namely, Jesus Christ.(Matthew 13:41; 16:27; 24:31) The apostle Paul made specific mention of "the Lord Jesus" and "his powerful angels." (2 Thessalonians 1:7) And Peter described the resurrected Jesus by saying: "He is at God's right hand, for he went his way to heaven; and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him."—1 Peter 3:22.

Ubenedictus: yes mary is the mother of god d son and 'spouse' of the holy spirit, but never have the catholic church ever said 'mary is d third person of the trinity. Please stop lying 'spouse' and 'third person' are not d same thing.

In what sense is Mary the "spouse" of the holy spirit? The scripture has never said so, can you please expatiate on it?