₦airaland Forum

^^^
Am trying to help you see that the "order" you talked about still valid. Heaven was created first before earth. What heaven then are we talking about in context or what heaven is this account talking about? Certainly not the abode place of God, if it is the abode place of God.....why don't we have the record here in Genesis then? I am trying to help you see that the heaven being referred to in this context is the heaven made in verse 6-8 and later the earth. It is this heaven that was later "filled" with the galaxies and light bearers. When you take the "heaven" to mean the abode place of God, you are mistaken and it is out of context. How can an account claim to write about the heaven an abode place of God and never say anything about it? It will therefore mean, that is NOT what it's talking about. Please read other translations and possibly, commentaries to see which heaven Genesis 1:1 is talking about. That is why I said, the best translation will be the one with -s, plural.

^^^
I guess you and this brother (okeyxyz) are saying the same thing to our brother Frosbel. This brother said on the other thread and I kind of agree with his view and yours.

okeyxyz: Clearly the new-testament talks about three distinct entities(Let's not call them persons now. I guess that's the contention), God the Father, who we all agree is not Jesus, then jesus himself who is "the son", then there is the Holy Spirit which(whom??) jesus categorically says would come after himself and by whose power and guidiance the apostles claim to be led and perform miracles. So we have The Father, Jesus and Holy-Spirit, each unique and different from the other. Why does @Frosbel & co try so hard to abolish the Holy-Spirit and cling only to Father & Son?

@ Frosbel, e be like say you don read/study too much and now confused . Abeg take am easy o.

TheShopKeeper: Very interesting topic and good contributions from everyone:

Can anyone please explain this verses of Matthew 28:18-20, where Jesus talked about the great commission:
18. And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
20. Teaching them to observe all things that i have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age, Amen.

Jesus mentioned, the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Why is it difficult for some christians to believe in the Trinity, although it wasn't specified anywhere in the bible.
Bible scholars please help.
Thanks.

I tell you the truth, you are not far from the kingdom of God. Trinity is not difficult at all. Very simple when you comprehend it. It is not explicitly mentioned as a word in the bible. It's just a terminology given by men just to understand the concept. That all. It's not a false teaching!

frosbel: You have totally wiped the floor with my brain, I am even more perplexed than at the start of our discussion

My dear brother, all you have to do is cool down.....relax and come, let us reason together saith the Lord. I understand churches have confused many with how they teach trinity but it will be made plain by the reasoning the scripture and being open minded. Context is everything about scripture breakdown.

@ Frosbel,

Do you want me to use the same scriptures you have being using to prove to you that the Holy Spirit is distinct from God the father? So you can understand? It took me many months with studying God's word with the help of the Holy Spirit to stay on this subject. I can show it to you with illusration that a Spirit cannot have spirit, if so, then the Holy Spirit is distinct and cannot be taken as the S/spirit of God should God have a bodily form.

frosbel: Drop my view and tow the church line ?

No Sir.

Only when I am convinced otherwise , and we are a million miles apart at the moment.

You totally confused me.

Oga mi, confused you ke! You be my boss for bible oo. How I go confuse my boss

I am trying to "reason" scripture with you.....I am trying to make you see that fact that, Spirit CANNOT have another spirit/Spirit (be it uppercase or lowercase -S). If Spirit cannot have spirit, it will therefore mean Holy Spirit is distinct from God who Jesus himself calls "Spirit". If Spirit cannot have spirit, the simple logic/reasoning here is that Holy Spirit is NOT God's spirit as in when God have a BODILY FORM but when you take God to have a BODILY form, then you will make the words of christ lies as per John 4:24 and then conclude that the Holy Spirit is not distinct from God but it's God's spirit.

Do you understand

@ Frosbel,

"The simple truth is that God is a real person, in bodily form; and the Holy Spirit is truly the Spirit of God, a divine influence proceeding from the Father and also from the Son, as their power, energy, etc...The Bible never in any case calls the Holy Spirit a person, though it frequently does both the Father and Son" culled from your article up there.

Nobody is saying you should not have your own view about a church doctrine and traditions BUT when you are reasoning with other brethren, then you have to reason with their own view and balance with your view. In the case when it seems others are right, all you have to do is drop your view....maybe your view wasn't balanced in the first place.

Now, on the above highlight/embolden is where the problem is coming from. To me, it's like you took this man's article and just swallowed it raw....probably because you want to refute church tradition and some heresy. Now, my question still goes: If God is a Spirit.......How then can God have BODILY FORM, does a spirit have bodily form? and How can a Spirit have a spirit/Spirit? This is the question you need to answer. But when you AGREE that God has a BODILY FORM like ours and that God is a person, then you can use "logic" to say/conclude that God has a spirit/Spirit, which is NOT distinct from God and it will mean that God can be seen......But the scriptures declares, no man has seen God (John 1:18; 1 John 4:12)

@ Frosbel,

Well....I thought when you open a thread, you are or want to be open to other believer's view but it appears you already have a pre-conceived and concluded thoughts. One thing I have come to understand is that, being an apologetics does not argue God's word. It only presents the evidence and allows scripture to scripture "reasoning" especially among fellow believers.

Again and the last time.....I don't have strength for argument my brother. I ask you question again:

God is Spirit (John 4:24)......that is a Spirit being

How can a Spirit (God) have a spirit IF the Spirit of God is NOT different from God (who is a Spirit)?

When you answer the above question, then you will understand Genesis 1:2.....I have spent more than half of my entire bible study life studying Genesis and also started a commentary on it. By the Grace of God, I can split the book Genesis into smallest particles for understanding using scriptures to explain scriptures.

^^^
If you are interpreting or translating the "Holy Spirit" as or to mean "God's spirit" (like a man having a spirit) how can a Spirit then have a spirit (for God is a Spirit)....if they are NOT distinct from one another?

frosbel: Is there ONE GOD as in ONE PERSON , or is there ONE GOD as in 3 distinct PERSONS ?

Please let us not argue, we can agree to disagree

My understanding is that, there is ONE GOD who is the father of all but the son is also called God and the Holy Spirit is also called God. The context tells the distinction. ~ You want scriptures ~

@ Frosbel,

I think you are the one making so much issue out of this Trinity stuff. I/Trinity doesn't mean we should worship 3 Gods, it simply calls Three distinct being "God" and recognizes the father as the father of all. Jesus said, you believe in God, believe also in me. When you said Peter believed in ONE God, not 3. That is correct but Peter also believed in Jesus Christ. This is not to mean Jesus is NOT God that is distinct from the Father. What's wrong in your son having your lastname e.g say Frosbel and you also bearing Frosbel as your lastname and the same lastname your father bears. God is not a name that belongs to one being: The father is called God in the bible, the son is called God and so is the Holy Spirit called God, then what is the problem with that?

plappville: I USED TO BELIEVE IT THEN WHEN I WASN'T FOND OF STUDYING MY BIBLE, NO ONE IS ABOVE MISTAKE;
THE GREATEST MISTAKE A CONVERT WILL DO IS TO KEEP ONLY TO THE SERMON AND NOT TAKE TIME TO STUDY THE TRUTH.

THE TRINITY DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

It doesn't have to make sense my sister. With God, there is he that scatters BUT increase. When I saw this scriptures, it doesn't make sense to me. And there is he that withholds but tends to poverty. Lord! how does this make any sense? If I scatter, I increase, meaning if I minus (that is with God or in God's kind of maths or equation), I increase but if I add or withhold, I decrease.....it doesn't make any sense to me. Let us stop using "human sense" to explain things of the Spirit.

Yes, 1 + 1 + 1 we know is three but it is one in/as UNITY (as the case in/with the Godhead). This is where the case of unity came from, different in entity but one as/in Unity, just like a husband and a wife are two separate beings but one as unity.

Just my advice.

You don't have to believe in the TRINITY to be a Christian but there is nothing wrong with the teaching "Trinity". It's just the way it is being explained and/or taught. The word trinity does NOT occur in the bible. It is a terminology given to three beings that is called God, distinct from one another but still function as ONE in unity. Just like I was discussing in a thread and a friend of mine called heaven, the abode place of God "heaven 1.0". You see, that word is not in the bible but he only use it to "explain" his point for the purpose of understanding. The same way, trinity is NOT in the bible but a terminology adopted (I guess) to explain the inseparable unity of the Godhead because,

The father is called God plus other personal names.

Jesus is called God plus other personal names

The Holy Spirit is called God plus other personal names

frosbel: Okay , you are my friend, let me answer you

Only the Father is GOD. Father GOD has Heaven as his throne and reaches out to us through his Spirit which is really the Holy Spirit, self explanatory , since God is Holy.

examples :

Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." - Genesis 6:3

"This is what I covenanted with you when you came out of Egypt. And my Spirit remains among you. Do not fear.'" - Haggai 2:5


So the Holy Spirit is GOD because it is actually HIM, in other words the Father's Spirit or presence on a universal scale such as in the church or in the life of believers.


Jesus Christ is NOT GOD in the sense that he is NOT YAHWEH.


But he is the Lord of Lord and King of Kings who will rule the new Heaven and Earth after crushing all the present earthly kingdoms.

He is also the Alpha and Omega, the first born from the DEAD and our everlasting Redeemer.


In summary :

Is Jesus called God in the bible? Yes or NO = If you mean YAHWEH , then NO

Is the Holy Spirit called God in the bible? YES or NO = YES but only because he is GOD, i.e the Spirit of GOD

Okay, I do NOT mean Jesus being Yahweh. So will your answer about Jesus being called God (not Yahweh) be YES since you answered NO if I meant Yahweh?

Second, Are you "saying" or "suggesting" that the Holy Spirit is NOT different from the Father? I am NOT here to argue anyway because I do not have much strength for argument at this time BUT I want to show you a scripture that "suggest" that the Holy Spirit is not like "man having a spirit" but a separate being from God, the father because God is Spirit and a Spirit having a spirit is out of point, then it will mean that the Holy Spirit or Spirit of God (just different names terminologies) is separate from the God, the Father.

@ Frosbel, I hope you are not ignoring my question intentionally?

Goshen360: Is God, the father called God in the Bible? YES or NO

Is Jesus called God in the bible? Yes or NO

Is the Holy Spirit called God in the bible? YES or NO

Answers to these questions will end all this arguments. Thank you.

@ Frosbel, you haven't answered my question o.

Goshen360: I stopped attending to many thread here because it often leads to argument and I don't like going in circles.

My question to brother frosbel,

Is God, the father called God in the Bible? YES or NO

Is Jesus called God in the bible? Yes or NO

Is the Holy Spirit called God in the bible? YES or NO

Answers to these questions will end all this arguments. Thank you.

I stopped attending to many threads here because it often lead to argument and I don't like going in circles.

My question to frosbel and anti-trinity,

Is God, the father called God in the Bible? YES or NO

Is Jesus called God in the bible? Yes or NO

Is the Holy Spirit called God in the bible? YES or NO

Answers to these questions will end all this arguments about trinity or not trinity. Thank you.

I stopped attending to many thread here because it often leads to argument and I don't like going in circles.

My question to brother frosbel,

Is God, the father called God in the Bible? YES or NO

Is Jesus called God in the bible? Yes or NO

Is the Holy Spirit called God in the bible? YES or NO

Answers to these questions will end all this arguments. Thank you.

See as I dey here dey laugh in tongues.....

~ double post~

^^^

Okay bro danwo,

Let us be open minded here and I know you are as much as I am. One of the problem you are having is from translation of KJV which puts "heaven" of 1:1 in singular and I can understand it will mean "heaven 1.0" as you referred, for comprehension purpose.

Now, let us "assume" 1:1 actually refers to heaven 1.0, which it does NOT, and I will tell you why it does not later, here in this post. If you take it that 1:1 refers to heaven 1.0 and it is where God resides, it will mean that this creation account does NOT talk or given details of how that "heaven 1.0" was created. The point am trying to get across to you is that, you need to understand the "creative language" being used in Genesis creation account. How do I mean? Take for instance, v 6 is sequence to v 7 and v.6 is NOT to be taken that God already made firmament.

So, if we take 1:1 "heaven" as the abode place of God and 1:2 start to talk about the "earth", it therefore means we do not have the account of the creation of "heaven 1.0", abode of God in this creation account so the heaven that 1:1 is talking about is our own heaven (called the firmament and where the light bearers were fixed) which man can explore which is called so in v.8 and in v. 15, 17, this is what makes the heavenS, with -s the correct since this accounts talks about our own heaven and earth and NOT the abode place of God. In addition, we can as well say earth was created already in v.1 since you said heaven 1.0 was created in 1:1 BUT you will later read (in context) that the dry land was later called "earth". However, When you take 1:1 as an opening or introductory text in which its purpose is to mean that God is the creator of heaven[b]S[/b] (which we see physically see and man can explore, not the abode place of God) and earth, you will understand there is NO gap between v1 and v2.

If you take the heaven in 1:1 as singular and meant to be the abode place of God, then it will bring you out of context since the creation account doesn't talk about that heaven 1.0 in this creation account. I have had many years of same confusion with the KJV with the "heaven" in 1:1 without -s. When the opening phrase says, "In the beginning" (Heb, bereshith), it is the beginning of history of our material and physical world (our own heavens - in v 8, 14-17 and earth) BUT NOT beginning of God's activity (cf. Matt. 25:34; John 17:5,25; Eph. 1:4; Titus 1:2; II Tim. 1:9; I Pet. 1:19-20; Rev. 13:8 ). So, the error is when you take "heaven" as singular as in KJV while in NKJV is translated WITH -s. And even when it is taken without -s, and it means the heaven, abode place of God, it still doesn't PROVE the GAP theory of the earth in 1:1 and the description of the earth in 1:2 because God himself said He created the earth that with darkness in Job 38:9. You will notice the light wasn't created in 1:3 but the darkness was created. So if darkness was created, it cannot refer to judgment from Lucifer sin. Also, II Peter 3:5 doesn't say it is Lucifer's that flooded (watered) the earth but that the earth was formed out of water.

I have learnt that exercising apologetics is not to force one's interpretation unto others but to present the evidence beyond all contradictions. Let me stop here for now until you respond and we look at it again. In the end, I will share how the Gap theory distorts the Gospel God intended in the creation account for the NEW CREATION. You can also read and study 1:1-2 from many translation and commentary. I don't mind referring you a translation that explains verse by verse of the whole Bible from the Hebrew, Septuagint and the Greek into English.

^^^

Because we (Christians) are the salt of the world - one of the functions of salt is preservation. Matt. 5:13

To defend the faith is a way of fighting the good fight of faith and keeping it from corruption. II Tim. 4:7

musKeeto: Welcome back, JeSoul... I miss u but my miss no reach Goshen360 own o... Hope all is well...

Haaaaaaaaaaaa, Egbon! Ki le n so lenu yi? S'oro ni yen sha?

Je ne vous comprends plus

Great thread.......Stop believing with "in words" ONLY, believe in "action".

Glory to God our sister is back....please remember to submit your tithe to manmustwac and Goshen360 for standing in the gap oo. At least, manmustwac and me no go too vex because I perceive you don go make plenty money out there,lolz ......at least me n manmustwac go cool tension small with the tithe.

Anyway, we missed you go greatly. Welcome back.

danwo: ^^^
Before I properly respond to the above posting

please what does the below mean or better still re-phrase it

"and it didn't give account of the heaven from where our own "heavens/earth" was created FROM?"

What I meant was, you made reference to "Heaven 1.0". I "assume" you are referring to the heaven where God resides, unless you say otherwise. Now my question is, "some" translations have the "heaven" in Genesis 1:1 in singular (without -s), if that is taken; then it will mean it refers to the heaven where God resides BUT with the translations that puts in plural (Heaven[b]S[/b]), it will refer to our own heavens - where man can explore: our immediate sky called heaven and outer space, also called heaven. So from the word of God, we understand there are three kinds of heavens.

Now the question is, if this Genesis 1 account of creation ONLY gives account of our own heavenS/earth (our world or universe) and does NOT give account of the heaven where God resides (which I believe you refer to as heaven 1.0, except I wrongly misunderstood you or jump to conclusion).....FROM WHERE OUR OWN HEAVENS AND EARTH WAS CREATED FROM, how then did you come to conclusion that the heaven in Genesis 1:1 is referring without -s

He (Jesus) riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. John 13:4

So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? John 13:12

Yes, selfish people CANNOT serve their generation, their nation/country, their spouse etc. What are your priorities in life? To serve or to be served?

CrazyMan: Watching from the side lines


You just quoted your own post...why the sudden happiness this evening?

Yes.....Rejoice in the LORD and in the power of His might. Glory to God! I quoted myself to tell the "pagan" that I will repeat myself UNTIL he listens.....

Paul told Timothy to drink a little wine for the sake of his stomach? - What kind of wine and why do pray to have the stomach problem that timothy had

Jesus turned water into wine? - What kind of wine? Strong wine? You must be kidding. Get your bible and STUDY, not reading like newspaper.

Jesus had the communion with wine? What kind of wine and why don't you take strong wine to observe the communion? Mtcheww

You guys should stop lifting scriptures just to back up your worldliness. Drinking "Alcohol" is a sin but drinking wine (non-alcoholic) is not a sin......simple!

^^^^^^^^

Goshen360:

If ANY MAN be in Christ, he is a NEW CREATURE.....(you can complete the rest).

If ANY MAN be in Christ, he is a NEW CREATURE.....(you can complete the rest).