₦airaland Forum

syrup:
Okay, this is getting really serious and interesting, lol. However, I'd like to see those translations to save me the risk of my assuming it is so. I'm not aware that any such translations speak of the Body of Christ as being "shed" - rather, it was said to be "given" in the Gospels and "broken" in the Epistles (big difference). But I'd like to see yours.

@syrup
Here are a few translations:

“And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.”
(Douay-Rheims Bible)

“And after giving thanks He broke it and said, "This is my body which is about to be broken for you. Do this in memory of me."
(Weymouth New Testament Bible)

Here you see, the first translation added, “which shall be delivered for you.” This will lead the reader to think that Jesus was speaking about His betral by Judas, who sold or delivered Him for crucification on the cross.
The second translation added “which is about to be broken for you.” Leading the reader to think that Jesus was talking about His crucification on the cross, which was about to take place.

You see how meanings are added and lost in translations. You might want to buy at least 3 different versions of the Bible and compare each verse. (I did this when I was a pastor) You will amazed at what you will find. You will find some verses that say exactly opposite what the same verse says in another translation. I can give other verses if you want.

Now about the real significance of “the blood of Jesus.”

According to the gospel:
“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.”

Here was he talking about actualy drinking His blood? This is what lead catholics to come up with the idea of transubtantiation. They believe that one actualy  have to eat the flesh and blood of Jesus inorder to abide in Him, hence they turn bread in to the body of Jesus. I used to teach people this when I was a catholic. From the above verse you can tell that He was not talking about actually drinking blood niether was He talking about wine nor bread.  From the verse in red we can deduce what he meant from blood and flesh. The verse said “this is the Bread that came down from heaven” Did His body come down from heaven?
Just as you chew meat, swalow it and digest it, you shuold accept His words, examine it(Chew the meat), understand it(Digest it) and swallow it(implement it in your life. To drink His blood is live in His Truth. Just as blood circulates your physical body and nurishes it, so shall His Words(The Truth) circulate in the body of your spirit and nurish it. The human spirit perpertualy needs the flow of Truth to remain alive. The Truth is food for the the spirit, the spirit grows and matures only in the Truth, and as long as the spirit lives in the Truth, the spirit will live forever. And the this Truth which the spirit is dependant on is the blood of Jesus.This Truth which only comes from Divinity—(Jesus, God, and The Holy Spirit.) This is what is meant by the “blood of Jesus.”

My dear, I have to call it a day today. I have to study for my calculus test, and you are distracting me. If I fail my test you will be in trouble.(Just Kidding)
I wil post more after my test.

@syrup
LOL
According to the Scriptures, Christ once said:
"This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
In this Scripture quoted above, Christ did not include, "that will be shade on the Cross." HE simply stated, "which is for you." due to interpretation some translators have translated it to be, "This is My body, shade for you." And from this interpretation came the idea, "this is My body shade on the cross for you." You see how things get lost in translation?

According to the Gospel, Christ once said:
"because this is my blood of the new covenant that is being poured out for many people for the forgiveness of sins." Mathew 26:28
(New American bible)

Here He said "being poured out," which is tantamount to "which is given for you."

However in King James version, we see a different translation:
"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
Here we see the idea that erroneously lead people to think that He was referring to His blood that will be shade on the cross. But that is a different thing, He was referring to His words which He symbolized with the wine that He gave the apostles.
His words, or the Truth which was given for the forgiveness of many people, i.e. those that live according to His words.
By this He didn't mean His blood that will be shade on the cross.

Christ's crucification is a murder committed by manking as m-nwankwo had already pointed out. When Jesus spoke of His blood, He was speaking of His words, ie the Truth He brought.

But due to translation and misconception, the symbolism of this was lost.

If you take His blood to be literal, then when according to the gospel He said "eat and drink" He was telling them to actually eat Him and drink His physical blood? Is he telling men to be vampires?

@ricadelide
After you have read the Grail Message, you can then make you judgement. And base it only on what you read not what I or anyother person said.

Thanks and remain blessed

@ricadelide
Forgiven.
My dear brother, my Lord Jesus taught us to forgive in-order to be forgiven. Rest assured I have completely forgiven you and I never held malice for you in the first place. I didn't intend to put you in the offensive in my earlier post, but only wished to let you know:
1) If am wrong or if you don't agree with me don't bring The Grail Message into it.
2) Before you criticize the Book, read it and base your criticism on what you read not what others say. Maybe my opinion is not even in accord with the Grail Message.


@Seeklove
Thanks for your concern but , my dear brother, let the issue lie. Lets not let this deviate us from the topic of this post.


@syrup
Once again, I m humbled by your gracious manners
Thanks for all your posts in this thread. Please, my dear sister, lets not deviate from the topic at hand into jugding the Grail Message and ABD-RU-SHIN. I enjoy your conversations with m-nwankwo but I think bringing the issue of the validity of the Grail Message and Its writer will deviate us from the point of this thread. I see a situation that leads to animosity and personal attacks that is always frequent on this forum, and I don't want it in this thread.
I am still waiting for your reply to my last post. Or have I defeated you!!!(just kidding)

@m-nwankwo
As always, I impressed by your knowledge. But please lets return to the point of the thread.

@all
The Grail Message stands on It's own. Mine and m-nwankwo's views are just our perception/expereincing of the book. I advice anybody who wants to make an opinion of the book to read it himself rather than judging It based on mine and m-nwankwo's perception.

@syrup
According to the gospel writers, Jesus also said to His disciples "This is my blood, " when He handed them wine.  If we take this litral, then Jesus blood is actually wine and not human blood. You and I know that this is not so. Therefore the expresion "blood of Jesus" does not literally mean the blood that flows through His physical body. The expression, "blood of Jesus" is not the physical blood but the WILL OF GOD or the Divine Truth, which lies in the words of Jesus. God Himself is the Truth which is the same with His Words, Laws and Will. Since Jesus is a part of the God, Jesus is also the Truth and his real essence is the Truth. Therefore the Truth is to Jesus what blood is to the physical body of man. The physical body is made up of flesh and blood, while Jesus is made up of the Truth, which he brought and which is also is words.
When a prophet(a man) tells you the Truth from God. He is only giving what he received from God who is the Truth Himself. The prophet can only give as much as he can receive from the Truth, and therefore cannot give you the whole Truth. But in the case of Jesus it is different. Being from the Truth and being the Truth Himself, when Jesus tells you the Truth, He is giving you something that belongs to Him, something that He is or something that is a part of Him. This is like giving you His own blood.
The relationship between Jesus and Truth, is like the relationship between the physical body and blood. The blood makes the physical body, both are inseparable. Once the physical body is rid of blood it dies. The same thing is applicable with Jesus and the Truth. Jesus and the Truth are inseparable. Thefore the blood that was shed for the forgiveness of sins for many is the Truth which Jesus freely gave to mankind which will lead those that live in accordance with IT to forgiveness.
In the revelation, it says:
THESE ARE THEY WHICH COME OUT OF GREAT TRIBULATION, AND HAVE WASHED THEIR ROBES,AND MADE THEM WHITE IN THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB.
Here once again we see that the saved ones are those that have washed their robes with the blood of the lamb. This means: Those who have purified themselves with the words of Jesus, i.e those who lived according to wording of Jesus and made themselves clean by living it. (Made them white in the blood of the lamb.) You see that the blood is a metaphor for the words of Jesus. The fact that they washed their robes themselves tell use that we must purify ourselves form sin by living according to the words of Jesus. Not his physical blood.

ricadelide:
Hi @ feelgood,
I think you missed the main thrust of justcool's post, otherwise you wouldn't have agreed with him (at least IMO), him being a follower of the GM.
Perhaps you should look at his last paragraph; that is definitely another gospel (see Galatians).
Cheers.

@ricadelide
Thanks for your long posts, however I don't wish to reply to your points. The Truth speaks for itself, your posts and mine are there for anybody to read, and anybody who agrees with you after reading your posts is beyond my help. I leave everybody to chose what he/she wants to accept as Truth. In the end we will all answer for what we chose to believe.
That said, I only wish to reply to your advice to feelgood. You adviced him against agreeing with me just because I "being a follower of the GM."  This has already revealed your frame of mind and even if my post speak a very obvious Truth you will refuse to listen. Your enmity is against the "GM." Now I have questions for you:
1) What is the GM?
2) Have you read The Grail Message? (If by the "GM" you mean The Grail Message)
3) Why do you fight against the "GM"?
4) Why judge the "GM" based on my opinion?
In my post I did not mention the "GM" but I raised an issue to be discussed, Why can't we let facts speak against facts? Why must we make up our minds based on our bias for the source. Gold is Gold irrespective where it's gotten.
Also to clarify somethings for you: There is nothing like a follower of the Grail Message. The Grail Message speaks the TRUTH, and whoever follows IT follows the TRUTH. The Grail massage is not a religion neither did it bring any religion. Research on me and you will find out that I don't belong to any organization. I will give you a little hint on myself: born a catholic, I was trained to be a Rev. Father, after which I rebelled and became a bone again. I went as far as becoming a pastor untill God granted me to recognise the Truth in The Grail Message. You see why I don't want to go into scripture quoteing with you. You be suprized how much of it I know. 

@feelgood
Weigh and examine everything you hear with your God's given conscience. Do not let people coarse into, judging, hating and condemning what they don't understand. Please don't join the masses shouting "crucify HIM!" to Pilate.

@syrup
Thank you so much. I am also deeply humbled by your gracious manners.
May the Almighty grant that you find the Truth you seek.
Remain blessed

syrup:
Like I said, it would be thrilling to see.

Let me get it: a "day" could be = to a "thousand" years, which could possibly mean "millions of years"? I don't think Scripture plays such jigsaw puzzles and leaves us far between.

Assuming that a "day" is like a "thousand years" (I know it says so), then the "millions of years" (how many millions?) is forcing us to ask how many such "thousand-year-days" man was created! This is like simply saying, the million years is something analogous to -

Since 1 day may be = to 1,000 years, then
millions of years would be 'x' number of that time factor
- a million years is 1000 x "the 1000 years".

So, where do I find the million years in Scripture?

My dear syrup
I am not returning to the evolution/creation issue. I have said enough on that. However, I promised to go into details about the actual length of days mentioned in Genesis' creation.

First of all I assume you are well educated and can understand that words have different meanings depending on the context the word was used. Let us look for definition of the word day in the dictionary.

1 a: the time of light between one night and the next b: daylight 1 c: daytime
2: the period of rotation of a planet (as earth) or a moon on its axis
3: the mean solar day of 24 hours beginning at mean midnight
4: a specified day or date
5: a specified time or period : age <in grandfather's day> —often used in plural <the old days><the days of sailing ships>[font=Lucida Sans Unicode][/font]6: the conflict or contention of the day <played hard and won the day>
7: the time established by usage or law for work, school, or business
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/day)

From the definition 5 you see that in some context the word "day" could mean many days. For eample: Assuming that my grandfather lived 80 years. I can say, "things were cheap in my grandfathers day." In this context, day means 80 years because it denotes the length of my grandfathers life on earth. In another context, I could use the word "day" to mean 24 hour period.
It is left for the individual to deduce the context on which the word "day" was used in Genesis and the context on which it was used on other scriptural writings, i.e. "and a thousand days are as one."
Now it is easy to deduce that the word "day" in Genesis could not have been 24 hour period because day and night(24 hour period) was created along with everything during creation. You cannot say that it took six(24 hour period) days to create because the earthly time/day(24 hour period) did not exist before creation. I ask you a question: Did day(24 hour period) exist before creation. The answers no, since the earthly day(24 hour period) was created along with other things. So it logically cannot take earthly day(24 hour period) to create. It cannot take a length of time that does not exsist to create something. Therefore Genesis must have been refering to a different time-length and not the earthly time length.

Now let us look at the actual word use in Genesis( Remember that Genesis was not originally written in English) The Hebrew word "yom" was used. Let us look at the definition of the Hebrew word "yom."
Accordingo Hebrew scholars the word "yom" in the context used on Genesis refers to age, period, extended time, and forever. I leave you to do the research yourself.
Read this article by Rodney Whitfield PHD:
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yom_with_number.pdf
Also read this:
http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm

Therefore if the word "yom" is used in the context to mean an extended period which could be thousands or millions of earth years.

I used the scripture (A thousand years are as one) to show you that earthly time is different from spiritual time. Now find out the context in which each word "Day" and "a thusand years" are used.
You Will see that it can add up to millions of years.

@syrup
I will reply your post one more time, just to clear some misconceptions that might have arisen from my last post. However, I don't wish to go round and round on this issue. If you have made up your mind to see the issue the way you do, then I can't change your mind.

syrup:
Which brings us back to the question of what is "creation"? Was man "created" as man; or did he "evolve" [pun- 'change from an already existing specie to another']? To speak of a "change" from one generation to another presupposes that man (for example) already existed before that change, no?

The fact that man evolved does not contradict the fact that man was created! I was not born a 30 years old man, I was born a baby which evolved over time into a 30 years old man. The fact that I evolved does not contradict the fact that I was born. (I hope you understand this analogy)
Our physical bodies evolved, after which our spirits incarnated into the evolved bodies. Only from the period of incarnation did we become humans(man), prior to that was just animals. I repeat myself: Evolution is the natural process through which our bodies came into being.
Most scientists agree that man is not just the physical body. If this is the case then evolution does not deal with man in man's entirety. It deals only with a part of man, i.e. the physical bodies.

syrup:
A change in "specie" is not to be mistaken for the origin of an organism. Evolution points to the origin of species; creation seeks to account for the origin (or, "the coming into existence" of living matter. One looks at change over time; the other looks at the very origin of matter.

Here you proved me right! In the above post you clearly pointed out the difference--One looks at change over time; the other looks at the very origin of matter-- If you agree with this, then why do you think that they contradict each other. Evolution deals with change over time, and creation deals with the coming into existence of living matter(like you said) Now show me where the contradiction lies.

syrup:
Where they do not connect in the way you proposed (crevolution - creation by evolution) is on the question of where the first cell came from. This may be argued out back and forth; but I'm particularly referring to this idea you offered earlier:

That is what is really disturbing, because it raises more questions than answered. Let me outline a few:

(a) "I think evolution proves the fact that out of the dust of the earth God made man, i.e the physical body" - on the contrary, evolution does not seek to "prove" God's creation of man.

I am not sure that you read my posts very well! I said, " I think"at the beginning of that statement, meaning that it is my opinion. i.e it is my conclusion from looking at both theories. I never said that evolution seeks to prove God's creation of man. That is entirely your's and not mine. Please read my words carefully. I started with "I think."

syrup:
(b) "Our physical body evolved on this earth through the natural process of evolution" - that is "fitting" the idea into a misreading of Scripture, and it is far removed from plain statements. On the contrary, the creation of man was not a question of physical bodies "evolving" from dust.

Here I never said that the scriptures said exactly that "our physical body evolved on this earth through the natural process of evolution." What I said was my conclusion from reading Genesis and the theory of evolution. Different scriptures mean different things to different peoples. The scriptures were written metaphorically, and in a pictorial language, it is left to the reader to deduce the meaning. I kept saying that the scriptures tells the story from a spiritual perspective. The scriptures said: "that out of the dust of the earth, God made man and gave man the breath of live." This is not a scientific statement, it is a pictorial rendering of a an event, given from a spiritual perspective. It is left to the individual to deduce what it means. I have told you my own deduction of it, you can only accept deduction or leave it.

syrup:
(c) "evolved on this earth through the natural process of evolution" - this "process" being natural places an asterix on "divine"  cause (creation). Besides, if (as you earlier offered) evolution is "change. .  from one generation to the next", it does not say the same thing as creation (I fail to see the "millions of years" tranformation from zygote to Adam in Scripture).

The fact that the process is natural does not contradict the fact that God made it. All natural processes and even nature itself was set in-place by God. It does not place an asterix on "the divine" The fact that some people choose not see the hand of God in natural processes does not mean that nature is no a process set in-place by God. Once again this is entirely their conclusion, the scriptures never said that God does not use natural processes. 
Returning back to the scriptures, it reads, "out of the dust of the earth, God made man." It didn't say how and through what process God made man. It only tell us that man's body was made from the dust of the earth. It is left for the individual to deduce wheather this "making out of the dust of the earth" was done by actual molding or by a natural process called evolution.

syrup:
(d) "After the evolution of the physical body which took millions of years" - quite to the contrary, there is no faint hint in Scripture of this, which is worrying enough.

You don't see the faint of it in the scriptures, but I do. I don't want to go into details of the scripture here but I can do that later if you want.However, I give you a hint: The scriptures said, "And a thousand years are as one" My understanding of this is that earthly time and spiritual time are different. A day on paradise(spiritual place) is like a thousand years on earth. The writer of Genesis was seeing from the spiritual perspective, therefore he saw what might have taken millions of years on earth in only six spiritual days. What you see in the Scriptures is only a reflection of your inner(spiritual) maturity. People see different things in the scripture and interpret them differently, it is left for you to decide which interpretation you accept.

syrup:
These are a few issues that are disconnected in your proposal of the "crevolution' postulation.

I never used the word "crevoultion." Infact I don't even know what it means, so please don't attribute it to me. Show me where I used it in any of my posts.

syrup:
It is illogical to assume a creation by evolution. At best, it's a compromise - but even so, it is illogical.

It is logical to you. Everybody is entitled to his/her own opinion.

syrup:
You'd be surprised to see the "scientific books" that state the opposite - that is what is being taught in some science classes. Again, personal preferences (bias) is a reality in some classes today.

Please show me just one scientifc book or discoervry based on scientif principles and discoveries which say that evolution has discredicted the existence of God or creation. All these cretion/evolution wars are mostly poeple drawing personal conclutions from what the scientits have discovered. However science itself cannot tell that there is no God or that there is a God based on scientific discoveris. Ar best, they will say that God has not been discovered scientificaly which does not mean that God does not exsist.

syrup:
Quotes with references would be quite helpful.

Here are 12 quotes from Albert Eainstain comfirming his unshakable belief in the exsistence of God. Please click on the following:
  http://www.tricity.wsu.edu/~dcarrell/einstein/quotesaboutgod.htm

syrup:
Wrong. Your postulation was a question of physical bodies evolving from dust into zygote over millions of years. How you came about this would be thrilling to see.

Please show me where I said that physical bodies evolve from[b] dust into zygote.[/b]
I don't know if you read my posts at all, I don't know from where you get the things that you atribute to me. Dont rearenge my words and attribut them to me. If you are refering to my words, just present them exactly the way I wrote them.

syrup:
Em, I don't know if there is a theory of zygotes springing from dust.

These are your words, not mine. I don't know where you come up with such things and try to attribute them to me.

syrup:
As to the "meaning, purpose, reason, significance", I only asked when the last time it was that you heard passionate evolutionists argue for those values? I haven't read your answers - just a rephrasing of what I asked! This is already interesting!

My dear, evlutionists are entitlled to their personal opinions. I am only concerened on findings from scientific researches. Sicence has not found any evidence that the universe has no purpose, neither has science found otherwise. What people say are their opinions which they cannot atribut to science itself. However I have given a link where you will find one of the greatet scientist ever lived (Albert Eainstain) declear his belieif in God and Divine plan.

"I cannot believe that God would choose to play dice with the universe." or sometimes quoted as "God does not play dice with the universe." (Albert Einstein)

Poeple make so much noise about chance(no meaning, irrational universe, etc) but they don't know that this concept of the universe being run by chance is very unscientific. Science believes that the universe operates in well established laws which are unchangable, uniform, and inflexsible.

syrup:
Simply, it is an uphill task to postulate a theory of creation by evolution. They are not to be confused or mixed up or blended somewhere. Evolution looks at "changes" in species; creation points to the "coming into being" of life and matter - two different things.

Here you are finally repeating what I already said. I have said many times in this thread that evolution and creation are two sides of the same coin. I gave you an anlogy of the guy who went to his girlfriends house to break up with her. I kept saying that evolution deals only with the physicaln while creation deals with the spiritual perspective, thus two different perspectives. Please take time and reread my posts on this thread.

syrup:
Thanks for sharing.

My dear thanks for a mind stimulating conversation. I wish you well and remain blessed.

syrup:
Well, as long as it is "so many Christians today" saying such, we may safely conclude that is quite a strange position indeed. That sin must continue - and at the same time be justified before God - that is strange indeed.

@syrup
Well said!!!

zarazara:
Ha, so many comments and viewpoints. For those that think lust is ok in marriage, how can it be when it is selfish? I mean, love thinks about the other person but lust thinks only about self-gratification. How can you explain that?
Even Wikipedia describes lust as: "any intense desire or craving for self gratification and excitement."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lust

Very well said!!!!!!!!
It baffles me that even some people who call themselves Christians think that with marriage God gave them certificate to lust. Lust for anything is a sin, even lust for your wife's body is a sin!

@syrup
Thanks for your submission, I shall treat the issues you raised one by one.

syrup:
Both "creation" and "(darwinian) evolution" are mutually exclusive. Please consult the proponents of evolution and you will see precisely what I mean. Those holding to the theory of (darwinian) evolution do not suppose that the "origin" of the world came about by "creation".

Here your problem is that you base your argument and view point on the proponents of evolution rather than the theory itself. Proponents are not always right. People read meaning into theories to suit their personal beliefs. I don't care what proponents say but I care about what the theory say. Research on evolution itself or read The the origin of species by Charles Darwin himself. The theory does not deal with God, it didn't prove the existence of God neither did it disprove it. It simply deals with how species evolved over time. Proponents use this theory and many other theories to fight believers but such war or fighting is only foolishness because the bible never claimed to be a scientific book. The bible's story of Creation deals with the issue from the spiritual perspective. It is also foolish to use the bible to change scientific theories. It's like trying to solve a chemistry problem with sociology. Read the theory of evolution yourself or talk authorities, avoid believing to enthusiasts that look for any reason to disprove the existence of God.

syrup:
The position can be illustrated simply as:

Evolution is opposed to creation -

Here you are very wrong. To state that evolution is opposed to creation is only a view and not a fact. The statement is based on your's and some other people's opinion which cannot be scientifically proved. To say that evolution is opposed to creation is like saying that the study of the development of the zygote is opposed to creation.  We all started as single cells-- zygote-- which multiplied and grew over time to a human beings. We all agree that this statement does not oppose creation. Then whats the difference when applied to humankind -- the whole species started as very simple organisms which multiplied, adapted and developed to present day species. This is a natural process and there is nothing stupendous in it. No scientist can prove that this natural process started by chance neither can they prove otherwise. Actually the scientific laws actually disprove the notion of chance. Science operates on well established and inflexible laws which rules out the possibility of chance in any natural happening. Therefor it is unscientific to speak of chance. I can elaborate on this if you want.

syrup:
(a) evolution postulates the existence of the world by natural causes (without a creator)
(b) creation asserts a deliberate act of the Creator - GOD.

Here your definition of evolution is very wrong because evolution is not a study of wheather there is a creator or not. Therefor the definition should not include "without a creator." Here is a better definition:
"In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. The genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. "
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)

Your definition of creation is okay. Like I said earlier,nobody can prove even scientifically that the process of evolution was not set in-place deliberately and guided deliberately. Infact there are many evolutionists who have arrived to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that evolution would have taken this curse if it wasn't guided to achieve this purpose. I can elaborate later on this if you want me to.

syrup:
How many Darwinian evolutionists (or even neo-evolutionists) do you know that speak of the "origin" of the world by a divine and deliberate act? Evolution is not another term or nomenclature for "creation" - they are not saying the same thing at all.

Some Darwinian evolutionist draw their conclusions based on what they have studied. However, this remain personal conclusions. None can tell you in a classroom or in a scientific book that evolution disproves creation or Davine plan. They don't study creation, they only study evolution which is a natural process. At best they can tell you that they have not find the Divine or the Divine plan. But this does not mean that there is no Divine nor Divine plan. The Divine and Divine plan a not physical and scientists accept that science is only limited to physical things. However, you might be surprised to learn that most of the greatest scientists in history were all very strong believers in God and Divine plane. Albert Eisenstein never failed to declare that his conviction in the existence of God and the Divine plan. I can provide quotes from him that made this clear.

syrup:
One more point:

If you assume that God created man by "physical means" of evolution, then you are effectively saying the following:

(a) man was not created as "man" - for evolution says we evolved from apes into man. Does the Bible teach that?

Let me rephrase your question: If you assume that you developed over nine months from a single cell to human,  then you are effectively saying that you were not born a human.

Here again you are wrong, evolution never said that man descended from apes. That is what enthusiasts, who don't understand evolution go about saying.  Evolution only says that man and apes shear a common ancestor.

syrup:
If you assume that God created man by "physical means" of evolution, then you are effectively saying the following:
(b) man was evolved without purpose or meaning - the very essentials held by evolutionists. Does the Bible teach that?

Let rephrase this one too. If you assume that you developed over nine months from a single cell to human, then you are effectively saying that you evolved without purpose or meaning.
How does the fact that we evolved disprove the fact our lives have meaning.

I summarize my points:
1.) Evolution only deals with the comming into being man's physical body, which came into being the same way animals bodies came into being. Infact science and evolution treats man as a specie of animal, this is because our physical bodies are basically animal bodies.  But every scientist agrees that in addition to our animal bodies, we have something that separates us from animals, certain concepts that are beyond animals, i.e. -- the concept of decency, love, art, higher cognitive ability, etc.
2.) These concepts which is not physical and cannot be investigated by science is a prove that we have something that animals don't have, i.e. the breath of God which is the spirit in man.
3.) The creation story in the bible explores the coming into being of man from a spiritual perspective. And confirms that our bodies are earthly --"out of the dust of the earth God made man, " The creation story also confirms that man has something animals don't have, i.e. " and The Lord God gave man the breath of life, "

TYPOP:
You must keep the laws of God. What are they? They are summarised in two - Love GOD, Love man.

I agree with you that the laws are summarized into two. (1)Love God  with all your heart, might and strength; and (2) Love your neighbor as yourself. In these two lies all the laws of God.
Any body who fulfills these two laws is sure of salvation irrespective of his religious orientation.

TYPOP:
But that does not take you to heaven because by saying it takes you to heaven, you are saying every free thinker who does not believe in God and yet do righteous works will be found in heaven. This is not true.
To be saved you need two things -
1) believe that Jesus died for your sins and
2) Confess that he is your LORD.

Here I totally disagree with you. First of all, a free thinker who does not believe in God cannot fulfill those two laws because he doesn't believe that God exists. How can you love something that you don't believe exist.
But even this free think will definitely reap the rewards for his good works. If he truly love his fellow man then this love will lead him to the love of God. In loving and serving his fellow man, experiences will come to him that will lead him to the recognition of the existence of God.

TYPOP:
1) believe that Jesus died for your sins and
2) Confess that he is your LORD.

I totally disagree with you here. If you(*) have those two things and still commit allsorts of sins, will not be granted salvation. Infact you(*) worst than a person who doesn't believe because he has not heard about Jesus. If you have those two things that you listed above and still does not have love in your heart you(*) will not be granted salvation.

(*) this is a figure of speech I don't mean you personally.

Thanks, and I wish you well.

To further clarify myself.
If you ask the guy the reason for being at his girlfriend's house he will probably tell you this:
"I found out that that girl cheated on me and I went there to break up with her."

If you ask science the guy's reason for being at his girlfriend's, You'll get mechanical theories involved like:
He applied the force of 50 Newtons to the accelerator of his car and move 45 degrees north, then stopped after 25 kilometers which is his girlfriend's house.

One tells you that it was the guy's car, speed and direction that got him to where he was. The other tells you that it was due to the guy's intention to brake up with his girlfriend.
These are two different stories, and both of them are true.
Only a fool will reject the guy's story because science cannot investigate the guy's intentions.

Pastor AIO:
The history of the rise and fall of empires over time does not 'smuggle in the idea of God in the equation. Afterall it does not require God for the King of Bablylon to decide to go and conquer Israel. However the bible states explicitly that the babylonians were used by God as a punishment for israel. So why was Israel conquered? Due to Political forces that we can study in history or due to the Will of God?

@Pastor AIO
You couldn't have said it better. Honestly I didn't know how to reply to syrup, but many thanks to you for coming up with that wonderfull analogy which answered his question.

@syrup
Science does not mention God because science deals with the physical only. God is beyond physical therefore science cannot investigate God with scientific means. I have already said earlier that you can only use physical means to investigate physical things; also, you can only use spiritual means to investigate spiritual things. Science does not deal with God, science deals with physical things. No scientific theory go beyond physical.

I will give you an analogy:
A man wakes up one morning and drives to his girlfriend's house with the intention of breaking up with his girlfriend.

Now if science analyzes this scenario, all science can explain is that biological process in waking up and getting into a car, also, the mechanical processes involved in the movement of the car; and finally the direction, speed and the distance that the man drove. All these science can investigate and confirm based on the evidences that they see. But science cannot tell you the mans intention for driving to the girls house unless the man reveals it. Because at the present science does not read minds.
So if this guy tells his story, he will mostly tell you his mind frame, and mostly what was going on in his mind while he drove to his girlfriend's house.
This guys story and the scientific story will not be the same. Because the guy will tell it from the human perspective while science will only analyze the physical means through which the guy got his destination.

Apply the same with the issue. Creation tells you the purpose the significance and the meaning and the reason behind the coming into being of man. Evolution tells you the physical means through which man came into being.

Both stories remain like the two sides of the same coin.

@ huxley
It is unfair to judge something/someone based on what you read in a book not written by the person/thing.
God is God, the bible, the Ko-ran etc are all books written by man and has gone through so many interferences and translations. None of these books can accurately portray God.
Also it is unfair to judge something/someone based on what another person has told you or claimed. Were you there when God told Osama bin ladin to destroy the world trade center? The answer is NO.
The evidences that provided against God will not stand up even in a human court of law. If we can be fair to our fellow humans then we can be fair to God too.
Please be fair to God.

@lystola
Thank you. I think your right. Your analogy about wearing black and white colored pants is wonderful and also very interesting.  I think is completely captures the situation of creationists and evolutionist.  Each one is seeing from his own perspective.

@PastorAIO
I think both you and lystola are saying the same thing about the fight for superiority. Most of the opponents of evolution don't even understand evolution, they only oppose it in other to demonstrate how knowledgeable they are about life and God. On the other hand some of the opponents of creation don't even know what creation is, some of them have not studied the story of creation in Genesis very well to see it makes sense; they only oppose it in-order to demonstrate their scientific knowledge and prove that the believers are fools.
It all boils down to pride.
One thing I have noticed it that these extremist are never fully knowledgeable in either field. For example, most atheists use science to disprove God but when you go with them deeply into science you'll find out they don't know science deeply. The same thing is applicable with extremist on the religious side who always tries to disprove every scientific discovery with the bible; and when you go deeply into spiritual knowledge with them you will find out that they don't know spirituality very well.
The greatest scientists in history -- Isac newton, Albert Einstein, etc-- are hardly atheists. They use their scientific knowledge to better our lives and understanding of science, they don't use it to fight God or prove that their is no God. Even, they acknowlege spirituality and the need for it.
At the same time, real priests use their spiritual knowledge to better our lives and understanding of spirituality; they hardly fight science or compete with scientist over knowledge, or use the bible to discredit scientific discoveries. They acknowlege and respect science. The real priests and true scientists know that their are two sides to every coin and they don't see each other as opponents.
Extramists on both sides are always people with pseudo knowledge or half knowledge.

Pastor AIO:
So why does the theory scare creationists soo much?

I think it is because so many creationists take the Biblical story of creation very literally. And at the same time, some of the creationists don't understand evolution. If you understand Genesis and evolution, you will see that they don't oppose each other, they are like the two sides of the same coin.
In Genesis the story was told in a pictorial and metaphorical manner because men of that time cannot understand the language of science which developed much later. If one reads the creation story in Genesis with an alert spirit, he/she will see that it's true and does not disagree with evolution. Infact it confirms the authenticity of evolution, i.e. "out of the dust of the earth God made man, "
The Biblical story of creation explores the issue from a spiritual perspective and also deals with the spiritual significance; while in Evolution, scientists explore the issue from the physical perspective only.
One who knows the spiritual laws knows that in the spiritual, time is much faster. i.e. "a thousand years are as one" The writer of Genesis was seeing from the spiritual perspective, therefore he saw what took milloins of years in only six days. One must understand that the six days mentioned in the Bible is six spiritual days; each day might be thousands, millions of earth years.

banni:
Evoultion is more or less a fact.
But God guided the creation of the universe and evoultion.
God's time is not measured by any standards we know.So even 1 day might mean 1 billion years for us.We should not rush to accept the 6 days creation literally.

Banni you are absolutely right.
According to the biblical account of creation God created man out of the dust of the earth and then gave unto man the breath of live.
From this we can deduce that man is made up of two parts:
1.) The part made out of the dust of the earth--- The physical body
2.) The breath of life given by God -- The spirit of man.
I think evolution proves the fact that out of the dust of the earth God made man, i.e the physical body. Our physical body evolved on this earth through the natural process of evolution which was guided by the WILL of GOD. After the evolution of the physical body which took millions of years, God implanted spirits into the evolved physical bodies. Only from this instance did we become humans. Our true self is the spirit inside us and not the physical body which is only a cloak.
Science can only investigate, analyse and discover the natural process(evolution) through which God made our physical bodies, but science cannot investigate, analyse and discover the spirit inside us because this is beyond physical. You can only use spiritual means to investigate, analyse and discover spiritual things, and you can only use physical things to investigate, analyse and discover physical things.
The fact that our bodies eveloved does not disprove that fact that God created us because all the natural process were set in-place and guided by the WILL of GOD.
With each birth today, the process of evolution is reflected. We all started with a single cell(zygote) which multiplied and evolved with time until we becomes babies. The fact that it takes a Child's body 9-10 months to develop in the womb does not contradict the fact that God created the child. The process of pregnancy is a natural process through which God makes our bodies, just like evolution is a natural process through which God allwed man to come into being on earth for the first time.

So many Christians today teach that the way to salvation is by Faith alone. That by having faith in Jesus and accepting Jesus as one’s Lord and personal savior one is saved. They go further to say that sin must continue, that man can never be sinless, and that by being born again, they are justified before God. They say that the laws are no longer applicable to them because they now live in the grace of God. They teach that Jesus, by his crucification had paid for all their sins and that one only need to believe and have faith in-order to be saved.
But is this doctrine of justification by faith alone in accord with Jesus’s teachings? Even in the bible there are verses that are contrary to this doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Let us look at a few verses:
"You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is Perfect." (Matt 5:48)
Here according to the gospel writer, Jesus urges us to strive to be righteous (perfect) because our Father is perfect.

“For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:20)
Here according to the gospel, Jesus made it clear unless we are very righteous, we will not enter the kingdom of God. Thus, in my own interpretation-- unless we are without sin, we cannot make it to paradise.

"But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves." (James 1:22)
Here we are told to be doers(workers) of the word and not only hearers. Thus we need to work on ourselves; we need to adjust all our thoughts, words and action to the word of the Lord, and not by faith alone.

"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. (11) For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," said also, "Do not kill." If you do not commit adultery but do kill, you have become a transgressor of the law. (12) So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. (13) For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy; yet mercy triumphs over judgment." (James 2:10-13)

Here we are told that we need to keep all the laws, thus we are not freed from the law by faith alone.

It is my opinion that the only thing that can save us is by living according to the words of Jesus (laws of God) irrespective of our religious orientation. We should work on ourselves in-order to overcome all our faults and become righteous, only this will make us justified. Faith alone will not justify us and we will never be freed or above the laws of God which Jesus Himself was subjected to. The law is unchangeable and we must all live in it, i.e. the law of reciprocal action, (what a man sows, so shall he reap). This is the law of God and we can never be above it. Faith alone does not justify us because we must reap what we have sown in the past. But genuine repentance can bring us forgiveness which does not mean that we have been placed above the laws. The crucification of Jesus did not bring us salvation; only by living according to His words shall we be saved. Jesus brought us salvation in His words, which is the grace that God gave us.

This is how I see it. Please shear your own opinion.

Pastor AIO:
Where I find this most astonishing is when it comes to God and certain people put themselves forward as authorities on God. I cannot think of anything that could be more beyond the grasp of our puny minds. Even if you have some experience and knowledge of God it cannot be enough for you to set yourself up as the mouthpiece of God. For a start human knowledge and experience is limited to a particular perspective. Another man can experience the same thing from his particular perspective and draw a different conclusion.

I suspect that the adamant recalcitrant position is actually a function of Fear of the unknown. What do others think?

@ Pastor AIO
You have spoken very wisely in the above post. If only the priests and religious leaders of today will think this way, then the world we be a better place. But today every preacher in his preaching always say: God said, God told me last night in my dream, Jesus said, Jesus told me, and etc, Nobody ever says, "this is my understanding of it, or this is how I have experienced it." These words should be the first words a preacher says before preaching and he should also end his preaching with, "that is how I see it, or that is my experiencing of it"
Saying it this way reminds the listener that the pastor is not the all-knowing God or Jesus and therefore the listener should examine the words and not just accept them blindly or out of the fear that the preacher had installed in him.
I wish that all the active posters on this religion Forum should read this tread and change there ways. This religion forum should be a very peaceful place where one can share one's beliefs, examine, and listen to the beliefs of others all in a peacefull manner. But some people will rather insult others and their religions and even go as far as insulting the founders of these religions. It is unfortunate the we Christians who should know not to judge often find ourselves judging others and sending them to hell.
May God help us all.

@kola oloye
In the scripture that you quoted, I don't see where it says that God changes the laws of nature.
But there is no need for long arguments, can you show me just one evidence that you personally witnessed where God broke the laws of nature.

Show me Just one event where the laws of nature was broken in your presence.

kola oloye:
To some extent i believe you were right but have you considered what happened when
Joshua commanded the sun to stand still,till they finished their enemies?

@kola oloye
It is impossible for the sun to stand still, such an event will bring catastrophes that will destroy the earth. The same laws of nature that is applicable on earth runs through the whole universe, ie the law of gravity it not only applicable to the earth but to the enteir universe. We know that it is the revolution of the earth around it's axis that causes day and night ie what appears to be the movement of the sun. Therefor for the sun to appear standing still, it is the earth that will stop revolving around it's axis. This is not possible without the destruction of the earth because apart from revolving around it's axis, the earth also rotate around the sun with a velocity that is very critical to it's distance from the sun. It is this velocity(the revolution and rotation of the earth) that allows the earth to remain at a certain distance from the sun because the velocity provides a centrifugal force that balances the gravitational pull of the sun. Therefore if the earth ever stops moving, it will immediately fall towards the sun and get incinerated. This is just a brief and very broad picture, if you go into details you will discover that more catastrophes will happen not only to the earth but other planetry bodies ie the moon which is also held at a distance by the combined effect of many forces -- gravitational pull of the earth, the speed of the earth, the sizes of the earth and moon, and the velocity of the moon.
The whole universe is connected and motion keeps the order; if the motion of any of the bodies is impeded a catastrophe will result which will destroy the whole.
Now to Joshua:
1.) Has it ever occurred to you that the story may have been a metaphor and not to be taken literally. Perhaps praying for the sun(the source of light) to stand still till he finished his enemies might have been a metaphor that God( the source of spiritual light) stood by him till he finished his enemies.
2.) Perhaps the writer of the story witnessed a supra-earthly happening and mixed it with earthly happen. In higher planes of existence, distance and time are not the same with earthly distance and time. ie a thousand years on earth is only like one year in paradise. You might have also experienced this phenomenon through dreams. You might dream of an entire lifespan only to wake up and find that you have only slept for thirty minutes! Perhaps the writer of the story was shown a battle in vision which timing he compared to an earthly timing. Example I could fall into a trance at 1.00Pm and in my trance I could be shown the whole 2nd world war (from the beginning to the end) and when I wake I notice that the time is still 1.30pm. This might lead me to write that the whole 2nd world war lasted only 30 minutes.  The sun might have been over his head when he was shown the vision and afterwards he noticed the sun was still over his head and he reported that the whole battle happened while the sun stood still.

So many things could have been the case. Search for the truth within what is possible in the laws of nature.

kola oloye:
Have you also thought about Elijah that locked up rain for three solid years?
Are all these according to the law of nature?

It is possible to pray and as a result prevent rain from falling for three years. The case of Elijah was not an isolated case, such things have happend in history many times and they still happen today.
Lets go into the scientific explanation as to why rain fall.
First due to the sun's heat, the waters on the land, sea, lake, well's etc evaporate. Once evaporated, they become water in gaseous state and due to the lightness of the gasses they rise high in the atmosphere to a rigion coresponging to their weight. Due to the coldness of the atomshpere, they lose their heat and begin to condense. The air currents carry both the gaseous water(vapor) and condensed water(liquid) around in the atmosphere. As they condense, they become  liquid again and thus heavy. Once they get too heavy, obeying the law of gravity, they fall towads the earth as rain.
This is a summery of the process as science have observed it. Science can observe everything material but it cannot observe the non material things(non- physical). Therefore science cannot see that every part and processes of nature is supervised by non-physical beings who are servants of God. These beings are active in the air, in the water, and on the earth, supervising, speeding-up or delaying natural processes with their radiations. In the past some men have seen these beings, and called them angels, nature spirits, fairies etc. Animals, up till today, still see these beings.
At the behest of God due to Elijah's prayer, these beings only need to speed-up the air currents or delay the currents of air that carries the condensed water. They can chanell these currents of air away from a particular region of the earth. This will prevent rain from falling in that particuler region for years because the air currents carring condensed water are channelled to other parts of the earth. This speeding-up, delaying or channelling of the air currents does not go against the laws of nature. Even you can decide to Chanel more air into your room by opening a window and turning-on the fan which speeds-up air. By doing this you did not go against th laws of nature rather you applied it. Thus these non-physical servants of God cannot annul the laws of nature which are impossible to be annulled.

@M_Nwankwo
Thank you. I also wish you strength and stay blessed.

@Lystola
In miracles, God do not go against His laws i.e. laws of nature. The only difference between a miracle and a normal happening is the speed and energy involved.  When a disease is healed, this does not go against the laws of nature which are also laws of God. The physical body (the way God designed it) is capable of getting rid of deadly germs (bacteria, viruses, etc) through the immune system. But this process of getting rid of disease, like every biological process takes time. Many processes are involved and all these process is fueled by the energy which the body derives from food. If any of the process is hindered, then the immune system might lose the battle against the parasite.
But in the case of miracle, due to the healer’s ability to mediate energy from above; by praying or touching the sick person, energy flows through him and enters the sick person. This energy will help the biological processes within the body of the sick to speed up. Thus with an immune system renovated with energy, the body can now get rid of the disease in a far shorter time than it would have been able to if it was left alone. But this healing energy does not lie within the human body, neither does it lie within the human spirit. This energy lies in the power of God; the healer only mediates or passes this energy on to sick person. God can also send this energy directly to the sick person if the sick person humbly opens him/herself to it.
The time of recovery depends on many things, i.e. the amount of energy that the healer can mediate, how far the disease has progressed, the psychic conduction of the sick person, and his spiritual condition.
This is why with Jesus, so many things that man could not understand happened. Jesus could pray for a sick person and the person recovers instantaneously because Jesus could mediate more energy than any human can. His energy and power is Divine in which lies all power and energy. But humans can only mediate spiritual energy which is only a component of Divine energy or a step down of Divine energy. This Divine energy can speed things (recovery), faster than spiritual energy. Jesus, like every body had a radiation. But unlike humans His radiation was very strong and Divine, and the influx of this Divine radiation speeds up things around Him. The woman did not even have to touch Jesus' clothing; just being around Jesus a lot can bring about such healing. Even humans radiate, we radiate and our radiated energy permeates and affects our environment. This, even science can confirm this fact, and also sensitive people and some animals can see these radiation. From this natural law of radiation, it's easy to explain what happened with the woman that touched Jesus' robe and got healed. Everything that Jesus used all the time--the cloths He was wearing, the words He spoke, even the air around Him-- were all permeated with very strong Divine radiation which has a healing and a speeding-up effect on nature.
But this energy which comes from God can only follow the paths God made for it i.e. the laws of nature. It cannot change, annul or contradict the laws of nature; it can only speed up nature. The laws of nature were set in place by God and one has to be more powerful than God to annul these laws. Since none is more powerful than God, none can change the laws of nature.
God Himself will never contradict, oppose, annul or change these laws of nature because the laws are living expressions of the will of God which is perfect from the beginning and will for ever remain perfect. In these laws of nature which are laws of God, there is no room for improvement because they perfect!
Jesus lived a natural life and did not go against the laws of nature. He was happy within the boundaries of the Laws of His father. Everything He did can be explained, He did not annul any natural laws, the only difference is that with Him natural process can speed-up because of His enormous energy. In the gospel of Mathew, Jesus was reported to have said:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."(Matthew 5:17)
Remember, the laws of nature are also the laws of God, and no part of the natural laws will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Apart from the fact that nobody can ever change the laws, in the case of Jesus and God, the desire to change the laws of nature will not even arise in them. Part of Jesus mission is to show man that one can live happily and without sin within the laws of his creator. Thus if in the case of Jesus the laws were changed, then man cannot be blamed for being a sinner. Then man can tell God, "If your laws are so perfect why did you change it for your son!" But man cannot say that to God because Jesus was subjected to every natural law that all men are subject to, yet He overcame all temptations. In this lies the greatness of Jesus and the testimony to the perfection of the laws of God which includes the laws of nature.

@4Him
My dear you are very wrong. With marriage God did not give you the right to become an animal or to reduce yourself to an animal. Your wife is to be honored and respected, not your sex instrument. Sex is a gift from God that should be enjoyed within the confines of harmonious and God pleasing relationship.
The food that you worked for is also a gift from God that should be enjoyed, however not like an animal. You cannot put your food into your nose or your eyes just because you earned it. You can not live all your life thinking only of food and putting everything else behind, in this case even though the food is yours, it is a sin! You cannot overfeed yourself which is like harming your self just because the food is yours. You should not entice your neighbors with your food just because it's yours. You should not become a glutton just because the food is yours.
Apply the same with sex. You should not put sex first in your marriage. And you should degrade yourself to an animal--IE sodomy, sexual torture, and all sorts of perversion just because she is your wife. your wife should not represent sex to you, she is an individual that deserves to be respected. There is noting wrong with sex in a real marriage but as soon as lust gets into it, it becomes a sin. purity is a prerequisite to enter the kingdom of God, purity is the opposite of lust. Lust for anything is wrong and unGodly.

Most marriages today are like the one I mentioned in my earlier story, statics of divorce and domestic violence proves my point.

@Backslider
Thanks for your submission. However, I maintain that God is One. It is that one God(God the father) that worked in Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Although they are different persons, the same essence which is God animates all of them.
In the beginning before the work of creation and redemption God was one.  The Holy Spirit separated from Him to create, Jesus separated from Him to redeem mankind. It is like a man with two hands, God used His left hand(the Holy Spirit) to create and sustain creation with power; the same God used His right hand(Jesus) to redeem the earth. Although Jesus remained personal even after returning to the Father, He is still a part of God
This is the Trinity, simple and short.
With this I rest the issue.

@bab787 and olabowale
Thanks for your advice. But like you, I have made up my mind about the Trinity. I have recognised my God in Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and I cannot deny my conviction. The Trinity is a living conviction in me.

@ olabowale
I have decided not to discuss Trinity with you any more because you have made up your mind about it, and no amount persuasion from me can make you change your mind. Some people(Especially m_nwankwo) have written very nicely and informatively in this thread about Trinity, I don't think that there is any more I can add to make you change your mind. All I can say is that I wish you well on your path and remain blessed.
I only wish to clear a few misconceptions that you raised from my earlier post.

olabowale:
@ Justcool: You can not eat your cake and have it, too. It just does not happen. You can not have a portion off or cut off from a whole and continue to hold fast that what remain is still a comple entity, undisturbed. Thats excatly what you are putting forward when you claim that Jesus was part of a whole, but when he is cut down by crucifixion, what remain was still a complete whole. In addition thats what i was proving to you in my obstructing just 1 spectrum and allowing the remaining 6 to go through your inverted prizm and see if you will get a pure white light which was what you should have gotten if all went through .

I wish to let you know that Jesus was not cut down or cease to exist after the crucification. Death is only the discarding of the physical body. Man could only destroy the physical body of Jesus but not Jesus Himself because the physical body is only a cloak which we wear. Jesus returned to God completely after His crucification and no part of Him was cut down by man. Man only destroyed His physical body, a body that is needed in other to function actively on earth. His physical body is not the son or part of God but only an instrument which He used to work on earth. The same thing happens with man. When man dies, his soul(his true self), the core of which is the spirit separates from the physical body which immediately starts to decay.


About the Jews killing Jesus. Yes it was the Jews but we cannot just point fingers or hate Jews on that account. We should even be gratefull to the Jews because at that time the Jews were the only people worthy to receive the son/part of God called Jesus. If your people had been as worthy as the Jews, God would have sent them as many prophets as He sent the Jews. Therefor hatred for Jews is wrong. The killing of Jesus(His physical body) and the killing of prophets is simply mans fault. We should all ask for forgiveness for the injustice man has done towards his everloving God, and not point fingers.
God sent prophets to every people that seeked Him. He sent His prophets to give His words to the people and not only to the Jews. He sent Buddha to Indians, Lao Tse to Chinese, and Mu:ha:med to Arabians. All these men were prophets who brought God's words to their people but hardly do they die than the people change everything they brought and turn their messages in to religions which are nothing but political institutions. None of the people preserved the teachings given to them by the prophet of God in the right manner. They all corrupted the teachings and made it religions. So the Jews are not the only people guilty before God. None of the prophets mentioned above brought any religion. The religions we have today that resulted from their teaches are made by man. If man have reserved the teachings aright then today there will be no difference between the beliefs of a great one, a buddist, and a christian. All the above prophets taught one thing--The will of God and how to submite to His will, but man changed their teachings and corrupted their writings to suit his politics.

@ 4Him
Thanks for your question.
Sex in any marriage that is not approved by God is adultery. Marriage is not just going to the priest and doing the ceremony. Marriage has to be according to Gods will for it to be horned by God.
I will give you an example:
A guy in Nigeria was filled with lust for a girl. After trying unsuccessfully to have sex with the girl, he went to the girls parents and declared that he wanted to marry the girl. Luckily for him, the girls pastor was an ex classmate of this guy. They were in cult together during their years in the university. The guy told the pastor(who became a pastor after graduating from the university) his intention of marring the girl and asked the pastor to go and tell the girls parents (who are members of his church) that it was Gods will that the guy should marry the girl.
To make a long story short, after the wedding and after a year of the guy getting as much sex as he wanted from the girl he kicked her out and they finally divorced.

Now my dear 4Him, please answer the follwing questions:
1.) Was this marriage real before God?
2.) The guy and the pastor succeeded in fooling the girl and her family. Did this guy and the pastor succeed in fooling God?
3.) During the time he was having sex with her, was he not committing adultery(or fornication--which ever word you chose to use)?

People should seek God before getting into marriage. They must make sure that the marriage is the will of God, so that harmony and peace will result from it. If we only put God first and not lust first we will definitely find happiness.
It's easy to recognise real marriage before God. In such marrages the couple live for each other and even whenthey are too old to have sex the love and harmony continues. But any marriage that is held together by just sex is not real marriage, before God such marriage is adultery. Man cannot fool God!!!
My friend is married and claims that he loves his wife but one day he told me that if his wife ever becomes incapacitated to the extent that she cannot have sex anymore he will leave her. Is this real marriage?

lust is lust even in marriage, it is wrong and unGodly. There is a difference between a healthy desire for sex and lust.
It is not wrong to have sex in a marriage but a soon as lust gets into it, it becomes a sin.

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." -(Matthew 5:28)

The above scripture did not say "anyone who looks at a woman not married to him" It says a woman, thus any woman, including your wife. Therefore you shouldn't look at any woman(even your wife) lustfully. And yes! One can commite adultery with his wife.
Real marriage before God is a marriage where there is true love. Once lust and sexual perverity gets into it, before God the marriage is annulled and becomes immoral.

If you have even been in love you will know that the last thing you want to do to the woman you love is to think about her with lust. What people today call love is only infatuation which is a glorified name for lust! Real love is entirely different.

Backslider:
There is the tendency to err from scripture but i hope you will take my correction in Good Faith.

@Backslider
Thanks for your reply, and be rest assured that I take your views in good faith. But I must tell you that I completely disagree with you.
First of all, you take the scriptures so literilly. The expression "son of God" is a figurative expression that doesn't mean "son" as in the case with humans "son."
A human son is a completely different entity from his father. A human son is not perpetually connected to his father. The only thing they share is that the son inherited half of his genetic makeup from his father. Thier spirits are completely different entities that may or may not be of homogenenous species ie have the same talents. Therefore "son" or "sonship" is only connected with the physical body which is earthbound. In other words, having sons, daughters, etc are only earthly things. A physical body is need to have sons. Spirits in paradise do not even have sons because spirits have spiritual bodies and not physical bodies. God Himself is Divine and does not have a physical body(infact no physical body can exist in his immediate vicinity) therefore God cannot have a son like humans on earth do.
If you think that the relationship between God and Jesus is the same with a man and his son, then Jesus erred when according to the bible He said:
"Truly, truly I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner."  
Please tell me, if you have a son
1.) Can your son do something of himself without you? The answer is yes.
Because you don't even know what your son is doing most of the time. When he goes to school he could be doing something that don't know and don't approve.
2.) Does your son do whatever you do? The answer is no because you could be a Christian and your son may decide to be Great One.
3.) When your son is working, is it you that is working through him? The answer is no because your limitation as a human would not let you work through another person.
You see! your relationship with your son is entirely different from the relationship between Jesus and God. When Jesus was working on earth, it was God the father that was working through him. Thus Jesus could be likened as an expression of God the father.
God was in Jesus but one human spirit cannot be in a human father and at the same time in the son.
We use the expression "son of God" to describe Jesus because thats the best our language can do. The relationship between Jesus and God is divine and no human word or language canever truly convey a divine happening.
You also forgot that Jesus never used the English word "son". Jesus spoke Aramaic, and the English translation of the Aramaic expresion can only render an approximate meaning.
Just for your enlightenment, read this:
"In Hebrew and Aramaic 'son of' is commonly used to mean 'member of the class of'; hence, 'the sons of god' is a regular way of saying 'the gods,' just as 'the sons of men' (commonly translated 'the children of men') is a regular way of saying 'men'."
    - Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God? (1978) p. 133

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them."
    - Job 1:6
If you take the above literally, so God has many sons and not Just Jesus and the Holy spirit.
So you see, the sexpressin "son of God", "sons of God", "children of God" is also sometimes used to describe angels and righteous people.
But Jesus is different. In the case of Jesus, you can substitute the word "son" with "part."

Backslider:
God is three seperate different persons in one Godhead. God did not Manifest as jesus and God did not manifest as the father or holy Ghost.

First, my I remind you to always capitalize "J" in Jesus. You and I are not even worthy to speak His name yet He allows us. We should, at least always remember to offer Him respect.
There are no three different persons in one God. Rather there is One God in three persons. This He did for the sake of His creation. He created in the person of His Holy Spirit, and He redeemed us in the person of Jesus. If He had never created, He would have remained in only one expression or person--God. But trinity came about for the sake of His creation.

Backslider:
There is no Fraud in God or deception there are three person and they are very different.

Here you contradict the biblical word that It is the father that works through the son. You also contradict: "I and My Father are one"
They are not very different because they all have the same essence and the same nature which is Divine. This is in no way a fraud or deception. God decieves no one.

Backslider:
The Holy Ghost Commander in Chief of the heavenly Host
The son Jesus The solicitor, the law giver, the lamb, the High priest, The saviour and prince of peace
The father The Judge of all. The only being that is called Love

Note the difference

Jesus will judge Church
The father will Judge Satan and all his followers

In Jesus God gave man His love, Jesus's mission was to deliver the word of God and not to judge.  God judges the world through the Holy spirit, the hand through which He created the world. This Holy spirit is the Spirit of Truth or the comforter which Jesus promised His disciples. It is also through Him that God judges Satan. It is this Spirit of Truth that will bind satan for a thousand years as the Revalation said.

Backslider:
Read from the scripture that is qouted to you when explaining any doctrine so that you are don't go into Heresy. No one is above natural mistakes but the sin is to continue therein.

The idea that sin is to continue is an evil Principle perpetuated in Christian churches by fake pastors. God dos not condone sin and will not let sin contine. According to the Bible God told us through Jesus:
"Be yea righteous for your Father in heaven is righteous" In another verse He said
"For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven" (MATTHEW 5:20)
Righteousness in living without sin, thus living in the laws of God. Jesus commended and demanded righteousness. It is unfortunate that some Christians today teach that sin is inevitable and must continue and that only accepting that Jesus died for you will save you.
This is the lie that they tell in churches. Only righteousness(living in the word of God) can save man. Sin cannot enter the kingdom of God. The man with sin cannever  enter paradise, even if he believes the lie that the murder of Jesus was a ransom for his sins.

olabowale:
@Justcool: I was going to laugh at your light specrum analogy, and simply give you a response about if a condition is developed where a sprectrum is obstructed from the seven, what would the outcome be when you invert a prizm to converge them a single sprectrum of light, Would you get a pure white or something ooff white? But you already see your own follow with your seven smileys that ended the second absurd 1/3 3 sections that make up 1 whole. See what you reduce your god to?

@ olabowale
Despite your insults. I thank you for reading and replying to my submission, and although I disagree with you, I still respect your opinion and I will never condescend to insulting you. I never said anything about the spectrum being obstructed. I don't know what you mean by that. The spectrum analogy is to show you that many things can add up to one, even within the physical realms which science can investigate.  You called the 1/3 analogy absurd but it was you who kept posting that 1 + 1 +1 cannot equal 3. Even within your own mathematical analogy I proved you wrong because the Trinity means one God in three persons thus each person of the Trinity is 1/3. Then when you add the three persons you get ONE. Show show me whats wrong with this calculation.

olabowale:
But as i read your thesis of your god's inability to be independently complete except he has son god and holy ghost god with him, I have to cringe about how your mind works. You cheapened your god so much that the hindus and all the others have more trust in their god than you have on yours. There god only manifested in many things, but no manifestation form needs another before it can completely function. Unlike you, your father god need son god to talk to and save mankind, and your holy spirit god is the one that created. Shameful thoughts by you and it is only for your type of mindset that can accept it.

The above is completely yours and not drawn from my submission. I never said that God cannot independently be complete except He has son and Holy ghost with him. In reality God has no son. Jesus is a part of God. He is the love of God. Please tell me how God can be God without love which is an indispensable part of God. God can only save man by giving man His words. The man who lives according to the words of God shall be saved. He gave us His word during creation, when He created us He hardwired His laws and the ability to recognise His will in our spirits, He sent us so many prophets yet we refused to listen to them and submite to his laws. Infact we statred killing the prophets and due to our sins, the earth was speedily heading towards distruction. God did the ultimate by sending us a part of Himself-- His Living Love. In Jesus, God vissited the earth to give us His words or laws (the laws of His father) personally. It is unfortunate that we refused this help and had the audacity to destroy the vehicle(the Body of Jesus) through which God walked on earth.

olabowale:
Ironically, you forgot that your god only commanded that light should exist when he decided to create light. That same god who created mankind by simple pronouncement of the commandment, is now incapable of forgiveness of humanbeings, his priced creating, which he made in his own image? He did not know that man are imperfect before he created it, even he had already hellfire and paradise, for rewards of evil and goods respectively? Is your good an all knower or lacks some knowledge still, and this is why he had to send himself, or his son, or his third to be killed for saving mankind? Again, yet before he jhad created hellfire to punish?

God's words "let there be lights" are not words like human words. Every word of God is an act which is living. Let there be light is an act of God's creation.
God did not send Jesus to be killed for mankind. Like I said earlier Jesus came to deliver the word of God personally to mankind and only by living according to the words of Jesus will man be saved. His death is a murder that mankind committed.
God did not create hellfire. Hellfire developed due to man's misuse of his free will. One of the laws of creation is that "whatsoever you sow, that you shall reap." Doing good deeds is tantamount to sowing good fruits which will only bring good to the sower. But instead of doing good man did so many evil. This is like sowing evil. These evil done by man are waiting for man in a part of the beyond. This part of the beyond is hell. it wouldn't have come about if man had not turned away from God. Therefor, my brother our Good God did not create hell. Hell is the work of man.

olabowale:
Are these two ideas not opposing each other with complete strength? Your god is not my God, for sure. My God is complete. He lays down the laws and commandments. He supports His creations with mercy and allows them the freedom to choose. Yet He is full of mercy and accepts rependance again and again, until just before death. And throughout the period that humans are alive the door of mercy is never closed. My God is indepently capable of doing all things.

God can do all things but God cannot do evil, sin or go against His holy laws. The laws of creation which are part of the Holy laws of God makes impossible for God in all his MAJESTY, PURITY, MIGHT, AND POWER to descend into this little earth. The earth cannot carry HIM but must incinerate at His presence. The only way he could come to the earth was by letting a part of him to enveloped (and the word was made flesh)in a physical body. Through an act of His love, He cloaked a part of Himself. This part of God that walked on earth was Jesus Christ.

If your god can do all things, including sins and injustice, then he definitely is not my God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jesus was, is, and will forever remain a part of God.

My dear olabowale remain blessed. I wish you well.

olabowale:
@M_nwankwo: You see why education does not necessarily translate to good and accurate practice of true religion. You and many are struggling explain 3 to mean1 without any success. Its like me trying to pass up triangle for a straight line, or someting that it is not.

I wonder what happens to the God Who is not the Author of Confusion?

There so many examples in nature where many things are added to become one. A ray of light passes through a triangular prism it separates to seven different rays (The spectrum), which when passed through another triangular but inverted prism becomes one again. Here we see Seven different rays, wave lenghts or colors combine to form one ray, wave-lenghts or color. 

olabowale:
You and many are struggling explain 3 to mean1 without any success. Its like me trying to pass up triangle for a straight line, or someting that it is not.

Here your analogy is wrong because the trinity doesn't mean 3 different gods. Rather it is one God that expressed Himself through 3. Therefore if you seek to solve it mathematically, you must understand the neither one of the parties should be ascribed to 1. The correct way is to divide 1 by three. You get 1/3 for each.
God the son =     1/3
Holy Spirit    =     1/3
God the father = 1/3
Now add them. 1/3 +1/3 +1/3 = 1
Therefor God is one. LOL

Although the above is a very very crude analogy because God cannot be subtracted or added but I only did it because you and babs 787 keep bringing mathematics into what is spiritual.

Now on a more serious note.
God is one. We only use the expression "son" of God because of the deficiency in our language. Besides, even if our language is perfect, it can never truly and completely convey the meaning of trinity because Trinity is an ability that lies beyond the human spirit. Languages are only for earthly things, it cannot truly convey the nature of anything that lies far above the earth, thus anything spiritual and above spiritual. You can replace the word "son" with "part". Thus "the son of God" is  a part of God. The son of God is not an entirely different person from God. It is not like when a human being has a son, humans sons are completely different persons and not one with their father. The human father is complete even without the son, and the human son is complete even without his father. But in the case of Jesus, HE is a part of God and God is not complete without Him neither is HE complete without God. Hence: "I and My Father are One." The same is the case with the Holy spirit. Like the seven colours that make up the color white. Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God the father represent three colours that make up God.
You can also subsitute the word "son" with "characteristic" or "ability". God as a whole has infinite ability, and this infinite nature of Him cannot be contained by creation which is a finite work of God. When God created, He created with His creating characteristic or creative ability. A part of this creative ability of God has to move away from God in-other to  become finite and create. This is the hand through which God created. This is the Holy Spirit. This is the Spirit that moved upon the face of the waters during creation in Genesis.
Later when man failed, and due to man's sins subsequent creation was about to fall into ruins. God out of His great love came to save mankind.  But this love of God is an ability of God or a characteristic of God and thus infinite. In-other for this love to descent into creation which is a finite work, a part of this ability or characteristic of God has to move away from God, it had to be made finite -- enveloped by a body. Only this way can God in his love descend into His work (creation). Thus one can also say that Jesus is the love of God enveloped in a physical body in-other to save man.  Jesus being a finite part of an infinte God, thus Jesus is in a way dependant on the infinite God which He is a part of. That's why acording to the bible He said that His father is greater than Him. The same is applicable to the Holy Spirit.
I conclude with these points:
1.) God is one, He is infinitely love, Justice, and Purity. These three characteristics are one. They represent the pure white light of God, which beyound creation and anything created.
2.) God in His infintness and invinsible white light cannot descend into creation and because in his devine presence, (which carries infinte might and energy), creation and creatures cannot exsist. His power is too much that no creature can bear his direct presence. Hence: "The eye that sees God shall die." Due to this, during creation, With the words "Let there be Light." He let a part of His creative ability to move away from him and this creative part of God or son of God was cloacked and made finite so that He can create and so that the creatures can see Him. This part of God remained in paradise which came about out of His direct power and radiation.   
3.) When a part of creation, especially the earth was about to fall into ruins due to the sins of man. God out of his love helped. But His love like His creative ability is infinite and cannot be contained wholy in a finite work. A part of this love had to seperate from God and be cloacked in a physical body(made finite) so that man can see and hear Him. This Love of God that incarnated on earth was Jesus Christ. Therefore in Jesus and through Jesus God walked on earth and delivered His love personally to man.
Man has to remain eternally thankful to God for this great and inconcivable gift of Love.
But God remains eternally one. Jesus(HIS Love) and the Holy Sprit(HIS creative will) are parts of one God, caracheristics of one God or abilities of one God.

We cannot see colors in white light but when this light passes through a prism, we see different colors in it. God is like the white light, we can never see Him except when he cloacks Himself and comes into creation then we see him as two. Jesus and the Holy Sprit.