₦airaland Forum

It is her nature,even if she promises she will change,she wont,dont be fooled a crab will always sting(that's it nature).
Except you ready to continue that way.



Dont be fooled,she wont change(my 2cent)

Simple:no big deal,her husband wont have to spend money on jewelry

1 Corinthians 2:14


Amplified Bible (AMP)

14 But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated.


THAT'S MY TAKE ON TRINITY

frosbel: [size=15pt]so you pray to GOD through GOD ?[/size]


https://dailypicksandflicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Confused-Man.jpg

The problem is that most people are using the word God to refer to the Father which is wrong.That was what I said

frosbel: The Hebrew word we are considering is "Elohim". In the OT it is translated more than 2300 times as "God" (singular) and only about 240 times as "gods" (plural). Same Hebrew spelling -- different meaning!

Elohim actually does refer to the ONE God of Moses. We must not allow allow these few cases to divert our attention from the the vast majority of other uses of Elohim where it is clearly singular in meaning. In those few cases, translators allow the context to control the translation -- NOT the plural verbs and pronouns. They are recognised as unusual cases of "Plural Intensive", and therefore translated as singular.)

The common mistake made, especially by Trinitarian theologians, is to fail to distinguish between these TWO different uses of "Elohim" just described above. And THAT leads to all sorts of illogical conclusions! (Such as the Trinity, or Oneness, or Arianism)

Although there is no direct equivalent for "plural intensive" in English, we could use "sheep" singular and "sheep" plural, to illustrate the important point that words in English can have identical spelling, but be either singular or plural in meaning. We have no way of knowing which is intended until we read the verb and/or pronoun which accompanies the word. Then we can tell at a glance. i.e.

If we say "the sheep IS in the field", the SINGULAR verb tells us that there is only ONE!

But if we say "the sheep ARE in the field", the PLURAL verb tells us that there is MORE than one.

For simplified practical layman's purposes, that is how it is with the great majority of appearances of ELOHIM in the Hebrew Old Testament.

Maxwell Moses

gobbledygook
This is your problem,you keep copying and pasting without searching the truth for yourself.
I rest my case,I see every point I raise would be countered by some twaddled articleS
I REST MY CASE

Some of the problem really has to do with translation.

The name commonly used for God in the Old Testament is the Hebrew word Elohim. It is also found in the singular form El and Elah. Whenever we find the English word "God" used in the Old Testament, it is a translation of this Hebrew word Elohim or one of its forms

The noun Elohim is plural but it is always used with a singular verb when it speaks of the true God. This indicates a unity and diversity within the nature of God. This unity and diversity is revealed in Scripture as the doctrine of the Trinity.
Elohim means Gods or the Council of the Gods(Elohim refers to the combination of the three persons)

frosbel: If Jesus Christ was GOD , why was he anointed by the Holy Spirit of GOD to carry out the wondrous works that he did.

This is the real issue,who are you referring to as God(I guess you referring to the Father)
Elohim is the hebrew name for God,and you should understand the meaning of Elohim before you proceed

Deep Sight: My dear brother.

Please do not be sucked into this confusion.

GOD = GOD.

Jesus = Jesus.

Holy Spirit = The Living Power of God.

I dont have a problem with the fact that the three are distinctive.The Israelite refered to God has Elohim(meant governing council)

Sweetnecta: @k209 and thedenobi: only if anyone, especially the lionized aletheia can just show me if no one else the holy spirit came on earth as another comforter and heard from God Almighty The Sender of Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit spoke to the disciples so clearly they knew it was the another comforter, and he spoke to no one else and the disciples recorded what he spoke in his correcting them, leading them to all truth, teaching them new things to come, point out sins of man to them, praising Jesus in front of them and remaining with them forever. Can you tell aletheia to tell us these here, giving example[s] of each and how it was accomplished? I am interesting in the hear and speak parts and these can be settled by knowing what he heard and how he spoke it aloud to humans then and kept quite forever, while the disciples recorded it for prosperity, the only way you christians after the disciples can know about what the holy spirit said, in the same way you get to know about Jesus by the Gospels.

At this point I may just have to doubt the salvation of certain people and the christianity being profess by certain individuals(meaning their has been no encounter with the Holy Spirit)
I dont even need the Holy Scriptures to prove that the Holy Spirit speaks.Its a personal experience from the day I got saved,spoke in tongues till now.
It's just a personal experience and thats why I can never deny the existence of the Holy Spirit.(FOR THE RECORDS I WAS AN ATHEIST AT A POINT IN MY LIFE(then I was a fool)

Goshen360: @ Ijawkid and other anti-trinity,

That if God were deduced to a mathematical formulae he would not be 1+1+1=3 which would be tritheism, but would be 1x1x1=1, a unified one. None of the persons can exist without the other, they all make up the one God in unity. I have told you that NOT one person bears the name "God", please get that truth. That each person dwells in the other two which makes God indivisible and unquantifiable, so that wherever one of the persons of God is, all of God is there.

Maybe the word "Trinity" should not be used BUT facts and evidence is in the Bible that not one being bears God and these three are ONE, a unified ONE but distinct and this is what trinity is all about. I guess we are just angry with the word "Trinity" because it doesn't appear in the Bible. This I can personally understand but it uses that word "Trinity" just to make a subject/topic, I suppose.

GOD=FATHER+SON+HOLY SPIRIT
I think the problem with most people is just that they use the word Father and God interchangeably and thats why their is a lot of confusion

Frosbel,I think the problem is just due to the fact that you dont agree with the Roman Catholic Church,as a result its affecting your reasoning(you trying to fault all roman catholic doctrine(you just want to fault the trinity doctrine)).
As much as I dont agree with all of the RCC doctrine,some of their doctrine is right and trinity is not an exception.

ijawkid: David saw that vision,John saw the same vision,stephen b4 he died did see that picture,paul too saw it........

But in all of it,the holy spirit was no where to be found.........

Where was the holy spirit??

John and Stephen saw there revelation after the day of pentecost(Holy Spirit was on earth}
Besides did David see the 24 elders,(my point the fact that He didnt see them didnt mean they were not there)

Fr0sbel: So tell me High Priest aletheia , you say GOD is ONE.

Father God = 1
Jesus Christ = 1
Holy Spirit = 1

1+1+1 = 3 huh

But according to our resident professor, 1+1+1 = 1

The one simply means they agree
Ofcourse in Heaven God is on the throne and Jesus is at the right hand,so the ones means they agree together(they are still distinctive)




This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.Genesis 2:24(they are still 2 different people,but their oneness is thier agreement together in decisions etc)

mine 3 days,no water and food
Midnight of the second night,I was so weak

The qualifications for a person are that they have

1. A mind - able to think and act upon their thinking
--The Holy Spirit has a mind (see Romans 8:27).
--The Holy Spirit helped to settle questions during the Church Council at Jerusalem (see Acts 15:28).
--The Holy Spirit dispenses gifts to different individuals according as He wills (see 1 Corinthians 12:8-11).
--The Holy Spirit forbade some from going to preach in certain places (see Acts 16:6-7).
2. their own will - self identity
--The Holy Spirit anointed Jesus and sent Him out to preach the gospel (see Luke 4:18-19); In fact, both the Father and the Holy Spirit sent Jesus (see Isaiah 48:16).
--The Holy Spirit testifies or witnesses of Jesus (see John 15:26).
--The Holy Spirit leads God’s people (see Romans 8:14).
--The Holy Spirit teaches and causes us to remember the truth (John 14:26).
--The Holy Spirit comforts us as does Christ (John 14:16).
--The Holy Spirit strives with us (see Genesis 6:3).
--The Holy Spirit reproves us of sin, righteousness, and judgment (see John 16:8-11).
--The Holy Spirit instructs us (see Nehemiah 9:20).
3. and emotions - able to react cognitively
The Holy Spirit also has emotions, can be grieved, vexed, or pleased. (Is. 63:10; Eph. 4:30; Acts 15:28)


The Holy Spirit is identified as a Person by John, using in the Greek the masculine ekeinos in Jn.16:13.
The main purpose of the Holy Spirit was to come alongside the believer, to do what Jesus did when he was here physically, but mainly from the inside of us. He is called the comforter, this would be a hard thing to do if the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force
[color=#000000]FROSBEL YOU WRONG THIS TIME[/color]
A lot of posters have given you references

Ask your mum,
Mum's are always the best on matters like this

GreyMoon: but they need some inducement.

na wetin be inducement
If it is really what am thinking,then you are demented
If I were to be your wife,this is enough reason to file a divorce against you.Arrant nonsense

Ubenedictus: hahahaha, who told you that peter wasnt infalliable? Infalliability doesnt mean that the pope cannot make mistakes, it means that when he teaches in his capacity as a universal teacher he cannot teach errors on matters of faith and morals only.

Ok if thats the definiton of infalliability then I agree that Venerable Blessed Saint Bishop Primate Pope Peter 1st,didnt teach errors in matter of faith(I know that),was only showing that He also made mistakes in certain actions(though out of fear)

[quote author=*Shollypopz]I love my "alone time" too. A lil too much than normal though, so I don't think it's weird @ all. I just say I'm having a date wiv d Holy spirit dat's all![/quote]

Gal2:9 made it so clear that there was no primacy on Peter
2peter3:15

chukwudi44: All the apostles were given authourity but primacy was vested on st Peter.st cyprian the influential bishop of the eastern see has this to say about peter and the early church.

On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)

This is the real problem with RC,so if I dont agree with all of Peter's teachings am on the wrong path.I hope you know Peter was not infallible.He made certain mistakes also(Read Galatians2:11.
The fAct remains that each of the earlier apostles had their different callings Galatians2:7.Peter was entrusted with the goospel to the circumcised.

[quote author=chukwudi44][/quote]Your signature will make more sense if it reads 'I remain a proud ROMAN catholic'

MacDaddy01: lol.......evolution. more doctrines were added upon the advent of greater technology and philosophy.

Thats my point,you answered my point,the RCC now was different from the early church(Catholic) with the invention and addition of doctrines that favored His Holiness

MacDaddy01: Why are people such idiots?


Then what is the difference in practices of the Roman catholic and the catholic church?


The roman catholics did not break away from any catholic church. They are the same. The lies that you christians spout at times!


The catholic bible is the same as the roman catholic bible. with extra books than the protestants bibles. So what now is the difference between roman catholic and catholic! Damn!

The bible is thesame,what about the doctrine

MacDaddy01: Enigma has no point. When did the Roman catholic church break away from catholic church? Why do you lie?

So how come the RCC doctrine is different from that laid by Pope Peter 1

the first pope predicted the RCC,2peter2:1
Also Saint Paul predicted the RCC in 2Cor11:13-15
Gal2:4
And my own version;
'They(RCC) were with us(Catholics at antioch) but they were against us'. 1K2039 1:1

MacDaddy01: Enigma and Frosbel, you guys can lie a lot. I can not believe that I am defending the catholic church.


There is no difference between "catholic" and "roman catholic". You people lie so much.

Your problem is just that you didnt follow the thread well enough to understand Enigms's point.
The Catholic being refered to here was the earlier beleivers Act 11vs26.It's just like calling all christians Catholics(the RCC broke away,at a point they were part of the church)

The problem with most people is that when it comes to certain issues in life some people cant just think/reason with their brain.
It is so obvious for anyone who can reason effectively that the roman catholic is a subset of the Original Church.
The only reason they broke (RCC) broke away was because they couldnt agree with the teachings of the original church.
Roman catholics resisted the anglicans which in turn resisted methodist,it goes on and on like that,so each body broke up from the previos because they couldnt agree with the former's teachings.
Besides whats the big deal about compiling the bible,afterall the Bible was not written by the RCC,the old and new testament pre-existed the RCC,and its just logical that if the bible was compiled by the RCC,I wonder why its is then hard for them to adhere to what was compiled.
Am sure that if the bible was compiled by the RCC,all those heresy being preached by their papacy would have been included in the bible.

Adeks: Everyone is right in their own eyes. but does it mean every individual's opinions or thoughts are right? i doubt bro. Or can u help me understand ur quote better?

Your attitude affects your performance.
"If you think you cant"~if you have decided that you are unable to do something,you are prone to give up.(your mind is already made up that the goal is unattainable,why bother about,that thought alone will stop you from succeeding)
"If you think you can"~If you have decided you can do it,you will keep trying until you do(the thought of the possibility will drive you towards success).
You may have to read a biography on Henry Ford or Think and grow rich by napoleon hill to understand why Henry Ford said so(its a long story that I cant dive into now).
I hope my explanation helps

A blind person asked God: "Can there be anything worse than losing eye sight?" He replied: "Yes, losing your vision!"