₦airaland Forum

MuttleyLaff:
Na for hause, sette dey wait for bumbum come siddon. When you're done getting things done, I'll still be here, around, lol. Run ooo, run as much as you like but me, I know say you nefa fit hide, lol.

Whobedatte:
The same Rwanda that over 2million people died due to genocide years ago?

MuttleyLaff:
You will never find any verse in the Bible, that, in a clear, direct and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, saying fallen angels or said angels are sons of God. I dare you to come up with any verse(s) missjo and let me counter you and take you to the cleaners with them.lol.

OkCornel:
No probs dear.

MuttleyLaff:
Playing MIA cos of heat, erhn?
Hi missjojo, missjo

OkCornel:
Cc: missjo, maamin, gobuchinny, budaatum, nijabazaar, RiyadhGoddess

crackhaus:
I am in possession of your Terminator. Ask Aya.

luminouz:
Sure,but its for private viewing only,in my chambers.

Still eager?

Ihedinobi3:
You're right about that. It is not something restricted to the Lord Jesus in His Humanity. As Acts 17:28 (which I mentioned to you earlier) and the various references to the sonship of the angels in the Bible make quite clear, it is something that applies to Creation in general. So, God (by which we mean the Trinity) is the Father of all our spirits (Hebrews 12:9, cf. Numbers 16:22; 27:16).

crackhaus:
Yah, for you.

Ihedinobi3:
And I am very happy to hear that what I write is useful and encouraging to you, believe me. I do look forward to your responses, questions, and observations.

Regarding your question, it is not quite in the sense that you may think.

The verse says that the Father loved the Son before the creation of the world. It does not quite mean that the Member of the Trinity we are given to recognize as the Father "begat" or in any sense produced the Son before the Creation of the world. Consider that if it did, then we would have to explain the Son's love for the Father and their love for the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit's love for Them the same way, if both Son and Holy Spirit are to be truly God. That the Father loved Jesus Christ before anything was created only means that the Trinity has always existed in mutual love for Each Other. It is a part of Their Divine Nature, just as 1 John 4:8 teaches.

The sense in which the Fatherhood of God is really an eternal concept is the sense in which the Trinity (all Three Persons) is the Producer, Sustainer, and Ruler of Creation from conception to eternity. This, as I said, applies to all Three Persons of the Trinity. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are together the Creator of all Creation, just as a father is the source and spring of his children. They sustain it, just as a father provides all things necessary for his children to flourish. They rule over it, just as a father guides, disciplines, protects, and delegates duties to his children. This is not something that They do to each other, in the sense that the Father has been this way to the Son outside of this Creation, no. The Son is in every sense equal to the Father as Deity. He was not produced, sustained, or ruled over by the Father in His Deity. It is only in the Son's Humanity, which only occurs in Creation, that these things apply.

So, it is best to think of the Fatherhood of God as a role that is filled by One Member of the Godhead in order to represent the Trinity's Position with respect to Creation as such (that is, as Father) to us. That is also how we should understand the Son's role and the Holy Spirit's role.

crackhaus:
Cutting blades on a caddy, I know. No one does it like us

ednut1:
interesting. Or because the event never happened. How come caesar and herod were mentioned . Go sleep

luminouz:
Yes,they are!!
Wanna have a look-see?

Ihedinobi3:
I wouldn't quite put it as you have.

The business of Fatherhood in the Deity is due to the Plan of God in Creation. In God's Plan, there are different Roles that need to be filled in order for the Plan to work. Fatherhood is one of them. Sonship is another. Yet another is the Role of Empowerer. These are only Roles, and the functions sometimes overlap. The Three Members of the Godhead each chose the Role that They would play in that Plan.

The Father is the One Who represents the Authority of God to us. He is the One Whom we easily recognize as God. He is not Father because He "begot" anybody or "generated" anybody, as some theories, creeds, and ideas have postulated. That is an unbiblical appreciation of the role. His Fatherhood is a symbol or a representation of the Authority and Majesty of God to us.

The Son is not inferior to the Father. That is another Role that a Member of the Godhead took on in order to actualize the Plan of God in Creation. On the one hand, this is a role that this Member plays in order to represent to us the Mediator, the Middle Man, the Intercessor, and also to provide an example to us how we ought to be toward God. On the other, this is a role that became actual when this Member of the Trinity took on human nature and became one of us. By this is meant that when the Lord Jesus came into the world as a human being, His acquisition of a created nature made Him a Son in an actual sense, in a sense that God is not, since God has no beginning, and is inferior and subservient to no one. His Possession of a created nature allows Him to act in every sense like an actual Son who serves His Father.

The role of the Holy Spirit is to empower the works of God.

Sometimes, the word "son" is saying something more than that something derives from another. Sometimes, it describes the nature of a thing. This is what you see in Isaiah 14:12. Although, it is most definitely true that Satan and all angels, along with all mankind, are God's offspring (Acts 17:28), this verse is saying actually that Satan was a very bright angel. That is, he exuded light that was visible enough to be compared to the morning. Compare Revelation 22:16; 2 Peter 1:19.

Finally, since Satan was created, as were all angels, his rebellion did not occur before creation. I think that you may have meant that it occurred before man was created. If you didn't mean that, you can note that that is what the Bible teaches. The Lord Jesus has only been Son in the sense that He chose that role for Himself in the Plan of God, not in the same sense that the angels, including Satan, who were all created are.

MuttleyLaff:
I don't know why I used to call you misssjojo instead of missjo. Anyway I've managed to correct myself on that. Hey don't worry about delayed response.

You haven't answered the thrust of my question missjo and that is when, as in, at what point or moment did God start being a Father. Don't forget your backing scripture to support and validate your answer lol.

Authority doesn't necessarily equate to fatherhood missjo. God wielded authority long before He ever became a Father now, so what are you trying to pull here with this lame and weak comment, hmm?

Is God the Father of animals, is He the Father of mountains, is He the Father of fishes? Yeah you are getting the drift

What are you driving at with "son of morning" huh? Why have you emboldened "son of morning"? What point are you making with the son and morning? Who and/or what is the morning?

Is the m in that morning capitalised at all, as in, is it in upper case M, hmm? I am just asking ni ooo, missjo, as it would be in your good stead if it is, don't you think, hmm? Eisegesis tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk, hmm, be careful of that.

So? What's wrong in One sending Himself?

1/ What was Jesus from this very beginning, before being Jesus, hmm?
2/ Is there anything wrong in God sending Himself an errand to earth, hmm?
3/ Technically speaking who and what would you call the person who sent to earth, the one called Jesus Christ, hmm?

I laugh out in Greek at your poor pretexting with scripture

missjo, please show me the verse(s) were the Nephilim in the Bible are outrightly mentioned to be sons of God.

If you develop the habit of correctly and properly answering questions asked you, if you do not duck and dive from my series of questioning, you'll then soon will change your tune and eat your words about the Nephilim being the sons of God. Lol

It would have gone a long way, iff you had correctly answered when God started being a Father

sammyhir:

crackhaus:
Cute.

But bro no vex o, what is that in her mouth in the last photo?

genq:
- and you don't fight enough- hence why that ugly w!tch called cococandy and her minions keep bullying you. Yes, I've been watching.

genq:
Hahahhaha - the deluded earless seal believes she has "decorum and class"
You're killing me girl

Look woman, I'm not missjo or any other female you NL minions can bully into oblivion. I am Genq, the gentle G y'all love to hate and I've got all day ma'am. Yes I'm just as jobless as you and we can tango all day!

MuttleyLaff:
I liked the post then asked a simple, straightforward direct question based on your comments above about the God fatherhood, that at what time did God start to be a Father?
Do you have a verse(s) to provide as evidence to support or prove the truth of your answer with?

Ihedinobi3:
Good for you.


Regarding the above, there are a few things that I must say:

1. It wasn't so much about physical unclothedness as it was about a lesson about Redemption. Adam and Eve were geniuses. Their bodies were perfect until they sinned, and even then they were still of far higher quality than our bodies today are, so they really were able to make exceptionally good coverings from leaves. That does not even take into consideration the type and variety of vegetation that was available to them in the Garden. So, it wasn't about clothes. It was about Redemption.

2. The issue of redemption is that rebellion against God is essentially cosmic treason. According to the Word of God itself, such rebels forfeit their lives by rebelling. The only way then to fix the problem was to give life in exchange for the life of the rebel. That is why there had to be a death in order to save the life of the sinner.

3. It is not about blood as a substance. It is about what blood represents. In Genesis 9:4, the Lord makes abundantly clear that blood represents life. Even in colloquial usage today, to shed blood is to kill. It is not necessary to actually spill blood physically in order to kill. So it is not about blood as a substance.

4. The Sacrifice of the Lord Jesus had nothing to do with His physical blood. In fact, the Price that He paid for our sins was spiritual in nature. The Bible records that He was still alive when He declared the Sacrifice accomplished with the tetelestai, that is, the statement "it is finished" or "it has been accomplished." That is conclusive evidence that He had already paid the Price before He physically died. The Blood of Jesus is actually a metaphor for the Sacrifice that He offered for us. It is not His Physical Blood. That Sacrifice was made in the three hours of darkness that fell while the Lord was on the Cross. It involved the actual separation that our Lord experienced from the Father, and the actual suffering and pain that is associated with Judgment upon sin. The Lord suffered all of that to an infinite degree for those three hours. After He had, the darkness was lifted and the veil of the Holiest Place was torn in two symbolizing the removal of the barrier between God and Man.

5. So, again, I must warn you to avoid reading anything into the actual physical metaphors used for the Sacrifice. It was not a material thing at all. Redemption was wholly a spiritual affair.

6. Finally, the Lord Jesus's Deity was voided during His first Advent (Phil 2:7). That is, the Lord was not taking advantage of His Deity in any way, so it is not at all biblical that His Blood had "God-characteristics." In fact, Hebrews 10:5, which I showed you before, is crystal clear that the Sacrifice was only possible because the Lord was given a real human body to make it with. It was purely His Humanity that suffered and died for us. Deity cannot die or suffer in any way, which is why the Lord voided His Deity to make the sacrifice, a theological concept called kenosis.

7. I sometimes, but very rarely, warn people about others on this platform. I don't do it often, because I worry that it will do more harm than good. In my other response to you on the other thread, I have already given you a warning that I think is sufficient if you do have a heart for the Truth, as it seems to me that you do. Nonetheless, I will warn you here about such people again. It appears to me that one such has marked you, as he often does people who are ripe for the Truth, but who are still neophytes. I have shown you a place that I believe is perfectly safe for you to feed and grow in the Truth. If you will give your attention there, you will be safe from such wolves in sheep's clothing. It concerns me that you may not be doing so, but that is really your choice to make, not mine. Suffice to say, that although you may be taking joy in the attentions of people who appear to have "deep wisdom," some of them only have the "deep things of Satan," but are so caught up in their minds with the idea that they are something special in the Church that they can never see their own errors. If you are not careful, you too can be swept away by them. As it is, it appears that two such people, in fact, have caught your attention. Please, be careful. This board is a very dangerous place for young believers who are still growing in the Truth.

MuttleyLaff:
missjojo, at what point has God been a Father? Do you have a verse to provide as evidence to support or prove the truth of your answer with?

Ihedinobi3:
I have a few things to say both about the link and about Bible interpretation in general:

1. About the link, it is of very little value. It does excellently in showing that what happened did not involve sex of any kind, as some crazy people like to claim. Ham only saw his father naked and thought it was something funny to talk about. That brought a very specific prophetic curse on his own son, not directly on himself, although we must be aware that there is such a thing as "cursing by association" as much as there is "blessing by association," the first of which is exemplified by God's cursing of the earth in association with Adam's disobedience and the other of which is exemplified by His blessing of the world in association with Abraham's obedience. Another example is God's killing of David's first son by Bathsheba for David's double sin of adultery and murder. We may consider such things as unjust of God, but we are not qualified to judge God. However, it is clear that it is still judgment upon the sinner when God strikes something that is dear or necessary to them - the earth, in the case of Adam, and David's child, in David's case. So, the curse that came upon Canaan was still punishment for Ham. Additionally, although Canaan was an infant at the time, the Lord knew that the sort of thing that his father Ham did would come to characterize him and his own descendants, which is why eventually God destroyed all Canaanites. Compare God's rejection of Esau ("Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated" ) in this matter.

The rest of the article focuses on issues of race. That is really of no value whatsoever. It is true that some misguided people take the curse on Ham's son to mean that God cursed all Africans. That is obviously false, since the curse was specifically meant for Canaan and his descendants. That is another thing that the article got right, but as for who was black and who wasn't, that was a waste of print in the article.

Still, the article got the important things right. It only subsumed those important things in a rather useless context.

2. About general interpretation, I have suggested before to you that the right thing to do is to stick with what the Bible actually says. It is always a bad idea to extrapolate, especially when you can't pin your extrapolations to anything actually written in the Bible. So, for example, you don't pretend, as someone with no respect for the Bible would, and has right here, that when the Bible says that Noah discovered what his youngest son had done to him, that it must mean Canaan. Obviously, Canaan was not even Noah's son, much less, his youngest. Additionally, the word was "youngest," not "younger." Even more importantly, it couldn't have referred to an infant, especially when the Bible had been talking about the adult Ham up to that point. That is all treating the Bible very disrespectfully. The Bible says what it says and means what it means. You can take it or leave it, you may not change it to suit your own whims, however noble they may seem to you.

3. Not everyone who handles the Bible and talks about it has any right whatsoever to teach it. Many people who aren't even believers pretend to the authority to interpret the Bible. Sometimes, they are even ridiculously vehement about their supposed authority. It would be incredibly foolish to pay such people any mind. Then there are those who may be believers but who are woefully immature because they have never taken the time to learn the Bible from a gifted and prepared Bible teacher, yet such people presume to teach the Bible to others. Timothy was warned by Paul not to give teaching authority to such people (1 Timothy 3:6). Such people often carry a wild mixture of truths and falsehoods that leave their listeners blowing in the wind with no firm foundation under their feet.

I have listened to both kinds of people in my past, and I have been the latter too. I assure you that it is an incredibly bad idea to listen to such teachers. It endangers your salvation, if you are saved at all. If you are not, it almost certainly makes your ever being saved impossible.

4. All I can do is offer these helps, warnings, and corrections, if you are even open to them. I cannot protect you from your own choices. It is entirely up to you what you choose to believe and do with yourself. As I said, I will keep praying for you, and I will also continue to take every opportunity available to me to help you come into the Truth, if you are at all open to my help. But that's all I can do.

Grace be with you.

1StopRudeness:
U seem to have some knowledge in this area...I would like to know ur view on Trinity....

1) Is God one entity operating in three different dispensation as the father, the son and the Holy Spirit i.e God himself died for humanity...like the OP said... the forgiver bears the damage of the wrong, so for God to bear the damage of our sins, he has to make the atonement himself not anyone else...making God the father=Jesus
. if this is correct...how come there are so many scriptures that faults this idea..e.g
.a) father why have thou forsaken me(on the cross) mat 27v45
b)paul clearly said in 1cor 15v27: For the Scriptures say, “God has put all things under Jesus ” Of course, when it says “all things are under his authority,” that does not include God himself, who gave Christ his authority.....

OR
2) There are 3 separate God-head with one aim, one purpose as said by John in 1 John 5:7 reads: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost... if this is the case, is Jesus still a “God” ?....if he is....doesn’t that negate what the Bible clearly says that there’s only one God making point number one above a more valid idea