₦airaland Forum

frosbel: No, he cannot.

You either believe that JESUS died fully as a MAN and was raised from the grave on the third day, or you do not.

Any other position is contrary to the bible.

DEATH is an all encompassing experience,

you cannot die and be alive in another form or shape,

this is the stuff of pagan greek philosophy which infiltrated the church through Catholicism.

@frosbel

Death is a dividing line.

Aha. Form or shape.

Jesus slept or died.

He woke up into the same body (i.e. same form or body) because He had the body still intact to return to.

Just as when God breathed into Adam to make to make the bodyshell alive (i.e. nephesh - a living soul) so did Christ return into Jesus' body to make Him alive.

# at work. So sorry I can't type as much as I would like to at the mo.

pastormustwacc: Some people here should be philosophers rather than Christians . . .

@pastormustwacc

The best of both worlds

frosbel: You cannot hold on to both positions.

Was he 100% dead in the grave or 50% ?

@frosbel

Of course I can.

Why not? Especially if the dynamics behind the whole thing is understood.

Do you know how Jesus came back from the "dead"?

Know how he was able to come back?

Why He didn't take longer than 3 days to come back? etc etc etc

frosbel: He was DEAD for 3 complete days and on the 3rd day was raised up by Yahweh. This is my position.

However, there are some who refute this , saying that though he died bodily, his spirit went to hell to do battle.

This is the position of some.

What is your position ?

@frosbel



My curiosity was aaaroused, now it's my attention that got stirred

I am aligned to both positions frosbel

Jesus was DEAD, Christ his spirit went to hell to do battle for 3 complete days and on the 3rd day Jesus was raised up by God.

JESUS Christ.

frosbel: Was JESUS Christ 100% dead in the grave or not?

@frosbel

Aha. Is this what it was all about?

Is that it?

What is 100% dead, sef?

You are dead or ain't dead.

Jesus slept just as Lazarus slept, didn't he?

So what's your response to "Was JESUS Christ 100% dead in the grave or not?" then?

frosbel: sorry , I need a little insight into your position as it is not immediately clear to me !

@frosbel

Insight into my position ke?

I am after an insight what this whole thing is about and what your complaint about it was frosbel

frosbel: Okay , let's talk about it.

First, what do you understand by the following statement :

"Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things."

@frosbel

I understand it literally and exactly how or way it is written.
Hmm?
I am still none the wiser what your gripe is though

frosbel: Yes you are

@frosbel

Oh no. You don't get off that lightly. Spill the beans.

What's the gripe over or what's the controversy about?

Please indulge me, what exactly in details is it about?

frosbel: ^^^^^

So according to your heretical logic, JESUS Christ did not DIE, he was alive in the grave somehow,

which means that GOD raising him from the dead was all for show ??

Thank GOD I left deeper life , from the outside I can now see how deep they are into heresy !

SMH

@^^^^^

Seems I am missing something here.

Is your ox being gored. If yes, how?

What am I missing here?

ATMC: @ihedinobi from ur post,

u r yet to experirence seex or have u?

just being curious lol

ATMC: i haven't but will very soon, i heard d thing is very sweet, i've got my local anagelsic cos i don't want to miss out on d sweetness cos of pain by the way have you? *winks*no, i read what you wrote, don't duck my question c'mon loland so he should answer ba?
well i ask questions a lot and don't like assuming anything hence d question..

as a matter of factly he stressed dt part dt he wonders dt d lord kept him from sexxual sin.

Lol, ihedi answer na, all these people are curious too o...

@ATMC

If one so much as simply look at another sexx with lust, in the heart, such has committed sexxual sin.

Sexxual sin does not default to only physical penetration.

tpia@:
Go back and attack the babalawo who gave you the original madness.

@tpia@

I won't advise "U" to go back to attack the babalawo not unless U fancies having paraplegia added to the mental suffering and sorrow

That is enough for U to go mad all over again.

HIV1: Na wa for these so called Christians.

I just came back from work say make I laugh small for Naira Land.

As I was browsing , na so I hear gran ; text message from glo:

Here it is

Name:
Number: 30803
Content:
Know the Bible in 2013; get Bible Quotes FREE till 15 Jan 2013 and N30/Week after. Text BIBLE to 30803 FREE.
Time: 12/01/2013 20:41:37

Wont they allow me to rest

@HIV1

Rest?, rest?, rest ke.

Have you not heard, there is no rest for the wicked. Hmm?

"There is no peace," says the LORD, "for the wicked." - Isaiah 48:22 NIV

Be afraid, be very afraid. Yeaah, be very afraid.

Boo! Bwahahahaha

Zikdik: Most Pentecostal Christians have formed an habit of shaking their heads and other body parts vigorously while saying their prayers.

Is this act compulsory if the prayers are to be answered?

Or, is it a sign that the "Christians-in-question" pray better and more effectively than others?

@Zikdik

Well that's the headbanging syndrome,

only that this particular flavor or version,

instead of dancing and violently shaking the head in time with music, which most commonly can be rock music or heavy metal

it is the violently shaking or nodding the head in tune with the intensity or degree of concentration of the praying which is done.

It is not an act compulsory, if the prayers are to be answered.

Someone, somewhere originally prayed that way and innocently started it.

Since the time of copying the originator of this style of praying,

it's now turned into a sheeple "following and copying the herd" stampede common way of praying in "plentyrascals" functions or with Christians.

maybe because some feel at ease or reassured of an answered request when praying this way

obadiah777: DID YOU EVEN BOTHER TO READ AND PONDER ON ALL THE POSTS ? OR ARE YOU JUST LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO AGREE WITH YOU ?.

IT WAS NOT PHYSICAL FRUIT. I DONT THINK THE LORD IS AS PETTY AS TO HAVE A GRUDGE BECAUSE YOU ATE FRUIT.

AND NEITHER WILL HE STOP YOU FROM EATING FRUIT THAT IS GOOD FOR YOU.

THE BIBLE IS NOT A BOOK TO BE READ LITERALLY.

AND ALL YOUR FOREFATHERS ARE ADAM ( ADAM IS NOT A PERSONS NAME ). AND YOU DO NOT INHERIT ANOTHER PERSONS SINS.

YOU ARE YOUR FOREFATHERS IN THE REINCARNATION. YOU CARRY YOUR SIN OVER FROM PAST-LIFE. AS SUCH YOU ARE BORN A SINNER.

ONLY PEOPLE NOT BORN INTO SIN WERE THE FIRST GENERATION OF ADAM CREATED BECAUSE THEY HAD NO PAST LIVES.

HOWEVER THAT IS THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO AND WE HAVE ALL COME INTO THE EARTH SEVERAL TIMES AFTER THAT.

AS SUCH WE WILL ALWAYS BE BORN AS SINNERS BECAUSE OUR SPIRIT HAS SIN LOGGED INTO IT FROM PREVIOUS LIFE.

SO A 1 DAY OLD BABY COULD BE A MURDERING PSYCHOTIC DEMON FROM PAST LIFE

@obadiah777

The baton's in your hand, don't drop it

Good luck

HIV1: You have been digressing,

if eating fruit by Adam is a sin and on the basis that all men inherited sins from Adam,

what about sins committed by your forefathers that are not Adam?

Did you inherit those sins also?

@HIV1

Eating the fruit by Adam was an amoral act, which was a transgression of a "Thou shall not" expressly ordered divine law

When a template or prototype is compromised, weakened, damaged or corrupted, the production line ends up with flawed products

What you on about with " . . . your forefathers that are not Adam? . . . " Huh?

Adam is the numero uno.

He is the ancestor, the first in rank, there are no forefathers except for Adam.

However indulging your whim, if there were forefathers,

Well, there is no link between these "forefathers" and Adam, because Adam was a start over.

If you like, say, Adam was a rehash with new ideas. OK?

sylve11: Interesting thread!

@ obidiah, I'd like to know u better.

obadiah777: I AINT NOTHING SPECIAL LOL. TRUST ME.

WHAT MEDIUM ARE YOU SUGGESTING ?

sylve11: but I think u have something to tell me. . .I have been looking for that for some time.

Facebook, not my thing. Another medium pls.

Just state it here and I shall follow follow.

Well if it is a Medium of Endor, give it a wide berth and don't follow

tpia@:
Isnt iyabo obasanjo a vet?

Obj made sure his kids studied good courses, so that means there must be something there.

Typically, i think vet doctors will work in govt parastatals related to agriculture, what someone described here seems like small animal practice ( pets and the like).

Yeah. Crafty that is, isn't it? Be handy on Obasanjo Farms.

obadiah777: YOU SIR MOREDENDISC ARE VERY CORRECT WHEN YOU SAY THE BIBLE IS ALSO ABOUT THE INTRICATE MIND OF GOD.

YOU ARE CORRECT. YOU ARE ALSO CORRECT ABOUT THE FRUIT AS OPPOSED TO APPLE.

GENESIS 3 VS 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food,
and that it was pleasant to the eyes,
and a tree to be desired to make one wise,
she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat,
and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

STILL DOES NOT CHANGE THE MESSAGE THOUGH.

I WONDER WHO CAME UP WITH THE APPLE ?

@obadiah777

Aye, it doesn't change the message at all

I am surprised you didn't accuse me of being pedantic

You are a honorable man.

It just grates me when liberty is taken for granted, to say, the fruit eaten was an apple.

It is like when people say "God helps those that help themselves" like it is a bible quote or verse

PAGAN 9JA:
they dont exist. we are descended from ape-like ancestors.

@PAGAN 9JA

. . . and which grace did the ape-like ancestors fall down from?

obadiah777: INTERESTING HOWEVER I AM TRYING TO SIFT THROUGH YOUR POST TO GET TO THE MEAT.

I DONT SEEM TO KNOW WHAT THE DEBATE IS ABOUT.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT I SHOULD HAVE TOLD DUDE THAT ADAM AND EVE SPIRITUALLY FORNICATED ?

OR ARE YOU SAYING I DID NOT BREAK IT DOWN ENOUGH ?

ATMC: are you saying adam n eve had sex is d depiction of d apple they supposedly ate?

But d bible said eve ate it first, does it mean she had sex with herself? If u say she concieved it first then how do u explain what d bible said dt he dt overcomes will eat of dt tree?

@obadiah777

I am saying correct the basic, it was a fruit not an apple

See, ATMC too, is using the noun, apple, for the fruit; a fruit which incidentally has/had no name or name deliberately not mentioned

By the way, the bible is not only or per se about the history of mankind

but also is, a book about the mind of God; God's intricate mind.

obadiah777: SO YOU SUPPORT THE TRINITY DOCTRINE THEN ?

@obadiah777

Facepalm, SMH. Not you too Brah

What's Trinity got to do with this now.

Beside, it's not as if God can be compartmentalised.

Argh. I tire for you, frosbel et al guys over this trinity brouhaha

If you may know, I support God is ∞-person(s)

So far, we've known the Father, Son and Spirit, side of Him

Happy?

Same token just as with the different combination of obadiah777, the son of Daddy obadiah777; obadiah777; the daddy of little obadiah777, obadiah777; the poster dropping posts on NL etc etc which/that forms who you are.

The limitation with you or how God is different from you is Omnipresence and Simultaneous occurrence

You, obadiah777 or anyone for that matter, can't be at two places or more than one place at the same time, like God can. That is, a bummer. Ouch.

obadiah777: I CORRECTED HIM ALREADY, I THINK

@obadiah777

Erm, I think it was more of an explanation you gave than a correction

Did not read you discouraging poster from calling the fruit an apple

Eating the fruit with satan, was symbolic of spiritual adultery

As a standard, it takes 3 to make Love in Heaven; - The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit

By the same token, normally it takes 3 to make love on earth; - The man-husband, the woman-wife and God

The first love made on earth with Adam and Eve was abnormal and questionable.

It had a question of dubious morality ...

Eve called the son, Cain, "I have the or a man"

She called the second following son, Abel, moisture meaning literally shortlived, not to be reckon with, not the man etc . . .

obadiah777: THE APPLE IS SYMBOLIC FOR SPIRITUAL FORNICATION.

IT WAS NOT A PHYSICAL APPLE. AND A NEW BORN BABY IS A SINNER SIMPLY BECAUSE THE SPIRIT IN THAT BABY IS NOT A NEW BORN SPIRIT.

THAT IS A REINCARNATION STATEMENT. WE ARE BORN IN SIN IS A REINCARNATION STATEMENT. THE BABY WAS A SINNER IN PAST LIFE.

AS SUCH WE ARE ALL BORN SINNERS. ONLY PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT BORN SINNERS ARE THE FIRST PEOPLE EVER CREATED CUZ THEY HAD NO PAST LIFE.

@obadiah777

Why didn't you correct poster that it wasnt an apple tree they ate from. Hmm?

Second, why not ask the poster to try create a word document off a corrupted Normal.dot file to learn about default inherent attributes passed on

BroRhema: Luke9:60- Jesus said LET THE DEAD BURY THEIR DEAD but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.

I have read this scriptural passage over and over again, without comprehending what it truely means.

I'av also done go0gle search on it, but al to no avail, as i have had about 15 different answers 4rm different christian sites.

So nairalanders, what are your views On this enigmatic quote

@BroRhema
Let them that are DEAD IN THE SPIRIT bury their dead in the spirit

but if SPIRITUALLY ALIVE, go thou and explain the Kingdom of God (i.e. go make plain or clear and understandable the Kingdom of God to one and all)

obadiah777: ALL THESE THESIS. *SMDH*

Don't be a party pooper and go easy on the damned head

tpia@:
this is also weird:

@tpia@

Erm, no it's not.

We sees similar to it a lot in Naija, too bad I can't recall the indigenous name for it

obadiah777: I AINT BUT A HUMBLE LOWLY SERVANT OF YAHAWAH.

I MAKE NO GOSPELS. I AM NOT WORTHY

@obadiah777

Is that what you are?

Isn't that a low self esteem and evaluation of your worth to Abba?

Servant?

Chin up. Relax, give yourself a break, son of the Most High

davidylan: I suppose that is the definition of a sacred cow nigerian style.

@davidylan

I am slating towards an Indian definition. Hindu style?

Chanchit: If u have the opportunity to vote btw a leader like Moses or Joseph for Nigeria,

which one will you choose and why..?

Toss of coin to decide a president or prime minister/finance minister. Hmm.

Nigeria is in financial dire straits, and too late for a Joseph step-in, to prevent an economic meltdown that is already in position

So it is a Moses that is needed to free the people from Pharaoh, to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians.

Nigeria needs a Moses to take the people to the promised land, to let the people go to the land flowing with milk and honey

Nigeria needs a Moses, that is, if necessary, ready and willing to temporarily give up his Zipporah and family,

to effectively discharge the great work he has to do for Nigeria for the desired outcome

Reyginus: Okay. But my point is, if you are going to make a case against the word 'know',

using it to explain itself is just redundant.

On one hand, you are expressed the word know could be a surface acquintance of christ, on the otherhand, you also hold that knowing christ is what is required.

I think the problem is with the understanding of the word 'know'.

Know here is synonymous with experience

@Reyginus

That is exactly my observation,

the redundancy is a luxury that cant be afforded,

as it again gives a false sense of security, - Pfft am sounding more like a broken record now by the minute, SMH

It is not healthy because it is not ". . . knowing Christ is what is required . . ." but having a connection and/or relationship with Christ that matters

as it is possible to know Jesus and not having a relationship with Christ

Few people know Jesus, experienced Jesus but have no relationship thereafter or thereon . . .

Reyginus tell me.

Do you know Obama, Mohammad Ali, Ghaddafi, GEJ, Fela, Kurtis Blow, Tai Solarin, Nduka 'Duke' Odizor etc

Sense you say, you do know a few, if not all, but do you really know them?

Do you have a rapport etc with anyone or any of them?

Lets call a spade a spade and say things as it is meant to be said. Brother.

Simplifying born gain with merely a knowing, will distort the feedback based on faulty understanding, the poster receives

You have the last word

Reyginus: Nothing is wrong with using the word 'know' to describe our relationship with christ.

Let's not drag this into another arguement. I think you answered yourself here.

Now, what's wrong with using the word? Rhetoric question.

@Reyginus

With more, the need to be explicit

because a lot know Christ with no relationship with Him

"What's wrong with using the word?"

Well, reiterating, what is wrong, is that using just "know" gives a false of security

People get to know Jesus, if not Christ and still don't get born again, which incidentally was what the subject/post title was about, talk less mentioning relationship et al

Less responding to you, an observation of an inaccuracy was made

and an explanation given on how a non existing and/or non meaningful relationship invalidates a "know" Christ

The poster solicited for stories on how got to know without mentioning relationship - i.e. " . . .to share their stories of how they came to know Christ . . ."

Leave no room for doubt, was the rule of thumb suggested here.