₦airaland Forum

ijawkid: Now this why y'all need a good coaching on these hebrew words if not you'll get yoursleves all worked up........

This all started with isaiah 9:6 where it says Jesus was to be called el gibbor.....

The point is even EL does not directly mean God...I hope you know??......but we do know when it is applied to Yahweh who is the one God of isreal and of all.......I know the powerful one Jesus is sitting close to isn't alfred because as we know it is Yahweh his Father.......all the scriptures combined shows Jesus was sitting close to his Father on the Fathers throne......NO??......

My point is you guys are acting like you can't tell who is being talked about just to obfuscate issues to prove the trinity.......

And from that verse that powerful one is the Father......

And talking about EL it can also refer to man.....they are all titles....don't tell me you don't know.....infact EL can be refered to plants,other false gods,mountains etc...

Even the word GABRIEL is coined from both EL and Gibbor......it denotes might,strenght.power.....

I'm only trying to block your moves in trying to use the title mighty God to equate Jesus with his Father............

but as you do know Jesus is sitting at the right hand of no other person than his Father Yahweh.......

truthislight: Lol.



i dont think that those ^ need debating.

ijawkid: My argument was on the hebrew word which is translated mighty God.......if you had noticed.........that same word has its equivalent rendering as mighty ONE,powerful one ......and all of these applies to humans........if it applies to humans then we shouldn't be struggling with it.....that's my point.......all it drives to is that we are dealing with one who is powerful.....

Now Jesus sitting close to the right hand of the power of God simply means Jesus will act with Gods power.......or you just couldn't understand that one small truth.??........you could as well say Jesus was sitted at the right hand of the powerful one.......which ever we know Jesus is sitted at the right hand of his God and Father........psalms 110:1.....

if you had forgotten please remember 1 corinthians 15:26-28......

Going back and forth is only a waste of time........

Now Jesus sitting close to the right hand of the power of God simply means Jesus will act with Gods power.......or you just couldn't understand that one small truth.??........you could as well say Jesus was sitted at the right hand of the powerful one.......which ever we know Jesus is sitted at the right hand of his God and Father........psalms 110:1.....

striktlymi: If the Christian God is not the real God then why are you still a Christian?


#Sorry Anony for derailing a bit. I couldn't help but notice the irony.

ijawkid: That's if I agree the holy spirit is a person and God abi??..........

Remember el gibbor is the ish here which you and your ilks are on about.....

Mighty one,powerful one,mighty ruler ,mighty God....etc.....all could apply to God and humans.....

That's it all.......

truthislight: Lol.

I cant believe you asked that ^ .

There are so many instances that Yahweh is called a person!

I cant believe you asked this ?

We have Jesus appearing befor the "person" of God to present the value of the ransom sacrifice.

Infact, i give up, what!

ijawkid: New American Standard Bible
(©1995)
"But from now on THE SON OF
MAN WILL BE SEATED AT THE
RIGHT HAND of the power OF
GOD."

King James Bible (Cambridge
Ed.)
Hereafter shall the Son of man
sit on the right hand of the power
of God.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
(©2009)
But from now on, the Son of Man
will be seated at the right hand of
the Power of God."


Now don't tell me I'm quoting from another rendition......

The truth is you have never gone through a thorough examination of the word EL GIBBOR........which is also applied to humans..........

So this scripture isn't even a challenge to this discussion........

What you should have asked yourself is what Jesus is doing at the right hand of God......

This Jesus was exalted by the one GOD who is the Father......

You forget??

benalvino: It would have been very easy for Jesus to simply say, “When it comes,” but Jesus called the Holy Spirit “He” more than 15 times. Why would God go to so much trouble to personify His own inherent power to the extent that it possessed emotions, thoughts, and speech independent of Himself?
people personify country like ijawkid say they call Nigeria she... I know they call cars she... I hardly see or hear anyone call cars or country he...
but you cant personify something like country or cars with "HIM" its not gonna work...

shdemidemi: We are saying the same thing bro, everything Paul did was inspired by Christ, Paul was only a tool the Holy Spirit used. Paul himself is an ordinary man but he was used to carry the church age gospel which we must adhere to, to be saved.

As regards your note, Christ's earthly ministry was primarily for the Jews, it isn't for the church albeit we can learn from it.

truthislight: Why not show me where the bible calls the holy spirit a person without resorting to deducting from a "he" and "the" but like it is done for Jesus and Yahweh ?

Please do, you that reads the bible.

shdemidemi: You are correct, they mean the same thing

shdemidemi: Trust me, i don't. All I believe is the book, as soon as you show me and it is right, I will definitely agree. I am sur anony has gone to check if it is true but you are definitely not like him.

thehomer: The fact that a photon's speed can change doesn't mean that the constant known as the speed of light can. In fact, the speed of light changes within various media this still doesn't mean the speed of light isn't a constant.

What you just pointed out isn't contradictory to what I showed you from the same article. In fact, what I showed you from that article was much clearer.

What did I claim ignorance of? And how would that prevent you from demonstrating my concession?

Okay. Now that the confusion has been clarified, how do you know the universe doesn't necessarily exist the way it does? Do you know of any other universe?

This rough analogy isn't accurate because based on what you're saying, he didn't write the entire code that defines Nairaland because he used a programming language that he didn't define himself. On the other hand, you're saying God did it all. You're saying God created the "tools" themselves the constants that eventually arrived at the moon in the same way that Seun would need to have created HTML and the Python Language (I think is one of the tools that powers Nairaland). He would also need to have created the server software and all that for your analogy to be accurate. Then these programs would have written Nairaland spontaneously.

Bidam: My bro.. i don tell am tire o.he is just making himself a willing target to both atheist and muslims here.

shdemidemi: Don't misconstrue what the bible is saying, no one says you should worship Paul but follow his guide, his teachings because the church shall be judged by his gospel-

Romans 2:16

King James Version (KJV)


16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel

Uyi Iredia: That's what H2O describes.

Uyi Iredia: Then what is water by definition ?

shdemidemi: What you are saying is quite different from the scriptures---what that verse is saying is that our teacher as a church is Paul. We follow his teachings, his teachings lead us to the truth in Christ.

Deep Sight: It is a waste of time discussing with people who do not know what they are.

People who thnk that they were assembled by dead stones, purposelessly.

A man could not be more dead than one who has such a belief.

When I used the word 'corpse', it probably for this same reason was entirely lost on thehomer.

I will chat about this one last time. In Plaetton's thread on consciousness, or in a new thread. When I am done, I will NEVER discuss this ediocy again.

wiegraf: One doesn't agree with you = eediocy? Do you know what eediocy means?

This is all opinions, and we know what they're like, but I would think that word very clearly applies to you.

Deep Sight: You of course must be very very slow not to have realized a long time ago that it is nothing but ediocy not to agree with me. Agreeing with me is very smart: disagreeing is ediocy, becuase I am always right. Now, I am not being sarcastic: I mean it: I am always right. Disagree at peril of your own ediocy.

Thehomer and anyone else, including yourself sire, who believes that mindless matter purposelessly assembled human beings over time, is a prize winning eddiot and certainly no better than a goat or rooster in terms of brains or perception.

Deep Sight: I take this back: it is an insult to goats and roosters.

shdemidemi: As a christian, the scripture says we should follow Paul (not Peter,not James, Not John, not Jesus earthly ministry).

1 Corinthians 11:1
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

Mr Troll: Interesting back and forth boys...
One question Anony, are you saying that some people are not homosexual? That in fact they made a choice to fall into the 'homosexual temptation'(Whatever that means)?

mazaje: How can you say you don't know what it was designed for , yet still claim it was designed?. . .A car is desiged for driving. . .What is the universe designed for?. . .

That does not mean it was designed, it just means it acts in certain ways. . .Chance can also make it act in such ways. . .

It only means that the universe acts in a particular way. . .

That is what your entire premise is, re-read what you have written. . .If we are to go with your claims, we can as well say that the universe has designers. . .

Deep Sight: I take this back: it is an insult to goats and roosters.

Uyi Iredia: Allow me to answer. I think they are not necessary. For example, there's nothing to prevent hydrogen and oxygen mixing to become salt, or the atom just being a static neutron. We can think of these. Furthermore, why are these phenomena consistent ? I therefore suppose that an intelligence arbitrated these properties. How ? I don't know.

ayenny02: "Son of God" is the same as "Servant of God" in Hebrew!

God speaks to the nation as though he were a single person. Israel is, in fact, God's son (Exod 4:22 Deut 14:1 Jer 31:9 Hosea 11:1)

Israel's Father nurtures him to grow up and become a worshiping servant (Exod 4:23 — "Let my son go that he may serve me"."

New King James Version
Acts 3:25 - You are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.

Acts 3:26 - To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning every one of you away from his iniquities

COMPARE IT
King James Version
Acts 3:25 - Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

Acts 3:26 - Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities
HOLY SPIRIT AND HOLY GHOST MEAN ANGEL GABRIEL
Matthew 1:18
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Compare now with Luke 1:26-27
26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

Mattew mentioned holy ghost and luke mentioned the angel gabriel, so the HOLY GHOST is then the ANGEL GABRIEL

From my explanation above God is ONE not three person
Thks

thehomer: Not according to Jesus with his talk about adultery in the heart and not according to God with his command that people not covet.

Once a choice is made, it isn't reversible. The person can then make another choice further down the decision tree. But the thing though is that if you know you can choose between A and B, then with your freewill, you can choose either A or B. If after choosing A, B is still available, then further down the path if you still have freewill, you can still choose B thereby making yet another choice.

thehomer: The line is a statistical one but what you need to realize of course is that however unlikely computer software might be, it is still less likely without the initial presence of sapient beings therefore, the presence of sapient beings is more likely than the presence of computer software.

Wrong. A computer program is code. Tweaking the DNA code is a short way of saying you're moving around specific molecules.

Actually, the question of who is very much in play because your aim with this line of inquiry is to present DNA as being evidence for God.

This is why you should have read the entire sentence before randomly picking out something and calling it a strawman. What you did was to edit out the rest of your own quote and you called it a strawman. Really. The words following the semicolon that are in bold are in fact your very own words.



I quoted your own argument and you're calling part of it a strawman?

It is not a red-herring and what you've just demonstrated is that you're partly making an argument from ignorance and contradicting yourself. Let me explain as usual.

You don't know whether or not some of those objects were designed. If you don't know that, then you cannot actually say (what follows is a direct quote from you on own method of inferring design not a strawman): it's constituent parts all work according to a set of specific instructions such that we can accurately predict exactly how it ought to function therefore it is designed.

You also said some of those objects weren't designed. If they weren't designed, but you're willing to attribute the moon to your God's design, how did they come about?

I really find it difficult to understand why you guys just chuck out the name of a fallacy and think it settles everything. That isn't how to have a serious discussion. Please can you actually show me how I committed this fallacy? If you had tried to do that and read my post in its entirety, you'll have realized that it wasn't a strawman. Unless of course you failed to recognize your own ideas being quoted back to you verbatim.