₦airaland Forum

texazzpete:
Anybody telling you that you're wasting your votes and you're splitting votes if you vote for Moghalu, durotoye or Oby...that person is a big fool.

It is this same useless, cowardly agenda that they've used to cow Nigerians into going along with bad governments.
"If you go and protest, you're on your own"
"Nobody will follow you if you come out to demonstrate"

This is the voice of cowardice.
One man, one vote. Please feel free to vote for whoever you want.

When 2023 comes, they will be here telling you the same thing again. Oh let him wait till 2027. Let us focus on voting Atiku out. Saraki is the only way we can achieve this for now. 2027, let us try Fayose. He's the only way to get rid of this other guy. This one cannot win. On and on it goes. We keep limiting our choices this way. Enough is enough. Let the skies fall if they may. At the very least, we will start sending a message to our political class. Just imagine the clear disregard they have for Nigerians and we still have people clamoring for them. I know a similar analogy has been used already but if I was a manager in a company and you didn't do your interview, I am not going to take the offer letter to your house and give you the job. You simply will not get the job, especially when there are other demonstrably sound and competent candidates who were serious enough to do the interview. As citizens, we are practically the bosses because we put these people in office with our votes in this country. I think a lot of Nigerians simply don't see it that way. We are basically hiring these people. The least they can do is do the job interview!

If these politicians can treat us like this when they so badly need our votes, they will certainly not treat us any better when in office. We cannot keep rewarding and encouraging this type of behavior with our votes. Just imagine the utter disdain, arrogance and disregard shown to Nigerians by their actions. The reason we keep having bad leaders is because they know we can always be taken for granted. They've shown me that they don't really care about my vote and they won't be getting it.

FriendChoice:
I have not come to Trinity, we will discuss that, what I am interested now is a verse where Jesus himself said he is God? For I am God not a man

So if there is tell me, if there is not answer me. Let's agree on this first, then what makes him God.

After this then I will move to Trinity in the next post in full

Okay. So you want a verse where Jesus says 'I am God' or 'worship me' exactly? Anywhere in the bible?

aminusanti:
I laughed hard really after reading this..lol
Can u see how u are forcefully trying to change verse from its original meaning!
Why is it taking forever to see jesus as a messenger despite him mentioning in many places in the bible...

I am still wondering why u pple are misquoting simple statements how would GOD be switching from man to GOD ?
The Bible says:

Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man…"

Hosea 11:9 "...For I am God, and not man..."

Jesus is called a man many times in the Bible:

John 8:40 "…a man who has told you the truth…"

Acts 2:22 "Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know."

Acts 17:31 "He will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom He has appointed"

1.Tim. 2:5 "…the man Christ Jesus."

God is not a man, but Jesus, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, was a man, therefore, Jesus was not God.

Yes, Jesus is fully man and fully God. He is the Son of Man and Son of God. The problem here is you are being selective with verses. I am not disputing that Jesus was a man. All the verses you presented only show that he was a man. Perfect. I agree with that. But he was and is God too. He had to be a man to redeem mankind.

FriendChoice:
I know you will go all the way to deny everything. What is the meaning of the word worship, it means to give honor, we have seen how the verse explain they prostrated to give honor. To worship.

King James Bible(daniel 2:48)
Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him.

Ok present the verse Jesus himself says I am God or he says worship me, since you said he can be God.

This is a good argument (I think the best one you've presented so far to counter my worship argument). I suggest going back to the Aramaic/Hebrew and Greek to get the original meanings. I looked up the Greek word for two cases: one where an angel commanded John not to worship him in the book of Revelation and also the ones where they worshiped Jesus. I found that they both come from the same root Greek word. I am no Greek scholar, but I think there isn't a conflict there. The Daniel case is different because right after that verse, the king goes on to proclaim that Daniel's God is a God of gods. So he recognized that Daniel wasn't God. There is a difference there.

You want me to present a verse where Jesus himself says, 'I am God' or 'worship me'? Can I first ask why this is necessary to validate the trinity doctrine?

FriendChoice:
God is not man, those that means he is man ?

"They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men. (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 15:9)"

"They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men. (From the NIV Bible, Mark 7:7)"

Important Note: Please visit the "The English-translated word "Worship" doesn't mean so in the Greek Bible. Some popular Bibles don't even have the word "Worship" in them for Jesus" section below to see that the word "Worship" is a clear mistranslation and it must not be taken literally to falsely prove that Jesus is GOD Himself.

In the above verses, we see Jesus indirectly referring to what we call today the "Trinitarian Christians". He said that they will follow the religion in the wrong way, because they will follow the man-made religion, or the religion (rules) made by men.

This exactly fits the Trinitarians today, because they believe in chopping GOD Almighty into three pieces and claim that he is a triune god. Well, did you know that the word "Trinity" doesn't even exist in the Bible?!

I mean, if Trinity is the very central faith for the Christian belief, as Christians often refer to it as the "Holy Trinity". Then wouldn't you agree with me that the word itself, "Trinity", should at the very extreme least exist in the Bible?!


Did David worship Saul when he prostrated his face down to the ground before him?

Let's look at the following verses:

1 Samuel 24
7 With these words David rebuked his men and did not allow them to attack Saul. And Saul left the cave and went his way.
8 Then David went out of the cave and called out to Saul, "My lord the king!" When Saul looked behind him, David bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground.
9 He said to Saul, "Why do you listen when men say, 'David is bent on harming you'?


Notice how David called Saul "my lord". While this is elaborated on much greatly in this article, but I just find it quite ridiculous that trinitarian Christians use "Jesus is lord" as a desperate proof for their lies about Jesus being our so-called "Creator".

Also, when David prostrated his face down to the ground to Saul, was he worshiping Saul as if Saul was GOD Almighty?

But the verses I presented didn't say prostrate. They said worship. And I didn't talk about 'Lord' either. When a man prostrates before a king, he is not worshiping him.

Matthew 15:9 and Mark 7:7- You say Jesus is referring to trinitarian Christians there? That's coming from you, isn't it? That's not what the verse says. By the way, this is a quotation from Isaiah 29:13.

God is not man certainly does not mean God is man. Of course, it doesn't. But it also doesn't mean or imply that God cannot become a man. I think this is pretty plain and logical. 'I am not a farmer' does not mean 'I cannot become a farmer'. They are two different things. I think any one who's honest can agree on that.

No, the word trinity doesn't need to exist in the bible. People create words to describe ideas. Having a word for a given truth doesn't make it more true. The word 'rapture' isn't in the bible but that doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.

FriendChoice:
God is not man. It's clear sir. Except if you want to deny it.

Jesus explain in my previous post, you should touch him to confirm, spirit have no flesh

Jesus is Son of Woman while God is not son of man.

Understand something I am not saying you must believe, this is not Quran, its Bible, don't think I am just quoting it, I do my research. So I pray God guides you to see and be able to accept the truth. Am done with this, I don't want to continue with pointless argument when There is not ambiguity.

At last there is not a single unequivocal statement in the entire Bible where Jesus (pbuh) himself says, "I am God" or where he says, "worship me"

If you can point it out, then I have no problem if you worship Jesus. Remember I said Jesus not others.

Jesus received worship. Why? If it was wrong, he would rebuke them. Jesus rebuked the pharisees and even his disciples on occasion. Why didn't he rebuke those who worshiped him? In EVERY single case where an angel was worshipped in the bible (and there are a good number of them), the angel commanded the worshipper not to. I would think that would be really important.

Again, you say it's clear but no it isn't. You have not proved that. It's not clear just because you say so. What is clear is that 'is' and 'cannot be' are not the same thing.

FriendChoice:
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see me have. Luke 24:39


Jesus has bone and flesh. He is a man


Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Act 2:22


God cannot be a man, And Neither the Son of a man

God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Numbers 23:19

Okay. So I take it that you accept the other arguments since you did not refute the deductions I made from them.

Numbers 23:19 does not say 'God cannot be a man'. It doesn't even say God is not a man. It says God is not a man, that he should lie. It also does not say simply God is not the son of man. Or 'God cannot become the son of man'. There's a reason why there's something following both statements. If you take out the second part in both cases, you have destroyed the picture the verse is painting. This is the pattern I find again and again with you guys. You tend to take isolated verses or even fragments of verses (like in this case) to make them say what you want. You have to keep the whole piece together. If you keep the whole piece together, it is clear that he is making the point that God is not like men that are capable of lying. You cannot split it up anyhow you like. But okay let's even say it says what you say. When was this statement made? Before Jesus came to the earth or after? It was made before Jesus came to the earth. So even logically, there would still be no contradiction. Again, I emphasize it does not say God 'cannot' be a man, that he should lie. It says God 'is' not a man, that he should lie. Quote it exactly like it is; otherwise, it becomes a lie. There is clearly a difference between 'is' and 'cannot'. I am not a farmer but that doesn't mean I cannot become one tomorrow.

aminusanti:
* If Jesus was GOD, then why in Matthew 24:36 Jesus said "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."  Jesus told his followers that no one (including Jesus) knows when the judgment day will come, only GOD knows?

*If Jesus was GOD, then why in Mark 12:29 Jesus said "Here, O Israel:  The Lord our God is one Lord."   The words "our God" indicate that Jesus had a higher God over him, a stronger God than him.  Jesus didn't say "Your God".  He said "our God"" which includes Jesus as the creation of GOD.

If Jesus was GOD, then why in Mark 10:18 Jesus said “And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”?
Also in Luke 18:19 Jesus said only GOD Almighty is Good: ""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone."

If Jesus was GOD, then why in Isaiah 11:2-3 GOD had put the spirit of fearing GOD in Jesus?.

Internet scholars. Food don ready!

Truthman2012
True2god
annunaki2
Plappville & co

So I think you're misunderstanding the concept of the trinity and Jesus' incarnation. Jesus is fully God and fully man. When Jesus came to the earth, he was functioning as a human being with a human nature. So when you read scripture, you have to read it in the light of this. Why was Jesus hungry? Why did he fall asleep? Because he was functioning as a man. We know God doesn't get hungry, tired or sleep. In the same vein, when Jesus said he didn't know the hour of his return, he was saying that as a man. As God, of course, he knows when he's coming back.

You also mentioned that when Jesus said there is none good but God, he was implying that he wasn't God; but no, you are the one giving that interpretation. This is how you should think about it. Jesus said 'Why do you call me good? There is none good but one, that is, God'. In other words, do you realize the implication of what you are saying? Does that mean you realize that I am God?

'Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one God' First of all, you failed to mention that Jesus was making a quotation from the old testament (Deut. 6:4). How about you acknowledge and address that first and quote the full thing in its proper context?

By the way, you guys always say Jesus never said to worship him so he must not be God. This isn't true. First of all, the whole bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. So it doesn't matter whether Jesus directly made the statement while on the earth or not. It is as much the word of God when he speaks it as when it is inspired elsewhere by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said he only spoke what he heard the Father speak - the same Father who inspired the writers of the bible through the Holy Spirit. There are lots of verses that show again and again that Jesus is in fact God. Anyway, we're talking about the issue of worship here, aren't we? There are several recorded occasions in the gospel where Jesus received worship. If you study the old testament (and even the new testament), whenever an angel of God appeared to someone, and he tried to worship the angel, the angel would always tell him not to but Jesus never rejected worship or rebuked those worshiping him. He received it. Here are some examples:

Matthew 8:2 - And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

Matthew 9:18 - While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.

Matthew 14:33 - Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

These are just a few examples. There are more but I think they drive home my point. If Jesus wasn't God, if he was merely a prophet, these were perfect moments to rebuke or correct them but he didn't.

1. Well, there have been cases of amputees having their missing parts growing out. This happened in Jesus' ministry as documented in the gospels where the maimed were healed. I suppose you're asking about 'modern day cases'. Smith Wigglesworth is recorded to have had these types of miracles happen at his meetings. There have also been cases of legs and arms growing out to full length when 1 was shorter than the other. Are we supposed to see these same types of miracles today? Absolutely. Jesus said the works that he did, believers shall do also and even greater works than those. So yes, that includes arms and legs growing out for amputees. Why don't we seem to see them? I believe part of the reason for this is faith. I do not know of any amputee who has gone believing for his arms or legs to grow out. Jesus said all things are possible to him that believes. If he said ALL, he meant ALL. That would include arms and legs growing out. If anyone really prayed in faith for his arms or legs to grow out, he should have them grow out. That's what Jesus taught.

2. Jesus didn't say he wants Christians to fulfil the Law in those verses you referenced; he said he came to fulfil it. And he did. He lived a perfectly sinless life and fulfiled the law at its highest standard (something no one else could have done).

3. The bible teaches that God wants his children to prosper and that includes finances. The bible doesn't teach that money is a bad thing, but rather covetousness or greed. It is the love of money that is the root of all evil and not money itself. When Jesus used this illustration -- if you keep everything in its context and read the verses following -- he was trying to make the point that you can't get into the kingdom just by yourself or through your effort. Notice the disciples asked him 'who then can be saved?' . And then he said, 'the things which are impossible with men are possible with God'. So it's not your having riches or not having riches that will determine whether you make it into the kingdom of God.

4. God didn't create cancer and AIDS. Of course not. These came about as a result of the fall of man in the garden of Eden. Sickness was never part of God's plan. When God created everything, he said it was good. All the imperfections we see in our world today are the consequence of that original sin. Besides, Jesus healed the sick. If sickness was of God, Jesus had no business healing sick folk. The bible says he healed all those who 'were oppressed by the devil' not those who were oppressed by God. Sickness is NEVER from God. Why do 'good' Christians fall sick? I think there is this notion that people get good things from God because they are good or do good things. That is not what the bible teaches. In christianity, you are not righteous because of what you do. You are righteous because of Jesus' righteousness. It's the same reason why doing good things will not take you to heaven because you cannot EARN your salvation. You will never by your own effort be able to meet God's perfect standards.
Christians are not supposed to be sick. If they are sick, that's not God's will for them or really anyone at all. The bible says believers shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover. Healing is the children's bread. I can go on and on with verse after verse to validate this.

5. You say the bible today differs from the original by many chapters and thousands of paragraphs. Could you be more specific?

6. Thou shall not make any graven image? To what end? I think you are confusing idol worship with just regular symbols people make. I personally do not wear crosses or the like. Are you perhaps saying a cross on a church building should be a sin or something like that?

7. You referenced a verse of scripture you just pulled out of context. Who does 'her' refer to?

8. Where does the bible say the earth is 6000-8000 years old. Could you give me verse and chapter?

9. I don't quite understand what you're saying here. To say Jesus is responsible for the deaths of those people... Did he give instructions for anyone to be executed, ever? Jesus message and life are so deeply centered around love that you really cannot justify what you say with his teachings. Forgiveness, love, love, love is the theme over and over again.

10. Yes, Jesus said any sin can be forgiven except blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Again, you're assuming that people get into heaven because they meet certain standards. The bible teaches that no one will get to heaven because of their good deeds. This is one key difference between Christianity and other faiths. Religions typically have rituals and rites that you do to be in good standing with God but Christianity isn't that way.

ambrosini593:
Can't stop laughing. Edo state is gone o

I just watched the video and I didn't hear her say 'Edo prostitutes'. She talked about 'girl-child trafficking'. There was just one time I heard her use the word 'prostitute' but it was very different from the way some people are saying. This is actually the first time I'm hearing her speak and to be honest, I was quite impressed with the way she expressed and carried herself.

For those who didn't watch the video for themselves, these were her words:
'There must be a design, a cultural design that can accommodate a widow and then a design that will make a girl child feel comfortable wherever she is in this country. She doesn't need to leave her country to go and prostitute elsewhere. It's not her portion.'

Let's try to be fair here.

Wahala90:
You really think we should kick the man who is trying to solve the problem (no matter how inadequate his solutions are) and put the man who is instigating the problem, a man whose utterances and attitude is questionable as far as Boko Haram insurgency is concern. Think well and save Nigeria!

Please have you watched any videos where he made the statements in your last picture?

Is it that people speed-read the article? He did not say 20% of the country. He said 20% of a certain part of the nation. That could mean 20% of the south or 20% of the south-east or 20% of the north and so on. So why are people saying 20% cannot mean the north or 20% means the south when that's not even what he's talking about?

Collynzo9:
Among all the clueless diatribe he spewed in his interview with Channels TV, this one caught my attention most.

Part 5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se5tpOLkUyU

Why didn't you quote him verbatim? The title of the post and your comments are misleading. This is what was said:

Interviewer: Let me start by asking you this time around, the issue of the economy, the issue of the growth of the Nigerian economy has been talked about. Dwindling oil prices. How would you tackle the issue of the challenges that we're facing in our economic life considering the fact that we are reliant majorly on oil proceeds?

Buhari: I think it's absolutely necessary to make people accountable. During this discussion, we talked about the hearing conducted, about the mismanagement of the oil industry where we depend up to about 95% of our foreign earnings. I think we should do what we can to stabilise the oil market because other thing that will complement our earnings like agriculture maybe mining will take time. The immediate one is how to stabilise the oil market and stop wastages from top to bottom so that whatever revenue is realised is judiciously applied to the economic development of the country. Without bringing discipline into accountability, I'm afraid even if the oil price goes back to good old days of over a $110 of oil per barrel, we cannot see the difference ...

I'm emphasising that you distorted it on purpose.

Obi1kenobi: Why are you people decieving yourselves? Nigeria and West Africans are the biggest age cheats on the planet and can routinely forge birth certificates anywhere and everywhere. Everybody who is not biased knows this. Europeans not as desperate as Nigerians are and they have reliable public databases and documentation that make it almost impossible to falsify your age. It's why European players play till they're almost 40 while Nigerian players like Yakubu, Aghahowa, Martins, Utaka etc look almost finished before they're 30. It's why Nigeria and Ghana can win Under-17 three times but they're non-entities in real senior international football. Some Europeans can look older than their age but it doesn't mean they falsify their age. Rooney looks older than his age but you can track his youth career since he was 8 or 9 in Everton's youth team. That is not obtainable in Nigeria.

We'll never overcome the problem of age cheating until we tell ourselves the truth. We do well in age-grade competitions because we're corrupt age cheats. That, my friend, is the dirty fact.

My question to you is: how did they pass the MRI tests they took, both at home and for the CAF U-17 tournament? I agree with you about previous competitions, but honestly, I really believe the current squad is truly U-17. In as much as we oppose the use of overaged players, we shouldn't run our current players down simply because of a history of doing so. I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't watched any of their games to judge for yourself whether the current crop of players would pass for an Under-17 team.