Kunle, let's fashi, the guy is too deeply lost in his dogma to get it.

Deep Sight:

Kunle, let's fashi, the guy is too deeply lost in his dogma to get it.

I wonder what is the etymology of that word 'fashi'? Sorry to distract from the thread but it seems you're done with it anyway. What language does fashi come from because I don't think it is yoruba? And I can't think what english word it would be short for.

@noetic15

I can't believe I'm doing this to myself again.  Engaging you in a debate could really be frustrating.

noetic15:

1. why dont u educate me? what does it mean to love ones neighbour as directed by the bible? is this commandment alien. . . .does it stand alone as an absolute?

Your shenanigan will not work this time.  I asked a simple question, a very perspicuous one at that, and you're attempting to dribble around with words by questioning me in return?  In case you missed it, here's the question again:    How about those who show love to their neighbour, despite the fact they have never heard the name "Jesus"?

noetic15:

2. what a dumb assertion Ghandi employed Christ's teachings but refused to accept Christ's salvation what rubbish is this?

When you created that thread to apologize, I knew well enough that it was just another sanctimonious display that I'm quite familiar with on this forum.  I've been on Nairaland long enough to know the kind of games people play here.  About 2 years ago, it was osisi apologizing to the Muslims "for her harsh words".  Barely a week after her "apology", she resumed her Islam bashing.

Now back to your question.

It's not a dumb assertion.  Heck, it's not even an assertion.  It's a fact.  You may do yourself some good by reading up on the biography of Gandhi.  He acknowledged the messages of Christ on LOVE and PEACE MAKING, applied those teachings to liberate his country from British rule, but he refused to be a Christian.  It's just like me accepting some of Buddha's wise teachings, but refusing to be a Buddhist.  How is that a dumb thing?

Deep Sight:

Kunle, let's fashi, the guy is too deeply lost in his dogma to get it.

what is this?

u are yet to make ANY analysis on ur beliefs. . .and u dare accuse me of being dogmatic
have u ever seen urself in a mirror?

Purist:

@noetic15

I can't believe I'm doing this to myself again.  Engaging you in a debate could really be frustrating.

Your shenanigan will not work this time.  I asked a simple question, a very perspicuous one at that, and you're attempting to dribble around with words by questioning me in return?  In case you missed it, here's the question again:    How about those who show love to their neighbour, despite the fact they have never heard the name "Jesus"?

why is it so hard to understand?
The love of one's neighbour as directed by the bible is preceded by the love and acknowledgement of God. how then can u show "LOVE" without knowing God (Jesus)?
ur understanding of love id vastly different from what the bible preaches. love as described by the bible is based on the notion of knowing God, . . this is not rocket science.

When you created that thread to apologize, I knew well enough that it was just another sanctimonious display that I'm quite familiar with on this forum.  I've been on Nairaland long enough to know the kind of games people play here.  About 2 years ago, it was osisi apologizing to the Muslims "for her harsh words".  Barely a week after her "apology", she resumed her Islam bashing.

Now back to your question.

It's not a dumb assertion.  Heck, it's not even an assertion.  It's a fact.  You may do yourself some good by reading up on the biography of Gandhi.  He acknowledged the messages of Christ on LOVE and PEACE MAKING, applied those teachings to liberate his country from British rule, but he refused to be a Christian.  It's just like me accepting some of Buddha's wise teachings, but refusing to be a Buddhist.  How is that a dumb thing?

1. do u understand simple english?
I apologised for attacking anyone. . .but I did NOT apologise for my views. why is that hard to understand? and what has that got to do with this thread?

2. It is IMPOSSIBLE to practise the teachings of Christ without acknowledging the divinity of Jesus. Ghandi rejected Jesus. why is that so hard to sink in?

noetic15:

what is this?

u are yet to make ANY analysis on your beliefs. . .and u dare accuse me of being dogmatic
have u ever seen urself in a mirror?

Did you read this at all?

Deep Sight:

Thank you for bringing this subject up again Noetic. I am deply interested in it, as it gives me great concern to see the shocking perspective of many dogmatists (e.g: Davidylan) on this matter.

I think a reasonable platform for the commencement of the discussion is to address the strange term employed by Noetic - "Jesus Heaven".

What exactly does this mean? I can extrapolate a number of things from that bizzare phrase, primarily the notion that Mr. Jesus from Nazareth has a special and different "Heaven" from any other "heavens" that might exist.

Let's clear this up. For the purpose of marching ahead without distraction, i am going to make an exception from my usual empirical style. I will go ahead and give a picture of existence as i see it, and at this initial stage i am not going to seek to prove that picture to be right. I believe however, that a calm an un-biased viewer should be able to key-in to that picture.

Here we are. We find ourselves on Earth. In a material world, surrounded by Material things. We look up, and see the vastness of the heavens (material universe; stars) and we are humbled with wonder.

From the moment we are old enough to think, we begin to ask those ancient questions: "What are we, and what are we doing here. . . what is the purpose of all this. . ."

From the most ancient civilizations till date, man has come to recognise that although he lives in a material world, the things that matter most to him are entirely immaterial. To give the prime example - Love.

You can't touch it, you can barely see it, but you feel it in your heart. You know it is there.

Accordingly, men recognised the spiritual - the ancient pang within them for something that transcends this sphere. I should state at this point that the enigma of the spectre of death is crucial in the development of man's thinking in this regard.

If we accept the existence of the spiritual, then it is but a short leap from there, to the natural conclusion of most of humanity - namely that there is a core within man, that survives material decomposition at death. We know this, because we have felt it in our bossoms, at moments when we felt love, or a communal or patriotic spirit. . . Also the fact of visions during sleep (dreams) has always hinted at a deeper sub-conscious, which in many cases actually performs feats such as seeing the future. . . this again assures man that the spiritual is real.

Thus the question should properly read: what happens at death? What happens when the MATERIAL PART is set aside at the moment of death?

Man senses the existence of many possible realms of existence. Indeed, without the need for proof, he has actually experienced such realms within his inner life right here on this earth, in one faint form or the other.

In simple terms, the spirit is a spark of light emanating from the light of the Divine Oneness - God.

It has properties like a magnet. It can draw things to it, or repel things from it.

This simple secret is conveyed in all the ancient writings, and many people do not undertand the basis thereof.

"Whatever a man sows, the same shall he reap" - The words of Jesus. Here he was conveying the eternal truth that magnetic vibrations sent out by the human spirit will always return to it. It is the law of attraction of homogenuous species. It is a universal law, and the orientals have always known it, through their Karma-based religions.

Thus it is manifestly clear that, rearding the question of what happens at death, the human spirit will be naturally and magnetically attracted to that realm of existence which corresponds with its inner state.

A pure spirit will gravitate towards a pure realm. A dark spirit, towards a dark realm.

God is the cynosure of Divinity, and thus of purity. Thus the realms closest to HIM are the pure realms.

Those realms are what i understand by the word "Heaven".

As i have explained above, gravitation to those realms will only depend on the inner state of each human spirit. The inner state is a function of pure or dark thoughts, actions or volitions.

This is the same reaosn it is stated in Acts 10: 35 that "God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him".

Again, The Revelation of John the beloved, is replete with statements rearding judgment according to the works of each spirit.

Thus although Faith is good, each spirit must strive towards purity. Once the volition is right, the grace of God will help such a spirit attain the luminous heights of "paradise".

It can never be asserted with any degree of objectivity, that God in his perfection, would provide different criteria for salvation at different times, or to different peoples. And believing that each person must personally know Jesus of Nazareth is entirely absurd given that millions died without knowing of him already. Also millions more will die having heard of him, but entirely unable to believe anything about him on account of their different cultural backgrounds. God in HIS perfection has only ever required one thing of men, and that is LOVE.

Again note that when asked about salvation, Jesus himself stated that if a Man would love God and love his fellow man, all the law would be complete therein.

I verily believe that his commandments to believe in him, thus referred to obeying his commandment of Love, and nothing more. I can state this because he himself described what it entails to believe in him. HE said - "If you love me, you will obey my commandments." Thus a Mahatma Ghandi (a hindu)who goes through life spreading love and peace and brotherhood, already has "Christ" in him, much more than any person who proclaims belief in Christ, without those acts of love.

I also hope that i have been able to paint a composite picture of existence on Earth, transition to the luminous realms (heaven/ paradise) and the reasons therefore. In this, there is much scripture to support what i have written, aside from the few i quoted above.

I am going to use the life of Mahatma Ghandi as a study for this discussion.

@noetic15

noetic15:

The love of one's neighbour as directed by the bible is preceded by the love and acknowledgement of God. how then can u show "LOVE" without knowing God (Jesus)?

You sound as if people had not been loving their neighbour until Jesus gave this commandment. Okay, let me simplify this.

[center]Love: feel tender affection for somebody; to feel and show kindness and charity to somebody.[/center]

The above is a dictionary definition of love. (Please don't come here and tell me that the love Jesus preached is different from the one defined in the dictionary).

So based on the above definition, are you implying that it is practically impossible for those who have never heard of Christ to show love to others? Are you saying that those who have never heard the name "Jesus" are incapable of feeling tender affection for somebody
or showing kindness and charity to somebody?

noetic15:

2. It is IMPOSSIBLE to practise the teachings of Christ without acknowledging the divinity of Jesus.

Did you actually make this statement?

you just gotta love noetic, xtianity and jesus. the following paragraph is from Ann Bessant's Freethinkers' textbook.

The most remarkable thing in the evidences afforded by profane history is their extreme paucity; the very
existence of Jesus cannot be proved from contemporary documents. A child whose birth is heralded by a star
which guides foreign sages to Judæa; a massacre of all the infants of a town within the Roman Empire by
command of a subject king; a teacher who heals the leper, the blind, the deaf, the dumb, the lame, and who
raises the mouldering corpse; a King of the Jews entering Jerusalem in triumphal procession, without
opposition from the Roman legions of Cæsar; an accused ringleader of sedition arrested by his own
countrymen, and handed over to the imperial governor; a rebel adjudged to death by Roman law; a three
hours' darkness over all the land; an earthquake breaking open graves and rending the temple veil; a number
of ghosts wandering about Jerusalem; a crucified corpse rising again to life, and appearing to a crowd of
above 500 people; a man risen from the dead ascending bodily into heaven without any concealment, and in
the broad daylight, from a mountain near Jerusalem; all these marvellous events took place, we are told, and
yet they have left no ripple on the current of contemporary history.


something keeps telling me noetic knows and acknowledges most of deep sight's insights(pun intended) but you guys gotta give him some breathing space, i mean you dont expect him to agree with you(at least not publicly on nairaland) besides, thats what faith is all about.abi?

noetic15:

I disagree.

Cross refers to the death and ressurection of Jesus as symbolised in His salvation. why would the cross refer to a burden, when Christ had just risen?
can a burden be preached?. . , No. but Salvation can be preached.

So tell me. . .what does that verse tell u?

talking of morsels for noetic, i have a few ones:
1. A roman method of executing condemned criminals becomes the symbol of the world's largest religion. right? craze world!
2. Substitute the french guillotine for the roman crucifixion, churches should be filled with the killing devices hanging everywhere, imprinted on bibles, hanging on your neck as a pendant.
3. Double-header: if jesus had died of malaria for example, would his death still suffice for the salvation process? would it not be fair to have mosquitoes being framed in churches instead of the cross?

ilosiwaju:

you just gotta love noetic, xtianity and jesus. the following paragraph is from Ann Bessant's Freethinkers' textbook.

The most remarkable thing in the evidences afforded by profane history is their extreme paucity; the very
existence of Jesus cannot be proved from contemporary documents. A child whose birth is heralded by a star
which guides foreign sages to Judæa; a massacre of all the infants of a town within the Roman Empire by
command of a subject king; a teacher who heals the leper, the blind, the deaf, the dumb, the lame, and who
raises the mouldering corpse; a King of the Jews entering Jerusalem in triumphal procession, without
opposition from the Roman legions of Cæsar; an accused ringleader of sedition arrested by his own
countrymen, and handed over to the imperial governor; a rebel adjudged to death by Roman law; a three
hours' darkness over all the land; an earthquake breaking open graves and rending the temple veil; a number
of ghosts wandering about Jerusalem; a crucified corpse rising again to life, and appearing to a crowd of
above 500 people; a man risen from the dead ascending bodily into heaven without any concealment, and in
the broad daylight, from a mountain near Jerusalem; all these marvellous events took place, we are told, and
yet they have left no ripple on the current of contemporary history.


something keeps telling me noetic knows and acknowledges most of deep sight's insights(pun intended) but you guys gotta give him some breathing space, i mean you dont expect him to agree with you(at least not publicly on nairaland) besides, thats what faith is all about.abi?

talking of morsels for noetic, i have a few ones:
1. A roman method of executing condemned criminals becomes the symbol of the world's largest religion. right? craze world!
2. Substitute the french guillotine for the roman crucifixion, churches should be filled with the killing devices hanging everywhere, imprinted on bibles, hanging on your neck as a pendant.
3. Double-header: if jesus had died of malaria for example, would his death still suffice for the salvation process? would it not be fair to have mosquitoes being framed in churches instead of the cross?

Gbam! Gbam! GBOGA!

COLONIAL DELUSIONS ARE JUST FABULOUS!

ilosiwaju:

you just gotta love noetic, xtianity and jesus. the following paragraph is from Ann Bessant's Freethinkers' textbook.

The most remarkable thing in the evidences afforded by profane history is their extreme paucity; the very
existence of Jesus cannot be proved from contemporary documents. A child whose birth is heralded by a star
which guides foreign sages to Judæa; a massacre of all the infants of a town within the Roman Empire by
command of a subject king; a teacher who heals the leper, the blind, the deaf, the dumb, the lame, and who
raises the mouldering corpse; a King of the Jews entering Jerusalem in triumphal procession, without
opposition from the Roman legions of Cæsar; an accused ringleader of sedition arrested by his own
countrymen, and handed over to the imperial governor; a rebel adjudged to death by Roman law; a three
hours' darkness over all the land; an earthquake breaking open graves and rending the temple veil; a number
of ghosts wandering about Jerusalem; a crucified corpse rising again to life, and appearing to a crowd of
above 500 people; a man risen from the dead ascending bodily into heaven without any concealment, and in
the broad daylight, from a mountain near Jerusalem; all these marvellous events took place, we are told, and
yet they have left no ripple on the current of contemporary history.

my problem with the assertion and quote above is that . . . , .while we welcome ur opinion on issues, u are reluctant to accommodate "faith" inspired opinions. , .simply because u consider them dogmatic, not forgetting that ur opinions too are dogmatic.

The quote above chooses to disbelieve the gospel on the basis of sarcasm . . . . . . .what happened to the liberty of believing the gospel?

something keeps telling me noetic knows and acknowledges most of deep sight's insights(pun intended) but you guys gotta give him some breathing space, i mean you dont expect him to agree with you(at least not publicly on nairaland) besides, thats what faith is all about.abi?

no pun or offence intended. . but deep sights posts came across as ridiculously dogmatic. I had no reason to ponder over anything he stated.
what did u deduce from his posts?

talking of morsels for noetic, i have a few ones:
1. A roman method of executing condemned criminals becomes the symbol of the world's largest religion. right? craze world!
2. Substitute the french guillotine for the roman crucifixion, churches should be filled with the killing devices hanging everywhere, imprinted on bibles, hanging on your neck as a pendant.
3. Double-header: if jesus had died of malaria for example, would his death still suffice for the salvation process? would it not be fair to have mosquitoes being framed in churches instead of the cross?

the above are innuendos that only have a place in the thoughts of the ungodly.

noetiiiiki? ok oo.

@ilosiwaju,just dnt mind noetic,he wont give up even if hes so glaring

noetic15:

2. It is IMPOSSIBLE to practise the teachings of Christ without acknowledging the divinity of Jesus. Ghandi rejected Jesus. why is that so hard to sink in?

Huxley just opened a thread on christians obeying jesus, with a youtube link. I started to watch the link and the first bible verse it quoted was this

3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

From the first letter of John chapter 2 verses 3 and 4.
Another translation puts it like this:

3We k[b]now that we have come to know him if we obey his commands.[/b] 4[b]The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him[/b]. 5But if anyone obeys his word, God’s loveb is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

This obviously suggests a different kind of 'knowing' Jesus from the merely knowing about an historical character and believing doctrines based on his life. Any one can read a book and 'know' about the historical character of Jesus, but it is not the knowledge that matters. The knowledge that matters is a deep spiritual experience.

^^^ Pastor, i am sure as glaring and explicit as this verse is in terms of resolving this issue, Davidylan and Noetic will reject it.

What intrigues me most about Christian fanatics such as David is their ready willingness ro REJECT scripture outright when it contradicts their dogma.

Deep Sight:

^^^ Pastor, i am sure as glaring and explicit as this verse is in terms of resolving this issue, Davidylan and Noetic will reject it.

What intrigues me most about Christian fanatics such as David is their ready willingness ro REJECT scripture outright when it contradicts their dogma.

But their objections are also based on scripture. Aren't they?

That shows one of two things -

Either

1. That it is clear that scripture contains massive contradictions OR

2. People are not reading scripture with a compound approach.

Neither is complimentary.

Deep Sight:

That shows one of two things -

Either

1. That it is clear that scripture contains massive contradictions OR

2. People are not reading scripture with a compound approach.

Neither is complimentary.

In your opinion, what is a compound approach?

Deep Sight:

That shows one of two things -

Either

1. That it is clear that scripture contains massive contradictions OR

2. People are not reading scripture with a compound approach.

Neither is complimentary.

number 2 probably best explains ur approach and use of the scriptures.

^^^ Oh, wicked, you, Noetic.

Quick math.

Reconcile these:

"Before Abraham was, I AM".

And -

"The father is greater than i am". . .

"I ascend to my father and your father, my GOD and your God". . .

"Eli Eli. . . _{(allah, allah)"}

Deep Sight:

^^^ Oh, wicked, you, Noetic.

Quick math.

Reconcile these:

"Before Abraham was, I AM".

And -

"The father is greater than i am". . .

"I ascend to my father and your father, my GOD and your God". . .

"Eli Eli. . . _{(allah, allah)"}

when u isolate verses to make an argument . . . . .the above is what u get.

where do u stand? . . . .are u suggesting that the bible is full of contradictions?

^^^ Oh, wicked, you, Noetic.

Quick math.

Reconcile these:

@Deep sight

"Before Abraham was, I AM".

And -

"The father is greater than i am". . .

"I ascend to my father and your father, my GOD and your God". . .

"Eli Eli. . .  (allah, allah)"

"Before Abraham was, I AM",  Quote from the Son of God(God the Son)
And -

"The father is greater than i am",  Quote from the Son of Man

Deep Sight:

^^^ Oh, wicked, you, Noetic.

Quick math.

Reconcile these:

"Before Abraham was, I AM".

And -

"The father is greater than i am". . .

"I ascend to my father and your father, my GOD and your God". . .

"Eli Eli. . . _{(allah, allah)"}

I believe the contention has to do with the understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. Forget about the word "Trinity" for some seconds. A simple analogy that I derived to explain the nature of the Godhead, is:

Consider an Olympic 100metre sprint. Three men (none of them Usain Bolt), of different muscular capacity, size and height, all come in at exactly 8.35 seconds, thus beating Usain Bolt's world record. They are all 1st. At the same time. Although they are different persons. Maybe even Person A taught person B all that he knows about sprinting (as such, person A is GREATER than person B, who looks up to Him). Either way, they are all FIRST, at the same time. Whoever comes next is way down at the 4th position.

That's how it is: the Father, the Son and the Spirit of God are GOD at the same time.

Even though the Father is greater than the Son. The father sent the Son to us, and the Holy Ghost anointed (equipped) him for the work. When the work of salvation was complete in Christ, having re-established a pathway that leads man back to the Father, the Son returned to His Father, and sent the Holy Ghost to guide those same men on their path back to the Father.

TRINITARIAN Nomenclature:
The names Father and Son do not only denote offspring with respect to primogenitor, as it obtains with humans. Rather, the roles that the Father has with respect to the Son: teaching him, guiding him, giving him all things, sending him, etc, is what gives for the nomenclature. As for the Spirit, the name indicates the person of the Godhead through whom one can understand the Godhead and God's overall intents (only the Spirit understands, in a way that humans understand things, the Godhead and can explain such intents and purposes). It's just like saying "The Spirit of Music" or "The Spirit of Football" or "The Spirit of Joyfulness" or "in the Spirit of Nairaland", when we talk about the Holy Spirit, we are talking about the SPIRIT of GOD. The Spirit of the Godhead, that PERSON in the Godhead that can enable an understanding of what/who the Godhead is and all other such mysteries.

@My detractors that like to assume and scream plagiarism, all I have said here about nomenclature came to mind as I typed.

3 persons. What is a Person? The Etymology is as follows:

Main Entry: per·son
Pronunciation: \ˈpər-sən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French persone, from Latin persona actor's mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek prosōpa, plural of prosōpon face, mask — more at prosopopoeia
Date: 13th century

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/PERSON

So when did the word Person start to be used to mean a separate individual?

person
early 13c., from O.Fr. persone "human being" (12c., Fr. personne), from L. persona "human being," originally "character in a drama, mask," possibly borrowed from Etruscan phersu "mask." This may be related to Gk. Persephone. The use of -person to replace -man in compounds and avoid alleged sexist connotations is first recorded 1971 (in chairperson). Personify first recorded 1727. Personable "pleasing in one's person" is first attested early 15c. In person "by bodily presence" is from 1560s.

Hmmm . . . in the 1560s. But the trinity (3persons in one unity) was believed in over 1000 years before that. If the meaning of the word person has changed then those that still call God 3 persons need to be informed. Early christians didn't see it as 3 separate individuals.

So to summarise:

Ousia means an individual substance, though it can mean the essence common to many individuals.
Hypostasis means existence in general, though it can be also applied to individual substances.
Now according to Lossky,

‘The genius of the Fathers made use of the two synonyms to distinguish in God that which is common – ousia, substance or essence – from that which is particular – hypostasis or person.’ (Lossky, 2005, p. 51)

Now Lossky has this to say about the use of the word persona,

‘… this word far from having its modern sense of person (human personality for example), denoted rather the outward aspect of the individual – the appearance, visage, mask or the character assumed by an actor’ (Lossky, 2005, p. 51)

http://sarumtheologian./2009/06/01/ousia-and-hypostasis/

Although the writer of the above quote still missed the point, you'll see if you read his whole blog.

A person is an appearance, or an outward function.

Pastor AIO:



Hmmm . . . in the 1560s. But the trinity (3persons in one unity) was believed in over 1000 years before that. If the meaning of the word person has changed then those that still call God 3 persons need to be informed. Early christians didn't see it as 3 separate individuals.

What do you mean by this? EARLY christians did not regard Jesus as God, and certainly did not believe in the paganistic trinity doctrine.

Please go back to the Arian heresy resolved by the council of nicea for the origin of the trinity as church dogma - which people are today ready to kill themselves for; in declaming as truth.

mavenbox:

I believe the contention has to do with the understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. Forget about the word "Trinity" for some seconds. A simple analogy that I derived to explain the nature of the Godhead, is:

Consider an Olympic 100metre sprint. Three men (none of them Usain Bolt), of different muscular capacity, size and height, all come in at exactly 8.35 seconds, thus beating Usain Bolt's world record. They are all 1st. At the same time. Although they are different persons. Maybe even Person A taught person B all that he knows about sprinting (as such, person A is GREATER than person B, who looks up to Him). Either way, they are all FIRST, at the same time. Whoever comes next is way down at the 4th position.

That's how it is: the Father, the Son and the Spirit of God are GOD at the same time.

Even though the Father is greater than the Son. The father sent the Son to us, and the Holy Ghost anointed (equipped) him for the work. When the work of salvation was complete in Christ, having re-established a pathway that leads man back to the Father, the Son returned to His Father, and sent the Holy Ghost to guide those same men on their path back to the Father.

TRINITARIAN Nomenclature:
The names Father and Son do not only denote offspring with respect to primogenitor, as it obtains with humans. Rather, the roles that the Father has with respect to the Son: teaching him, guiding him, giving him all things, sending him, etc, is what gives for the nomenclature. As for the Spirit, the name indicates the person of the Godhead through whom one can understand the Godhead and God's overall intents (only the Spirit understands, in a way that humans understand things, the Godhead and can explain such intents and purposes). It's just like saying "The Spirit of Music" or "The Spirit of Football" or "The Spirit of Joyfulness" or "in the Spirit of Nairaland", when we talk about the Holy Spirit, we are talking about the SPIRIT of GOD. The Spirit of the Godhead, that PERSON in the Godhead that can enable an understanding of what/who the Godhead is and all other such mysteries.

@My detractors that like to assume and scream plagiarism, all I have said here about nomenclature came to mind as I typed.

And in arriving at these fabulous analogies, have you averted your mind to the following scripture -

[Mark 10:18].
[1Timothy 2:5].
[John 14:28].
[John 20:17].
[John 17:3].


[Mark 13:32]
[1st Peter 1:3].
[Acts 2:22]
[Luke 22:42]
[John 8:40].
[Luke 23.34].


all of which decisively make clear that Jesus is not God.

I don't want to get into a 'Is Jesus God'? argument with anyone, I am just telling you guys what the 3 persons of the trinity means. If you are getting nothing from my contribution then that's just too bad.

Pastor - Here is what i am getting from your contribution:

"Since i have been indoctrinated with the trinity doctrine, i must circuituously find ways to make the irrational doctrine make sense!"

and -

"I will not be drawn into a debate about it because i know reason can never justify my worship of a fellow human being!"

Just as i told viaro yesterday on another thread: You are free to worship that dead carpenter as God, just as surely as Olumba Olumba Obu is worshipped as God, and just as surely as cows are deified in India.

@Pastor AIO: Simple semantics. I have to use TODAY's language to explain personae of the Godhead, don't I? if I were living in the 5th century A.D. i would use the semantics that were obtainable in those days. As I keep saying, spiritual things are profound, and you can almost never really get to explain them logically in words that man can comprehend.

@Deep Sight

Deep Sight:

And in arriving at these fabulous analogies, have you averted your mind to the following scripture -

[Mark 10:18].
[1Timothy 2:5].
[John 14:28].
[John 20:17].
[John 17:3].


[Mark 13:32]
[1st Peter 1:3].
[Acts 2:22]
[Luke 22:42]
[John 8:40].
[Luke 23.34].


all of which decisively make clear that Jesus is not God.

The interesting thing about mankind is that we are dangerously and very intelligent (if we put our minds to good use, Gen 11:6), and as such there is a tendency to think we can describe God's patterns. I already discussed this fallacy with you in the past: God cannot be put in a box and his intents explained away by the same people who acknowledge Him as God. It WILL not make sense, most probably, but I want you to read the below all the same. (If it made sense, we would need no faith, because we would be as sure as God himself, concerning his purposes and intents).

The verses you have supplied above, some of them refer to Jesus in His divinity, others refer to Him in his humanity; showing that there is something you do not quite understand. There is Jesus the MAN, and in a dual function, Jesus who is the express image of the Father, an essential person of the Godhead. When I worship Jesus, it is not that carpenter that was Mary's son (as such). It is that person of the Godhead who came in the flesh as the carpenter.

One final illustration I will render is: there's Musa Yaradua the Nigerian president. And there's Musa Yaradua the family man, husband of Turai, father of his children. Yes, they are unarguably the same person, but after his tenure as president (God keeping him alive), he will return to Yaradua the family man. He will no longer be president. But as long as he is president, when you meet him on official purposes you need to address him as president, whether you like it or not. Similarly, Christ (as a person of the Godhead) came to earth as man FOR A WHILE. Jesus' essential nature is of divinity, just like Yaradua is a family man first of all, and that is exactly who he really is. Or, consider a just and true Yaradua, who always needs to remind, say, his in-laws that he is a president (although ultimately a family man) when they expect him to spuriously bend the laws for his family (see Matthew 12:46-50 in perspective).

That is just like what Jesus was saying in Mk 10:18 (ONLY God is good), for example. The man talking to him was emphasizing Jesus' moral (human) goodness, but Jesus was scheduling the pointers in the right direction: GOD (of whom I participate) is good (altogether), and not any man. Please read the gospels with utmost care: there were no "believers" asides Christ's disciples, so there were many things that Jesus said that were meant to deal with their unbelief and stubborn hearts. e.g. Many of the Jews expected a military messiah, which Christ was not.

I will not go into the other verses now, for the sake of time, but if you consider them again in the light of what I have said above, I think it will be all the clearer.

In fact, I actually categorize the four gospels as a part of the Old Testament, because the sacrifice that ushered in the New testament had not yet been wrought. But that is just as a manner of classification, so to speak.

Consider what I have said carefully without prejudice, and make your own sound judgement. Cheers!

Dear friends

I like The Noetic Interview: Questions On Humanity And The Quality Of Goodness very much.

Very useful for me.

If you have some time, pls visit my blog at: Carpenter interview questions

Rgs

Interesting interview (although it seemed a little violent at some points  ).

Let me add some points about the "person" of Christ ~ which I believe is most pertinent. I quote a certain teacher

Christ is totally different from Christianity so whenever you want to understand Christ, go directly and immediately -- not via Rome; then you will never understand Christ. Christ or Krishna or Buddha cannot be organized: they are so vast that no organization can do justice to them. Only small things can be organized. Politics can be organized, not religion, Nazism can be organized, communism can be organized -- not Christ, not Krishna. The sheer vastness is such that the moment you try to force them into a pattern they are already dead.

It is as if you are trying to grasp the sky in your small hands -- with closed fists. With an open hand the sky may be touching, may be a little bit on your hand, but with a closed fist it has already escaped out of it.

Whatsoever you have been hearing about Jesus is not about Jesus, the real man; it is about the Jesus that Christians have invented, decorated to be sold in the market. The Christian Jesus is a commodity to be sold; Christ himself is a revolution. You will have to be transformed through him; he is the baptism of fire. You can be a Christian conveniently,  but you can never be a REAL Christian conveniently. If you are REALLY following Jesus, there is bound to be trouble.

He himself ended on the cross; you cannot end on the throne, But if you follow Christianity there is no trouble. It is a very convenient way to adjust Christ to yourself rather than adjusting yourself to Christ. If you adjust YOURSELF TO CHRIST, there will be a transformation; if you adjust Christ TO YOURSELF, there can be none. Then Christ himself becomes part of the decoration of your imprisonment, part of your furniture -- your car, your house; a convenience at the most -- but you are not related to him.

funny thread. . .looking back now . . .I am NOT proud of the tone I used in answering some of the posers raised. 

That quote of yours, Dulcet. It is very scary. In a good way. Is it part of a book or something? I wanna read all the thoughts of whoever wrote it.