₦airaland Forum

davidylan:
this is precisely JeSoul's point . . . how can i be my brothers keeper when i dont even know my brother?

u would be shocked to find out that there are more unsaved persons in the church than the saved. That explains why knowing them would bring about negative influences IMO.

I was once worshipping in a RCCG parish here in london. I so liked the messages from the alter (as they were undiluted truths) that I decided to become a church worker. my experience was disgusting.

Mudley313:
becos faith is contradictory. same way u have faith in your biblical creationist story, so does people of over 5,000 religious beliefs world wide have faith in their own creation story. so, if faith is strong enough evidence, was the world created hundreds of different times by hudreds of diferent gods based on the faith of their believers?

What do u understand by faith? what other belief system uses the concept of faith?. . . .is their faith doctrine the same as xtianity?

streetwize:
ooh ooh me me . . . . I know what sounds more logical. .

In the beginning nothing created everything. . . . . . yeye. . .

or better still . . . . ,
In the beginning everything sprang out of nowhere

JeSoul:
The early church that met in each others homes and shared their properties and dedicated their lives to one another - uneccesary familiarity? Jesus told us to bear one another's burdens and love each other - how can we do that if we don't know each other?
   

---

Jesoul, unless we reconstruct the early church, there is no point of a small fellowship gathering.

The early church SOLD and GAVE ALL THEY HAD. They lived in harmony and were their brothers keepers. This implies that as a member of the church u could expose ur vulnerability to another member and would not be ridiculed.
How is that possible in the present constitution of churches? when egoism and materialism are the centre of the "gospel". . .where u must be suffering from an evil spirit if u are broke . . . .or some demons are pursuing u, if as a lady u are not married early. The present churches are IMO not worth bonding with.

Noetic, you may want to re-read what you just wrote, hopefully you may recognize that it appears you do not know the purpose for gathering together and having church in the first place.

Jesoul, I tried to and on two occasions got my fingers burnt.
It takes more than two people who have submitted and surrendered completely to the HS to make a fellowship.

KunleOshob:
Aside from my comments in the previous thread, i believe large churches deny the congregation the opportuiny of close fellowship which i believe was the pupose of the initial church. There is evidence in the bible that people discussed issues at church gatherings but today the focus is on one man[pastor] who does all the talking and there is no room for contributions or questions you just have to accept everything preached wether it is right or wrong and wether you understand it or not. I believe if there was opportunity for questions in churches a lot of fallacies that pastors preach like tithes, first fruits e.t.c would be question and the faults in them would be expose before the whole church, this would discourage preachers from adding their own doctrines to scriptures like Pastor Adeboye tried to do in his "100 fold returns" scam which he wrote in his "open heavens" devotional of march 17 2010.

how then do u measure growth?. . , .what happens if u minister to people and they get saved. . . .would u tell them to go and worship somewhere else because u dont want to be a big church?.

Biblical churches actually grew FYI, and there was no restriction to their sizes. What u should be mostly concerned about is the ingenuity of the sermons and doctrines and not about the church size.

jagunlabi:
And, by the way, who was doing the recording of the creation tory? How i wish that that person filmed the whole creation instead of writing it down.

there was no video camera then

mazaje:
Genesis 1:1[b] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth[/b].

Where did God live before he created heaven? Since it is always said that heaven is where the bible God resides.

and why is faith not an evidence?

mazaje:
Trinity, trinity, trinity . . . .3 = 1 . . . . . what do you think, logical or not?  Its very obvious that some drunk men sat down and developed this concept for reasons best known to them and only them.

In my opinion a hallmark characteristic of a modern Christian is the ability to hold contradictory views & not have it bother him/her at all, because the alternative is unacceptable to himself/herself. Makes perfect sense the Christians here says about the trinity, because if they don't they'll have to admit to themselves that it doesn't make sense at all and is probably bullshit.

If god = the father + the son + the holy spirit and each one is also god, then all of you guys here should readily agree that  their god fathered himself through a virgin to serve as sacrifice to himself so that he would forgive the flawed creatures that he'd created, for their flaws which he had designed in them. Funny aint it?

Do u actually read some of these things u write?

InesQor:
@Deep Sight[b] does not seem to get the irony of the fact that his beliefs cannot withstand the same scrutiny [/b]he dishes out to other worldviews. Meanwhile you are dishonest to say I disagree because its Deep Sight. Posting as mavenbox, I was like maybe the only person who added a bit of context to your posts and I agreed with you on some points but where I believe you were crapping, I outlined as well.

As to the containment, or rather, subsistence of God in human flesh, I guess it was people like you that also strongly believed that a single DNA strand of a man can never perfectly capture his physical essence of being.

DeepSight is legendary for his Dogma, ignorance and inability to construct an intelligent defence for his beliefs.
He is good at asking questions. . . . . not good at answering questions.

@ OP

Small churches bring about unnecessary familiarity. Big churches have several doctrine problems. . , but it helps to just worship and disappear without anyone noticing.

. . . . .there is however no basis for condemning big churches.

mazaje:
The adam and eve story is already redundant. First nothing happened in any garden of eden, according to some story unverifiable story something happened in a garden. Eve according to the bible had free will but the bible very clearly stated that she did not even know the difference between what is right and what is wrong. The concept of original sin itself is contradicted in the bible.

The above is and irrelevant attempt at discussing nothing. If the story of the Garden of Eden is as unverifiable and ridiculous as u suggest. . . , why bother to join issues on it?

"The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." (Ezekiel 18:20)

Mazaje. . . .the above scriptures has NOTHING to do with Adam.

1. Adam sinned and the result of that sin was his expulsion from the world of God. Adam was punished for his own sin. unfortunately adam did not have any offspring in the garden of Eden . . . .he had all his kids outside of the garden, in a world dominated by the will of "beings" and not of God.

2. The above scripture u quoted relates to man's daily life and spiritual judgement . . , which I know u are aware of. all men (including urself, Mazaje) shall give account to the Father.

Does this passage not kill the concept of original sin? Does it also kill the idea that sin is passed down to the children and say that if Adam and Eve lost eternal life, that lose is not passed on to their children?. . . . .This quote seems to clearly say that people are all responsible for their "sins" and that none of that responsibility can be taken away and remains their own. . . . . . It also indicates that no sin, or original sin, is passed on to our children.

You miss the point.

Adam and Eve lost eternal life because they were expelled from the presence of God. Their offspring were also born outside of God's presence. . . .so the offspring were not inheriting anything, but were simply subject to the world outside of God's presence.

The garden of eden myth is just a primitive explanation to events the people tried to explain back then.

Its however so sad. . .that the same myth could land u in hell. If u fail to acknowledge the salvation of the Lamb.

I like to think of it like a very primitive form of science in that science asks questions and then seeks answers. The problem was that the people who wrote the Genesis story didn't have the processes that we do today so they had to use their imagination to come up with answers. Example

Q: Why do women have pain in childbirth?
A: Because God (or gods) stated they would.
Q: Why would God do such a thing?
A: Because way back when there was this garden . . . . .

or

Q: Why do men have to work?
A: Because God said so.
Q: But why would God say such a thing?
A: Well, you see, there was this garden . . . .

Its not that they knew it was a lie, but it was a story that, to them, explained the evidence as they saw it. . . . .

The above are just irrational innuendos.

The scripture was inspired by God and preserved for the sake of the elect. I do not deny u the right to attempt to make a meaning of the gospel. . .but it is clearly obvious that the meaning u make of it is clearly not the intended meaning of the author. . . which implies that something is missing. u need the help of the HS.

nopuqeater:
@Noetic: Please read the below verse of the Quran (33 Verse 50), that destoys your "only 4 wives the prophet must marry" concept:
33:50 Sahih International
O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives] and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who emigrated with you and a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet [and] if the Prophet wishes to marry her, [this is] only for you, excluding the [other] believers. We certainly know what We have made obligatory upon them concerning their wives and those their right hands possess, [but this is for you] in order that there will be upon you no discomfort. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.
Tafsir al-Jalalayn
O Prophet! Indeed We have made lawful for you your wives whom you have given their dowries and what your right hand owns, of those whom God has given you as spoils of war, from the disbelievers, [whom you have] taken captive, such as Safiyya and Juwayriyya, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who emigrated with you, as opposed to those who did not emigrate, and any believing woman if she gift herself [in marriage] to the Prophet and if the Prophet desire to take her in marriage, and ask for her hand in marriage without paying [her] a dowry — a privilege for you exclusively, not for the [rest of the] believers (nikāh, ‘marriage’, when expressed by the term hiba, ‘gift’, denotes [marriage] without dowry). Indeed We know what We have imposed upon them, namely, the believers, with respect to their wives, in the way of rulings, to the effect that they should not take more than four wives and should only marry with [the consent of] a legal guardian, [the presence of] witnesses and [the payment of] a dowry, and, with respect to, what their right hands own, of slavegirls, in the way of purchase or otherwise, so that the handmaiden be one lawful for her master, such as a slavegirl belonging to the People of the Scripture (kitābiyya), and not a Magian or an idolater, and that she should be ascertained [as not carrying child] with the necessary waiting period (istibrā’) before copulation; so that (li-kaylā is semantically connected to what came before [this last statement]) there may be no [unnecessary] restriction for you, [no] constraint in marriage [for you]. And God is Forgiving, of what is difficult to guard against, Merciful, in giving dispensations [allowing for latitude] in this respect.

So ridiculous . . . , so mohammed recieved revelations from allah to justify his lust.
both mohammed and allah are a FRAUD.

Deep Sight:
I am unable to see how or why a mere mortal man like Jesus of Nazareth could be described as omnipresent.

Are you omnipresent? ? ?

If not, then why should a Jewish Rabbi be described as omnipresent. Do such comments not reek of a slight instability which might require expert attention from persons trained in neurology and other associated sciences?

Fine. You have answered my poser and revealed ur ignorance.
If u see Jesus as a mortal and not God . . . .then I cant help u.

I am at odds that a man of your profound spirituality and intellect cannot see the comedy of the claim that Mr. Jesus is almighty God.

I am at odds at the disdain for knowledge and celebration of ignorance. Jesus is God.

You severely dishonour and blaspheme the primordial Godhead by equating mere mortals to God.

u dont know God.

Marlbron:
Noetic,

The garden of Eden experience could convince a novice that it was just a free will show. Such a person may understand it carnally as an expression of free will, but there is more to it, if you will receive it. All that happened there was the will of God for Adam. If Adam had not sinned, how will he have carried out the injunction from God to multiply and fill the earth in his ignorant state? That is why a bad situation to you is actually not bad to God, because it is meant to achieve a certain predestined action which you may not be privy to. Your not being aware of it does not make it bad! It is an insult to the omniscience , omnipresent and omnipotent being to imagine that any event in the universe happens without his approval!

By free-will God gave Adam two choices (a) To stay in the world of God depicted as the garden where all things that exists are in the service of man OR (b) The outside unknown world, where man has to fight and battle for his own survival.
What God did was to give Adam a word of wisdom. A word of wisdom does not refer to predestination . . . .it just informs u of the consequences of ur actions or inactions. Adam chose to live in the world b . . . .and thats where we find ourselves today.

I also believe that living in the garden of eden does not prevent Adam and Eve from being fruitful and multiplying. Rather, it was unfortunate that they did not reproduce while in the garden. . .Remember when satan tempted Jesus, He claimed to own everything on earth and promised to give it to Jesus. Jesus did not refute that statement from satan, but said that u shall not tempt the Lord ur God. have u ever taught about the implication of Jesus response?

mazaje:
1) The Free Will defense is NOT supported by the Bible. The God in the Bible is much more concerned with obedience than he is with free will. The word free will as Christians use it does NOT appear in the bible. It is just one of the clause used to explain absurdity and some of the hypothesis and claims of the religion.

You are very wrong.

How do u explain what happened in the garden of eden? Eve chose by her own volition to accept the serpents counsel and eat the fruit. . . . .the same way u chose to post on this forum by ur own FREE WILL.
The garden of Eden story shows clearly that God sets the parameters of possibilities . . . .by stating the things that would be (consequences) if the fruit is eaten or not eaten. What God says here is called a word of wisdom.

Eve exercised free will and so did u.

2) The Christian who uses the Free will defense must sacrifice a belief in the existence of heaven. Unless they want to claim that evil happens in heaven??. . . .I do not believe in any god therefore the argument is invalid. In the animal world, it is the parents who train their offspring to make the right decisions and with a human brain, that is possibly of a higher decision making organ, we are able to learn right from wrong. The free will argument is used by Christians only as an explanation to the problem of evil.

why must the existence of heaven be sacrificed to support free-will?

3) Predestination is a very clear biblical concept and that concept alone destroys the free will argument. The bible it self talks about some people created to be so that they should be destroyed by the God of the bible, how then does that fit with the free will concept?

1. predestination is not in doubt. but both predestination and free-will go hand in hand.

2. If you believe God created all things . . . .is it not up to Him to determine the purpose of His creations?

where is olabs and abuzola?

Salvation is a continuous process. . , , , get saved and remain saved.

KunleOshob:
@Noetic
I never implied that fornication is not a sin, all i said is that the mainstream church definition of it is faulty and does not conform to the definition in the original greek and hebrew texts so stop trying to quote me out of context. Since you have deliberately insisted on presenting me in a negative light becos i pointed out holes in your submission i would post the greek translation of fornication as stated in Strong's bible concordance

I would leave you here to add or deduct from scriptures at your own discretion.

did u change ur mind? . . . . . .cos what u posted is a carbon-copy of my primordial definition.

KunleOshob:
The onus is on you, deepsight challenged you to define the term fornication from the original greek/ hebrew texts the bible was written in. You have since been dancing round in circles and even attempted to force your preconceived notions into it's definition. If you can't give an honest biblical definition[which i am quite certain you know] i don't see why i should continue in the debate with you.

haba . . . .I thought that I have already defined FORNICATION . . . .in my first rejoinder to deepSight, . . .I also used the
If however u feel that my definition is invalid . . . . . please state yours using the greek/hebrew texts.

The definition of FORNICATION does NOT stop u from stating ur case, . .u claimed that the church is wrong in its stance on fornication.
That simply implies that u believe fornication AINT a sin. . . just like u believe that those who consciously deny Jesus would go to heaven

What are u afraid of? remember how u laugh at those who defend tithing. . . . .show some courage, whats ur position on FORNICATION?

Besdes the above topic is not a favourite area of discussion of mine. au revoir!

only darkness hates light. The world hates the truth. . . . . .u are probably caught up in the act.

why is kunleOshob refusing to state the true gospel of Fornication

mabell:
@aisha2
i don't understand. If you want to suffer, suffer now
[b]i don't really get [/b]what your post is implying aisha

How come u dont understand? . . . .this is the TURKEY of the gospel

Marlbron:
OP,

To understand these things you need to be aware of the ff;

There is the spiritual and the physical.

The spiritual controls the physical

Everybody in this world is playing a pre-determined role in the physical world, but that predetermination is done at another level- the spiritual. Therefore in his own physical or earthly level, he has free will, but in another level he has been programmmed by GOd to certain limits. Once we grab the basics,the rest is easy. That is why christians who fail to understand concepts like re-incarnation are still drinking [b]milk and will remain children.[/b]

please throw more light . . .how is the concept of re-incarnation reconcilable to xtianity?

InesQor:
@Aletheia: Please don't mind Deep Sight, he just wants to get you talking. I took out a lot of time some months ago to explain Psalm 22 with respect to the crucifixion to him, and he confessed that he was satisfied since he had never seen it that way before. I think JeSoul may remember, she was on the thread or so, I cant recall.

I was told u are mavenbox, . . . I didnt notice. Perhaps I find mavenbox more charming

pastor Chris and his get rich quick gospel

Gunnaz007:
@noetic, I think u are mixing the message with the messenger. True CE are used to heresy. . . . .but there is an element of TRUTH in their argument.

You accuse them of heresy yet you agree with their argument



Friend, dont be too hasty in making absolutist remarks and conclusions about people (especeially d church) because God did not make you a judge over them!!!!

1. I did NOT agree with their message. . . . MAN IS NOT ON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH GOD.

2. But I did emphasize that there is something called the faith of God

3. It is a legendary FACT that CE commits loads of heresy.

What if what you term as heresy (that emanates from cec) is just that message (meat not milk) which you are yet to grasp?

please give me some meat of the gospel I am waiting . . . . .

@OP

I think u are mixing the message with the messenger. True CE are used to heresy. . . . .but there is an element of TRUTH in their argument.

1. There is something called the "faith of God". Paul describes it as the faith that speaks the things which be not as though they were.
The faith of God is uniquely uncommon that it only speaks things that have no precedence.
a. When God said let the sun rule by day and the moon rule by night. . . .these event had no precedent. nothing had ever ruled by day or night. but for thousands of years after that statement was made . . . the sun and moon still rule.
b. God told two naked adults in a garden to "be fruitful and multiply" . . . , billions of people are today the descendants of these two adults.
c. God told an aged Abraham and Sarah that they would have a son. . . .defying the tradition of old age, they did have a son.

2. while Faith is defined as the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. It is as such important that our faith must have a subject. If God has faith. . . .who does He have faith in?
Isaiah 55:11
so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it
Isaiah 48:3
3 I foretold the former things long ago,
my mouth announced them and I made them known;
then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass

God's faith is expressed and established in Himself. God prophecies on to the things He would do in the future . . .and also brings them to pass. God has a unique faith . . . .God does not necessarily hope but He foretells the things He would do (faith) and brings them to pass (by power).

3. Jesus said that if we have the faith of a mustard seed we would ask that a mountain moves and it will. This is however not a license to ask for anything. And also that statement connotes that the mustard seed faith is perhaps the least measure of faith.
My submission is that while Christians are to grow to live by faith as Abraham and the faith-fathers did . . . . .submitting to the will of God like Jesus did is a far better deal, . . . .but u first need to learn how to trust God.

4. There is a huge difference btw faith and trust. Jesus IMO taught us how to trust God and not how to have faith.

Deep Sight:
1. Was Jesus still omnipresent while he was in his physical body on Earth?

You stated - "The physical entity who died on the cross is Jesus." -

Was he omnipresent whilst dying on the cross?

If not, did he cease to be the Holy Spirit for a time? ? ?

You could as well start by answering my own questions . . . .u dont have the monopoly of questions.

I left the poser for u to decide. Is Jesus omni-present?. . . . .if yes, how does that relate to the HS? if No. . .does that not contradict His ontology?

Perhaps u could start by illustrating the differences btw Jesus and the HS.

2. You stated - "The God he prayed to is called the Father"

- Does God pray to himself?

- How could he be the Father when he expressly stated that there are things he does not know - whereas God the Father is said to be omniscient?

- Did he lose his omniscience at any point?

What do understand by prayer?

jagunlabi:
Goodness me![b]How can noetic talk from GOD'S perspective?Does he know him that well?[/b]Noetic can only talk from his own perspective and not anybody else's, abegi!

Anyway, make una fire on.

I am sure there was something in bracket in that quote that read with regards to my understanding . . .but of course I know God, but not up to 1% of Him.

Deep Sight:
Well lets have a look sir.

I would strongly suggest to you that YOU should be the one to look closely at the diagram again.

You stated that – “the diagrams were designed to arrive at the same value. There was no supposition that suggested contrary”

- Which is eminently bizarre given that the diagram specifically states and I quote “5 – 4 IS NOT 2 – 1” : Thus it is clear that the diagram DOES INFACT state that the one is not the same as the other – which is eminently FALSE because both simply reflect THE SAME VALUE of 1 (ONE).

- It can hardly be my fault, sir, if you failed to see the words “is not” appearing thrice within the diagram and it thus begs belief that you could suggest that the diagram does not suggest a false difference in values.

The least u can do is to be honest in "debates"

Each component is different. . . . implying that "5-4" is different from "3-2" . . . . but both arrive at the same value.
How else do u want me to express it to you Sir, that while the composition is different. . .their values are the SAME.
The implication of this reality in the second diagram is that while the actions and composition of the Jesus entity might differ (based on our knowledge and understanding) from the HS their values as GOD does not. This value is primarily called WILL.

So while "5-4" IS NOT "3-2" . . . . It however arrives at a predetermined value of 1. . . , this aint rocket science Sir.

No sir. No, No and thrice No again!

5 – 4 IS NOT different from 3 – 2.

Both represent a value of 1 (One) and this is incontrovertible.

What is the very purpose of inserting a subtraction sign between the figures if not to arrive at a result? The ineluctable result is the figure 1 in all three cases and thus they are THE SAME and the assertion in the diagram that they are not the same is a blatant and unacceptable falsity.

The result differs from the composition. It could as well have been an addition sign saying "0+1" or "2+(-)1" while the result would inevitably be 1. . . .u would however be out of your senses to insinuate that both additions are equal in composition.

The diagram is designed to explain away the inanity of a pagan concept which you slavishly adhere to contrary to all reason and commonsense.

If u choose to separate ignorant opinions from facts, perhaps u might have an understanding of the issue at stake.


1. Regardless of your innuendos. . .are the 1 billion xtians who believe in the trinity pagans? can u thoughtfully call them pagans?

2. The idea of trinity is not inept of reason, quite unlike your assumption. It describes a union beyond the scope of human definition, analysis and understanding. . .and is largely subject to faith. Notwithstanding, the concept is within the confines of intellectual analysis.

3. u might as well keep your uninformed opinions to urself.

IF THIS WAS THE CASE THEN IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT JESUS IS THE HOLY SPIRIT – AS THEY ARE BOTH SIMPLY ALMIGHTY GOD MANIFESTING DIFFERENTLY, NO? SO WHY DOES THE DIAGRAM SAY THAT JESUS IS NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT? ? ? YOU ANSWER ME YOURSELF – IS JESUS THE HOLY SPIRIT? ? ?


Simple enough logic –

1. God is Jesus

2. God is the Holy spirit.

3. Both Holy Spirit and Jesus are God.

4. Thus Holy Spirit and Jesus are the same person.

5. So why does the diagram specifically state that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are different people?

Let me try to rationalize the trinity debacle. . . . . .to accommodate your ignorance.

1. One of the ontological attributes of God refers to God as omnipresent. . . . meaning that He is present everywhere. The symbol of this presence is called the Holy Spirit.

2. Jesus created the earth as we see it today . . . and twas He who appeared to Moses in the burning bush . . . .He was the rock that was hit by moses. Jesus then chose to die for our sins on the cross. At the point of His earthly mission, Jesus prayed to GOD sitted on the throne in heaven.

3. The physical entity who died on the cross is Jesus. The God He prayed to is called the Father. They remain the same person.

why are all three the same persons?
If God is omni-present and this presence is usually symbolised as the HS . . . .can we then say that Jesus is not omni-present? IF Jesus is not omni-present, the He is NOT God. . . .if however He is omni-present. . . .then He is also the HS.

If we say God the father created all that exists,  . .yet the bible says clearly that Jesus made all things (John 1:3). . . . .If the Jesus who made all things is NOT God the father . . . .then who made all things? Jesus or God the father?

KunleOshob:
I didn't run any where and i don't live on NL in case you haven't realized. Whilst i was not trying to pick an argument with you i was just trying to point you to some loop holes in your submissions. I would rather note discuss this topic on a public forum less i give some peeps the wrong impression or lea some baby christians astray. However i still maintain that you wee not very honest in your submissions and i am dead certain that you know you weren't.

This is rather cheap and fast unbecoming of u.

What are the loop holes in my submission?. . . . . . .and what is your own opinion on the subject? why are afraid of stating ur position?. . . , is it because u know that it betrays the teachings of Christ Jesus?. . . . .just remember how u have impugned others in the name of tithing?

The only thing that would stop IBB is Jonathan does not support him . . . . . In Nigeria the Incumbent has all the political say.

did kunleOshob run away with his tails?

Deep Sight:
Both diagrams do NOTHING except show in bold relief the patent, manifest and inescapable irrationality and falsity of the pagan doctrine of the trinity.

A ridiculously irrelevant and dogmatic submission influenced by ignorance, malady, lack of understanding and disdain for knowledge.

5 - 4 = 1

And -

2 - 1 = 1

And -

3 - 2 = 1

Thus the supposition that all three sets of values do not represent the same value is eminently false.

If u looked closely and again .  . . u would see that the diagrams were designed to arrive at the same value. There was no supposition that suggested contrary.

They represent the exact same value and this is ineluctable and absolutely beyond cavil.

Thus the image on the left is similarly flawed even on the mathematical suppositions of the image on the right.

They represent the same value. . . .but are not constituted in the same way. The added/subtracted values that constitute the "value" are different.
5-4 is different from 3-2 . . . . . but they both arrive at the same values.

If God IS the Holy Spirit, and God IS Jesus, then inescapably - Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same person - God.

The implication in the left diagram that Jesus is not therefore the Holy spirit automatically shows that God could not be both Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

The diagram is depicted to construct a picture of the supernatural within the limited confines of our understanding. God is one. The names Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit are the names given to His manifestation. This aint rocket science.

This is iron clad and indisputable in absolute terms.

That was PLASTIC clad and very LAME