₦airaland Forum

Vortex™:
While you are at it you may also want to recall that The Lord was ready to spare a whole town (Sodom) if a few good men could be found in it. That is a God of Justice. He would rather spare the guilty for the sake of the innocent rather than kill the innocent to spare the guilty. Recall also that Lot had to be called out of Sodom because he chose to be upright. Because he was innocent, he was spared. Achan and his family had to die because they were guilty of a crime. Others who were innocent of the crime were spared. That's Love and Justice working hand in hand. One without the other fall short of the Perfect standard of The Lord Almighty!

What was the crime of Achan's children and wife? Please note the items were intact so its not like they'd gorged themselves on the spoils. Using your allegory above of Sodom and sparing a whole town if a few good men were found in it, why didn't He spare the family who had nothing to do with the crime?

You claim that is Love and Justice working hand in hand and that one without the other falls short of the Perfect standard of the Almighty! Turn the searchlight of this, your expressed judgement, on the Almighty in light of Achan's family.

Why not just accept that God does as He wished and that is why He is God.

@Chukwudi44:

Hello there. I've been expecting you'd get here sooner or later. I actually wished for sooner as it provides a prompt opportunity to present information, not only to yourself but a lot of other readers.

I want you to know I do not belong to ANY Church system. I'm not protestant or Seventh-day or pentecostal or whatever. I am a believer and NO ONE stands between me and God as mediator.

I know you're Catholic and needs must defend that faith. But you and other readers might want to take a look at the following and make up your minds as to the role the RCC has played in Christianity

WAS CONSTANTINE POPE?
http://www.reformation.org/pope-constantine.html
http://www.themillennialdispensation.org/kcttaoc.html
http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question36118.html

NEGATING PETER BEING THE FIRST POPE
http://www.bible.ca/cath-peter=pope.htm
http://www.remnantofgod.org/pope1.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/popesandthepapacy/a/peterpope.htm

Now lets suppose the version you heard puts another name as the second pope after Peter. The web after-all allows anyone put whatever information they wish on it.

Where did anyone get the idea that Peter was pope? What about the changes you have today in your ten commandments which differ from what the Torah, its source says? The canonization of human beings? Your decision that Mary is the Mother of God. The Idols you set up everywhere when plainly the Torah states "MAKE NO GRAVEN IMAGES"? Your insistence that a wafer is the actual flesh of Jesus simply because a Priest mumbled over it? Where do you get purgatory from? And there are dozens more of issues like this

Give a scriptural backing for ANY of the above or else you just accepted that you guys created a new brand of Christianity separate from what the Apostles practiced which is simply what this thread is about. You sought to change the WORD OF GOD, HIS LAWS and THE PRACTICES OF THE APOSTLES. You also brought in DOCTRINES UNKNOWN TO THE APOSTLES.

@DeepSight:

Deep Sight:
Nuclear; let me just make one thing clear - this is not about intellect for me: from the age of about 12 i have strenuously sought the truth and i am still doing so. The world and universe around me fills me with wonder. Thus i seek.

The walk has taken me through a great many christian sects, prime amongst which were the Jehovah's Witnesses. I have studied the Quoran and have several Islamic works in a personal library right here in my bedroom. I have studied and attempted pure Buddhism, and have been at times associated with The Rosicrucian Order, the Grail Message and diverse religious, theological and philosophical movements.

Disatisfied with most, i started about 10 years ago whilst in University to stare at the night sky and ponder out my own perspectives on existence. It has been an enlightening walk. I find that many religions actually contain major parts of THE TRUTH. But human dogma beclouds alot.

I only say this so that you know that my search has been long and it is sincere. Mind games are meaningless. The truth is out there.

Together, we can find it.

I understand, apologize for my statement and want you to know I respect your search. But it seems to me that you have taken away from the systems you studied/practiced, portions of their belief systems that made sense to you and are trying to fit Christianity into a mold you've created from them. Forgive me if I am wrong but look at the idea Jesoul mooted that you believe in good works taking you to heaven. That seems to me to come from Buddhism. The belief is one "Strong Almighty Almighty Alagbara who cannot humble Himself" seems to come from Islam and then there's the "god" of dogma i.e. the Jehovah witnesses who deny today everything they said yesterday. I remember the issue they brought out saying there were 50,000 mistakes in the Bible. You sound like that atimes and I sincerely wonder how you can believe in something you say contains so many problems. Funnily, these problems are almost totally easily attributable to the human authorship and do not remove from the singular message of its pages.

I think all of us have issues at times with what ABSOLUTE truth is over specific issues. And I believe that a search for truth will eventually give you that truth. Only thing is you may want to start by dropping the mold you created.

@Jesoul:

Quite awhile anyone got me to blush. You over-rate me! But I agree about Maven and Viaro!

@DeepSight:

According to your quote, Jesus wanted "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you." This statement suddenly seems ambiguous when your explanation is considered and might have lent credence to your position except for the existence of multiple Scriptures which clarify the statement.

To illustrate, what would you say of the disciple who saw the risen Jesus and went "My Lord and my God!". Or of Isaiah who not only called Him "Emmanuel" but also "The Mighty God"? The Scriptures do not inform us the disciple was rebuked for this, do they? No one in history has such claims as have been made for Jesus made for them. And remember the other Jewish Torah prophecies which call Him Lord and God amongst other Divine titles.

Sorry. Edited and re-posted below

I actually think NOETIC the 15th ( ) makes sense. Problem is he doesn't seem to get the point here. When I thought of this issue, NOETIC15, my propellant was comments passed on this forum (especially by Muslims), that we do not know what we serve and that Christianity is multi-faceted. You repeatedly come across phrases like "three gods", "many bibles and versions differing from each other" etc.

I thought to re-align and show that there was a deliberate concerted effort to derail Christianity from ages past whist re-iterating that Yes, this seems to have been done but true Christianity does exist disparate from all of those efforts. I personally had a long tortured walk in Christianity which saw me come in and go back out a number of times before I understood many things about the "corruption of the Bible" etc. Did you ever read the Vulgate? Did you notice the 10 commandments in it are different from those in the KJV? Have you ever wondered about what Easter eggs and Rabbits have to do with Jesus? There's a great deal more confusing many young believers and helping others outside to stay outside.

Such things made me think of telling a story that those confused as I once once could check. There obviously remains a great deal I didn't include but pointing readers towards the online references I made would help a true seeker to find his answers.

That was my intention, Sir. To point such as I was before in the right direction so they could understand and defend their faith.

@KunleOshob:

"Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God".

"I and the Father are ONE" "and the pharisees sought to kill Him for making Himself God, being Man".

@DeepSight:

Sorry but this seems to be about your intellect. No one bar NOBODY can deny the obviousness of the sharpness of your brain. However, did you ever notice the Biblical statement that "God uses the simple , , "

@Mavenbox and Viaro:

Its all so simple really!

High intellect has the tendency to try to over-simplify and then you find other high intellects needing to read meaning where there's none. I doubt either of you should feel bad that the other has a really high intellect. I think Viaros' mind just kept going and took it to levels Mavenbox didn't intend and then her own mind spun into gear and on and on and on

Imagine a marriage between such! Hell would run and hide 

Krayola wrote:

Haha. Same naa ni

@Krayola:

Did you ever hear "Kokoro naa ni" and "I want to be an engineering"? Cos if you did, I know you!

@Krayola:

You just went up a whole lot of notches in my estimation. As you said, there's no right or wrong cos all this is personal to each of us and we needs must work it out for ourselves. My only problem here on NL is the tendency I see for people to use their intellect to trap others into blunders they can use to discredit the faith of others. If I make a blunder, come at me rather than what I believe because the blunder is mine. Of course, there are some things that cannot be defended and show themselves as obvious fallacies.

@Jesoul:

Been awhile I read anything from you.

@Mavenbox:

Still waiting for you to expand your notes on relationships in https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-369280.32.html#msg5155059. Nice reading its making from where I stand

Thank you, Viaro.

At risk of a nuclear explosion, I'd say one pagan and one ditheist!

_{@nuclearboy: why are you afraid of yourself seeing as its you thats nuclear?}

PS: THE ABOVE IS A JOKE O. ABEG O!

@Krayola:

What would you have me say again? I believe in the Bible and it says "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God". Then it goes on to tell me that that Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us as a Man. I assure you those words did not refer to Nuclearboy so Yes, He is a Deity and if you do not believe the above passage, you are not following Christ ergo you're not a Believer. If you would (like the Muslims say) that the NT is corrupt and Paul changed something else into that, what say you of Isaiah's claim that this is the MIGHTY GOD!

As to the issues of belief, yes, but it doesn't end there! Whist your acceptance opens the door into the Kingdom of God, you will "WALK" the walk to get to the seat. Just as you opened the door to come in, you can open it to go out. Anyone who claims he believes and is saved then does the exact opposite of what the faith requires, is fooling himself.

Such people abound and that fact, rather than negating Christianity, actually proves its authenticity, for if there were no original, there couldn't be a counterfeit.

THATS MY PERSONAL BELIEF AND I DO NOT CLAIM TO SPEAK FOR GOD.

@ALL:

Would it be unreasonable to try answer for these 2 gentlemen using their prior posts as a guide?

DeepSight [/b]asks if Jesus ever existed and wonders why God would tie the salvation of all peoples to one man from one tribe so I'd say He doesn't believe Jesus existed, or in lieu of that, doesn't accept His Divinity which translates to Him being a different entity from God. Is DeepSight a Christian? Should I be discussing Jesus with him if his belief is that the Word of God is a myth and denies Jesus, the foundation of Christianity?

[b]KunleOshob believes Jesus is distinct from God and less than God yet Divine. Result: he believes there are at least, 2 "gods". I assume he believes the same for the Holy Spirit too which means to his thinking, there are "3 gods". Yet he believes the RCC was wrong in saying there is a Trinity/Tritheism. If however, I am wrong and it is only Jesus that is distinct/lower, then there are 2 gods to his mind. Which means the GodHead is a Bi-unity

Viaro, whats the right word for the existence of 2 gods rather than 3?

I see where you both are coming from now. I was using the dictionary definition which I see you now show as Tritheism.

Still, I think my use of the word is in consonance with the questions to which I await the pleasure of DeepSight and KunleOshob in responding to because my understanding is that they believe Jesus less than God which would mean He is a separate God or NO god at all. But they likely don't see what they say like that.

and VIARO: I think you got me wrong with your last referenced quote. The questions I want answered are

[1] Do you believe Jesus exists?
[2] Do you believe the Holy Spirit exists?
[3] Is Jesus Divine?
[4] Is the Holy Spirit Divine?
[5] If Jesus is Divine, is He lower than God?
[6] If the Holy Spirit is Divine, is "it" lower than God?

I think you'll agree that answering this will let us know where the "answeree" ( ) is coming from

@Mavenbox:

You had me really scared there for a minute! What dictionary do you use? According to http://www.yourdictionary.com/trinity, Trinity is defined thus.

trin·ity (trin′i tē)

noun pl. trinities -·ties

1. the condition of being three or threefold
2. a set of three persons or things that form a unit
3. Christian Theol. Trinity Sunday

Etymology: ME trinite < OFr trinité < L trinitas, triad, in LL(Ec), the Trinity (infl. by Gr trias) < trinus: see trine & -ity
trinity Idioms

the Trinity
Christian Theol. the union of the three divine persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in one Godhead


@ALL:

So many words and explanations here. Before we become what we condemn in other religions with long posts that only complicate issues further, could someone just answer my questions and lets find a way forward

Naijaa:
@ KunleOshob. I quite appreciate all your post and your vast knowledge of the Christian Faith but i will like to shed a light as regards the tithing issue, before i do that i want to ask u few question because i only defend what i believe in and i dont speak about what i dont know. 1, what does the bible says about tithing and 2, what is Gods present standpoint as regards tithing ?

Naijaa:

There can be no difference between what the Bible says and what God is saying presently. Both complement themselves and cannot differ

@Viaro:

Tritheism? I'm not familiar with the word. Could you please explain and then tell me what Trinity is?

@DeepSight:

Did you see my 6 simple YES or NO questions?

I notice you accuse Mavenbox of seeking ways to evade the traps you set. Did you ever think that maybe you too, are guilty of this? Especially when you both could find scriptures that buttress each individual's point(s).

@Viaro:

This thread is meant to educate ourselves and readers, not wonder what happened to the peoples in ages past? And yes, the analogy is simple but makes sense. No-one can read it and make a case for pre-marital sex. _{[size=8pt][size=8pt]Ehm, actually, we all can (as a function of our lusts but not with Biblical support)[/size][/size]}

@DeepSight & KunleOshob:

I sincerely thought my response negated the argument your posers brought up. I just didn't want to go the argument way. If you want I'll take another look at them and attempt to present my own perspective. For now though Sirs, humor me and allow me digress for a bit. I think we can solve this issue very very simply by me trying to show you what you in fact, are claiming to be the truth.

Trinity I believe means three Gods in the GodHead. You say you do not believe in Trinity and so do I.

We agree that there is "God". So I ask you about the 2 other names in the mix i.e. Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

[1] Do you believe Jesus exists?
[2] Do you believe the Holy Spirit exists?
[3] Is Jesus Divine?
[4] Is the Holy Spirit Divine?
[5] If Jesus is Divine, is He lower than God?
[6] If the Holy Spirit is Divine, is "it" lower than God?

If your answers to the above questions are YES, then you have a serious problem here as you then have said there are three DISPARATE divinities in Christianity and like the Muslims would say, we have three gods. Are you Muslims, by any chance?

If your answers are NO, then what are we arguing about since obviously you deny the Bible.

If there is a middle ground somewhere in this, please detail it to me. Following your response to the above, I'd be pleased to look at the posers you said I ignored.

You're right that Trinity came from the RCC system. But then you seem to have missed my point. I DO NOT AGREE THAT THERE ARE THREE GODS MAKING UP ONE "GOD". My position is that there is only ONE God.

Where we seem to differ is this:- you believe that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also gods but lower than God. Sort of like somewhere between Angels and God. This would in fact, suggest it is you believing in trinity. If they are lower, they're not the same and that makes them three. I hope you follow?

I refuse to accept this and believe that the ONE God shows Himself in differing manner at differing times. He, I believe manifested as Jesus yet was in heaven at the same time (BECAUSE HE IS GOD) and also shows Himself as the Holy Spirit. By default, He is Jehovah, a God of Judgment, Strong, Powerful etc. When relating to us, He showed a physical manifestation represented as Jesus (remember someone accepted worship in the OT and angels do not do that) and today, He reveals Himself to us as the Spirit of Love (in effect, He lives and walks with us).

Look at it this way: God physically walked with Adam and Eve in Eden! The Bible is clear on that or do you not accept that? If the sacrifice of Jesus was what we say it is and effectual, it has brought us back to that situation since Adam walked on earth, not heaven and I would expect God walking with you or myself today just as much as then. When last did you shake hands with Him? My position is that the Holy Spirit which I believe we all claim we have is His manifestation. Anything less than that and Bro, Jesus did nothing for us and the point of the sacrifice was not met.

Simply put, DeepSight, could God be 2 different things in 2 different places at the same time?

I need you to answer that question?

@Mavenbox:

All the above is a background. I'd like to treat issues like Destiny, Holiness, Church attendance, Tithes, Marital and other "emotional" relationships etc, providing for each a purely Biblical perspective. Could you please help kick off with "Christian emotional and physical relationships up to and including marriage and the place of both spouses in the union"? Thanks.

@ttalks:

Isaiah said he was the Father!.

@Deepsight:

Jesus is God! Father, Son, Spirit are semantics and only represent how God shows Himself as at differing times based on Mankind's needs. You will notice that where He is named as the Everlasting Father, He is also called the Mighty God. "Mighty" not Almighty! Seems to be another contradiction. Way I see this, God wants our trust. I buttress this by asking you why He planted the Tree of Knowledge in Eden if not to require that they trust His Judgment? Would you rather Jesus visits you with a hundred thousand angels shining like the Sun to convince you? In Eden, He gave them enough but Nope, they needed more. Same with you as I see you're trying to rationalize all of this based on words and their meanings. I thought it was only Muslims that liked to try using the Bible as a trap to win arguments. Another term used for Him is Judge. Would you like He present us His gown and wig before you believe that claim too? Think about it.

Deep Sight:
@ Nuclear - could a divine being (even in flesh) ever request the shelving of a divinely concluded eventuality?

What is divinity?

What is fear?

We know in part, DeepSight! 2,000 years ago, what would a roman have said told that me and you would be conversing separated by many miles, without audio and without seeing ourselves through a screen? Why do you think it fair or reasonable to rationalize God into the question above? Time, Science, exposure are all limited. I refuse to put God into a box or assume I know His limitations.

Sticking with the other thread please. I'm going dizzy. Mavenbox, please join at https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-369330.0.html

@Pastor_AIO:

Sure you would! Unfortunately for you though, it is not integral to me that I do so.

Right now, I assume that you can speak Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek too. Have you also studied the Arabic language to understand the Math we learnt in school since much of that came from Arabic. Some words in the English Vocabulary come from French too. You've studied and are fluent in that too? If you cannot provide an affirmative answer to all of them, you're obviously not serious by your own standards of seriousness.

@Deepsight:

This copying from Thread to thread is making me dizzy. Not sure I have the presence of Mind. Could we please stay on this one thread from now? For the last time, here's my response on the other thread:

I personally have always argued against the word Trinity. The word came from pagan Rome. It is to me wrong that three are one. Rather, I have always seen it as one shown as three. Given this scenario of one shown as three, I could expand to that one being then shown as a myriad which could include a dog, a snail and a piece of chalk. Taking these three examples as a "population sampling" for my illustration, would you take them to be the same or have the same capabilities? Or do you believe the Almighty unable to be 2 different things in different places?

Would you expect say, the snail to eat meat or the chalk to crawl since they are same? I have used the flesh covering of Jesus to argue for limitation. Remember that the spirit is said to struggle against the flesh plus there's still the soul in this human mix. A cry for help can come from tortured flesh struggling against a Spirit rigid in its purpose. And the cry of a tortured soul is even worse. At Gethsemane, foreknowledge of what the next 24 or so hours held would have caused great grief for the soul. Remember the Spirit was not going to be the one feeling the pain. It was Flesh-Time! It caused sweat of blood, didn't it? To what? Spirit or flesh. I believe the flesh rose here and struggled. I come from a military background and know that the "Rambo" personality sold on TV is ridiculous. If God didn't cheat and Jesus was both fully Man and fully God, there was a distinct clash between the different portions of His being that I believe explains away the seeming turnarounds. Total humanity explains the fear. Total Divinity explains the acceptance of the Divine will. This I believe resolves the issue of "will" versus "personage". Of course, here, will would be Spirit whist personage is the mishmash. As an example, I would (my will) that I jog 10 miles every morning. Bros, I assure you my personage doesn't wish to get up early in the morning.

I personally have always argued against the word Trinity. The word came from pagan Rome. It is to me wrong that three are one. Rather, I have always seen it as one shown as three. Given this scenario of one shown as three, I could expand to that one being then shown as a myriad which could include a dog, a snail and a piece of chalk. Taking these three examples as a "population sampling" for my illustration, would you take them to be the same or have the same capabilities? Or do you believe the Almighty unable to be 2 different things in different places?

Would you expect say, the snail to eat meat or the chalk to crawl since they are same? I have used the flesh covering of Jesus to argue for limitation. Remember that the spirit is said to struggle against the flesh plus there's still the soul in this human mix. A cry for help can come from tortured flesh struggling against a Spirit rigid in its purpose. And the cry of a tortured soul is even worse. At Gethsemane, foreknowledge of what the next 24 or so hours held would have caused great grief for the soul. Remember the Spirit was not going to be the one feeling the pain. It was Flesh-Time! It caused sweat of blood, didn't it? To what? Spirit or flesh. I believe the flesh rose here and struggled. I come from a military background and know that the "Rambo" personality sold on TV is ridiculous. If God didn't cheat and Jesus was both fully Man and fully God, there was a distinct clash between the different portions of His being that I believe explains away the seeming turnarounds. Total humanity explains the fear. Total Divinity explains the acceptance of the Divine will. This I believe resolves the issue of "will" versus "personage". Of course, here, will would be Spirit whist personage is the mishmash. As an example, I would (my will) that I jog 10 miles every morning. Bros, I assure you my personage doesn't wish to get up early in the morning.

I don't know if you have read Mavenbox's post in "The rise of Counterfeit Christianity" and my response to it. I am bringing it here

QUOTE
Mavenbox wrote:

DeepSight and Nuclearboy: i really must chip this in. Its One thing to worship Jesus the man and another to Worship the Word who become flesh. I believe one reason why no corpse was left behind for Christ is so that men would not worship it as another idol. Moses made a bronze serpent to be lifted up to save the sinning Israelites and Jesus likened himself to it. Did you know that the Israelites didnt understand that the serpent was just a vessel and not the real source? They started worshipping Nehushtan (that exact bronze serpent), see 2Ki 18:4 rather than look up to God. Jesus emphasized that only God in his divinity was good &to be Worshipped (Matt 4:10), and that his human form was only a vessel prepared for him (Heb 10:5). I think u are both right but the Word needs to be well divided, is it Jesus the man or The "non-human" Word who was known on earth as Jesus that is not to be Worshipped? (see John 4:24, Phi 3:3)

Think of it like a Hollywood star in a movie and in reality. The guy in the movie is the man Jesus, he is not worthy of an Oscar. The real actor gets the Oscar. As a participator in the Godhead as Son of God, Jesus deserves worship. But not Jesus the Man. "Jesus" the Word.

In Revelations, the Word was worshipped (who was known on earth as the Son of Man) and in Joshua 5:13-15 in pre-incarnate form he appeared as the captain of the Lord's hosts &allowed Joshua to worship him (something that angels wont do, see Rev 19:10, Rev 22:9). Not once as man did Jesus require worship of anyone IMO.
UNQUOTE

I believe this explains my point about Jesus as it were, perfectly! I am copying part of my response too to this page for the benefit of others reading who may glean something or other from our "swordsmanship".

QUOTING MYSELF
I think the problem is the inability to separate the Human and the entity behind the Human yet seeing them together as it were, in one entity. That is why on our "Nuclear holds a Sword" thread, I pointed out the limitation brought on by the flesh clothing. In that "situation", He was as it were, the actor Mavenbox has called Him and not meant to be worshiped. Yet! Yet He still remained essentially what He was: The Word of God who was the Son of Man. My context is the now I exist in 2000 years after He said those words. His context was the THEN in which He spoke. At times I have decided (comes and goes in my mind) that He deliberately allowed this confusion and went back and forth in history (from where I stand) because He wants us to know to a point then move further in "trust/faith".
UNQUOTE

@Mavenbox:
God bless you for this absolutely brilliant addition to the discourse. I had issues expressing what I felt but its like you read my mind and brought forth life. And not just for this thread too

Deepsight:
I think the problem is the inability to separate the Human and the entity behind the Human yet seeing them together as it were, in one entity. That is why on our "Nuclear holds a Sword" thread, I pointed out the limitation brought on by the flesh clothing. In that "situation", He was as it were, the actor Mavenbox has called Him and not meant to be worshiped. Yet! Yet He still remained essentially what He was: The Word of God who was the Son of Man. My context is the now I exist in 2000 years after He said those words. His context was the THEN in which He spoke. At times I have decided (comes and goes in my mind) that He deliberately allowed this confusion and went back and forth in history (from where I stand) because He wants us to know to a point then move further in "trust/faith".

I explain away all three quotes as language idiosyncrasies. Let me explain:

Mark 10:18. He was doing the exact opposite of what you claim. Remember He spoke mainly in Parables except to his inner circle. By asking that question, He was saying "Oh, so you know that God is the "good" one and you call me "good", doesn't that make me God?"

John 14:28 says "the Father is greater than I". Here Jesus was standing clothed in Flesh, subject (by self-choice) to the laws of nature and 4 dimensions. As you read these words of mine, I'm certain you accept they're not all there is to me. The state in which He was restricted Him whist the purity didn't have those restrictions of nature and 4 dimensions etc.

John 20:17 (My God and your God). Many of us yorubas (I don't know the structure of other languages) do the following almost daily. ME: "Oh F$*k, Nuclearboy, you need to go sit down, visit yourself (remember we're thinking in Yoruba) and talk to your inner self to avoid all this rubbish you're doing". Was I going to visit a different person from myself?

Would you deny me my right because you don't speak like I do?

I accept that you can listen to and hear your thoughts. But no-one else can! The comparison is not apt.

Your word not only emanates from you. It is your inner being expressed for others to see/feel/hear/whatever.

The messengers of God you speak of had personal aspirations, life-plans, lusts etc IN ADDITION to the particular message they had from God. Those messages were in fact, incidental, in their lives. Jesus was nothing else except the word He bore. He came only as that Word and there was no dilution through His lifetime! That to me is the distinction.

Your re-translation of the Bible is funny. I will not say you are wrong over the "Godly divinity" issue but I use the KJV. What it says is "was God". Would you take me as a serious character if I were now to drop the KJV and follow your position? Suppose you were to say it said "wasn't more than the smallest angel"? What would you I do?

Three of my favorite posters on one page. Really interesting sunday

Deep Sight:
The hero-worshipping instinct, i will adduce in a future thread, is actually firm psycological evidence for the existence of a supeme being: God: the ultimate hero. But i digress.

Back to hero worship. It is my view that hero worship is the cardinal plank on which christian dogma seems to have derailed.

First hero-worship of Jesus of NAZARETH, despite his admonitions against worshipping him - and his adjurations towards worship of GOD only.

Then hero-worship of the apostles through canonization. I must wonder if Christ would have supported the idea of cannonizing humans as saints given his words against calling even himself good: emphasizing that only God is good. How then do we hero-worship humans and declare them "holy" by cannonizaing them as saints? Over to Chukwudi44.

Then by hero-worship pf Popes. The doctrine of papal infallibility even going so far as to declare the pope "infallible." Good grief.

Nowadays in Nigeria we have inched towards what i may term "pastoral infallibility", another vicious form of hero worship in which our pastors are virtually deified as God. The cardinal plank on which this has been built up is that fraudulent refrain - "touch not his anointed. . ."

In all of this where is the ideal of christian humility, modesty and equanimity? Why do we have the aggressive, abusive and empty sort of christianity espoused by motor-park touts lacking ethics, upbringing and civility such as Davidylan?

I agree with Everything you wrote above Except the Jesus part. Maybe I missed something but please detail some of these scriptures on Jesus admonitions