₦airaland Forum

Janosky:
Oga, you are confused & very desperate to console yourself .
John 20:17, Jesus Christ brought your confusion to an end but you vehemently refused & rejected his evidence.

Shalom.

Emusan:
Just a single post that is tormenting you like this

This single response from me has answered all your questions.

That's your own palaver, the Koko is that you believe in Bible just the way Satan did. So to believe in Bible doesn't mean you have the truth

Even a toddler won't find this to understand

Even Devil himself believes what iss in the Bible grin cheesy grin cheesy grin cheesy grin cheesy

Just the way your believe is nothing, and bound for destruction with him as long as both of you hold the same belief

That's your own palaver, the Koko is that you believe in Bible just the way Satan did. So to believe in Bible doesn't mean you have the truth

So to believe in Bible doesn't mean you have the truth

achorladey:
This one that one of his brother in Jehovah said nairaland has no rules no go listen to your words. They feed and drink on insult, name calling, tags and labels. They inherited it from their forerunners and religious leaders

tctrills:
I just went through all you wrote again. The more I read the more It becomes clear that you are not sure how to place Jesus Christ. You are not comfortable calling him God because it would destroy are your arguments. Yet you cant do without calling him God because it is clearly stated in the bible. Again you cant tell if he is a true God because John 17.3 says there is only one true God yet again, you don't know if he a a false God.
The Catholics you condemn are far better than you. At least they understand their position. When you come up with a clear position of who Jesus is, I would love to know.

Tctrills, you have been UNABLE to disprove John and Jesus Christ@ John 20:17.
Oga, go & rest.

tctrills:

You have not for one day come out to say that what I post isn't found in the bible. I have never posted anything outside the bible but you are uncomfortable. Why

If you say the trinity is a Catholic dogma then you don't read your bible.

Elohim is plural

In creation God the Father, the word and the Spirit was present.... They are one but have their different functions.

Romans 8:16
[16]The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

When it comes to mary, the mother of Jesus... She was a vessel like any other vessel God has used, and you need to look at the lineage from Adam to Abraham to David to Joseph the earthly father of Jesus. God orchestrated the whole thing. ( There were others who paid the price too) So I see Mary as a vessel, a saint one through whom Jesus Christ came as God purposed it.

When Jesus started ministry and he was preaching and the people told him your mother and brethren were here to see him. His reply was

Janosky:
Oga, continue to console yourself jare.

Janosky:
For how long will you continue like this?
John 20:17 is the nemesis of your claims on this thread.

Janosky:


Tctrills, you have been UNABLE to disprove John and Jesus Christ@ John 20:17.
Oga, go & rest.

Janosky:
Oga, continue to console yourself jare.
You are still practicing the same insults, name calling & tag labels on this public forum.

Achorladey has lied or made false claims on this forum, Janosky will not hesitate to say it bluntly with candor.

Janosky's candor is insults to this deceptive man.
That Agro guy thoroughly shut down your fraud RANTS on JWs Governing Body.
9th April, 2022 @ 6:40pm.
Oga, take notes.

Oga, continue to console yourself jare.

You are still practicing the same insults, name calling & tag labels on this public forum.

Achorladey has lied or made false claims on this forum, Janosky will not hesitate to say it bluntly with candor.

Janosky's candor is insults to this deceptive man.

That Agro guy thoroughly shut down your fraud RANTS on JWs Governing Body.

cornelboy:
Lol.
I know that feeling when your removed from a group due to one reason or the other.

The hatred go dè much like mad.

He has no where to go. He will be here hunting for JWs to devour.

I know that feeling when your removed from a group due to one reason or the other.

The hatred go dè much like mad.

He has no where to go. He will be here hunting for JWs to devour

cornelboy:
When did Satan start reading and believing in the Bible?

How did Satan believe the Bible the same way I do?

Why would I be bound for destruction like Satan?

Were you referring to me personally or everyone that believes in the Bible?


If your trying to prove that though the devil believe the Bible but doesn't have the truth, it doesn't make any sense.

His beliefs doesn't apply to my beliefs about the Bible.

Satan knows the truth more than humans. Always try to reason na.


2 Peter 2:12
[12]These false teachers are like unthinking animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed. They scoff at things they do not understand, and like animals, they will be destroyed.

You better wake up. If you can't manage your brain yourself, donate it to the 8 men asap.

You better wake up. If you can't manage your brain yourself, donate it to the 8 men asap.

tctrills:
Scholars are not the solution here.
Below are various interpretation of John 1.1 all by scholars
The Meaning and Origin of ‘In the Beginning Was the Word’

‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ These are among the most famous lines in the New Testament: they begin the Gospel of St. John. But what does ‘In the beginning was the Word’ mean? Let’s take a closer look at the meaning of this famous opening sentence.

LATEST VIDEOS
It’s perhaps helpful to begin by setting out the difference between the Gospel of John and the three other gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The Gospel of Mark is thought to have been composed the earliest of the four gospels, with Matthew and Luke basing their own accounts on it. The gospel of John was written later still, and of the four, has the strongest claim to actually having been written by one of Jesus’ apostles. (It’s been speculated, though we cannot know for sure, that John may have written his account in the late first century AD, when he was an old man of nearly 90.)


Matthew, Mark, and Luke are grouped together as the ‘Synoptic’ gospels, from a word meaning ‘seeing together’. These three accounts all reflect each other to varying degrees. But the Gospel of John is quite different. Right from those opening words, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’, John is signalling that his account of Jesus’ life will be treating Jesus as much more than a human being. This is not to say that the other gospel writers don’t also acknowledge that Jesus is the Messiah (as well as a human being), but that John’s Jesus is supernatural and ethereal – otherworldly, almost – right from the beginning.


‘In the beginning was the Word.’ But what does John mean by ‘the Word’? The original Greek text has Logos, for which ‘the Word’ is our English translation. But Logos is a word that comes with a lot of meanings packed into it, and ‘the Word’ is only a partial reflection of this densely significant word. This term, ‘the Word’, is not found in the Old Testament, and its use in the New Testament is down entirely to John.

In his endlessly informative Asimov’s Guide to the Bible: The New Testament: 002, the author and all-round polymath Isaac Asimov links John’s ‘In the beginning was the Word’ to the Greek philosophy of Thales of Miletus, who lived in the seventh century BC. Thales argued that, contrary to the idea that the world was largely erratic and unpredictable in its operations, it was actually subject to rigid laws of nature, and that these laws could be discovered using reason and observation. This is the beginnings of both rationalism and empiricism, if you will.


This meant that God – or, depending on which belief system you subscribed to, a whole pantheon of gods – created the world upon some clear and knowable principle, and that this principle is constant rather than changeable and arbitrary. One of Thales’ followers, Heraclitus, used the term ‘Logos’ to refer to this rational principle. ‘Logos’ means ‘word’ but it also denotes the entire rational structure of knowledge as Thales and Heraclitus had theorised it.


And as the term ‘Logos’ was taken up by more and more philosophers, it came to refer not to some abstract entity but to a thing, even a person: the person who had created this orderly system of knowledge and principle in the world. Logos, if you will, became personified. This tradition spread beyond the Greek world, and was taken up by the Jewish followers of Yahweh, or the Old Testament God. In Jesus’ time, a man named Philo the Jew popularised the term Logos as a reference to the rational aspect of Yahweh.


So when John begins his gospel by taking us back to the very beginning – of time and of the world and the universe – he is using the term Logos in light of this thinking. So ‘In the beginning was the Word’ means ‘In the beginning was Logos’ which means ‘at the beginning of everything, there was the entity we know as God, who embodied, and created, the rational principle on which everything is founded’.

[b]So much for ‘In the beginning was the Word’; but what about the next part of John’s sentence? How was ‘the Word’ with God as well as being God?


Well, as Asimov explains, at the time John was writing there were some philosophers who tried to keep God and Logos separate. Logos was not synonymous with God, but merely one power that he possessed, if you will. God, being spiritual, was removed from the rational and scientific processes of the world: he could not be associated with material things, as an elision of ‘God’ with ‘Logos’ would imply. These philosophers and mystics were known as ‘Gnostics’, from the Greek meaning ‘to know’.

For these Gnostics, because the world is material, God could not have been directly responsible for creating it. Instead, they believed some sub-divine and more malevolent entity had done that. Because the world is full of evil, the Gnostics reasoned, an evil being must have had a hand in its creation. Plato famously called this being the ‘Demiurge’. And for Gnostics, Yahweh – the Old Testament version of God – was really the Demiurge, this inferior being to the true God, and the Demiurge was the one who had brought the (flawed) world into being. [/b].

For the Gnostics, Jesus was the true God, as opposed to Yahweh, the creator and Demiurge. And the Gospel of John, and those opening lines, set themselves against such a Gnostic interpretation of God and Creation. God and Jesus, God and Logos, Logos and Jesus: all are one and the same [/b].
[b] Or, as John more poetically (but obscurely) puts it: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ That is, at the beginning of all things there was Logos, the creator of everything. And Logos was not only with God, but Logos was God. As the succeeding two verses of the Gospel of John make clear, Logos and God are the same being:

1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

1:2 The same [i.e., Logos, the Word] was in the beginning with God.

1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

That is, Logos was God, and Logos made ‘all things’. God made all things, but God was Logos, or the Word.
John 1:1 is the first verse in the opening chapter of the Gospel of John in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. The traditional and majority translation of this verse reads reads:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[1][2][3][4]

The verse has been a source of much debate among Bible scholars and translators.

"The Word," a translation of the Greek λόγος (logos), is widely interpreted as referring to Jesus, as indicated in other verses later in the same chapter.[5] For example, “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14; cf. 1:15, 17).

This and other concepts in the Johannine literature set the stage for the Logos-Christology in which the Apologists of the second and third centuries connected the divine Word of John 1:1-5 to the Hebrew Wisdom literature and to the divine Logos of contemporary Greek philosophy.[6]

On the basis of John 1:1, Tertullian, early in the third century, argued for two Gods where the Persons are distinct but the substance is undivided. But Tertullian saw the Word as ontologically inferior because He is only “a portion of the Whole.”

In John 1:1c, logos has the article but theos does not. Origen of Alexandria, a teacher in Greek grammar of the third century, argued that John uses the article when theos refers to "the uncreated cause of all things." But the Logos is named theos without the article because He participates in the divinity of the Father because of “His being with the Father.”

The main dispute with respect to this verse relates to John 1:1c (“the Word was God”). One minority translation is "the Word was divine." This is based on the argument that the grammatical structure of the Greek does not identify the Word as the Person of God but indicates a qualitative sense. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father. In that case, “the Word was God” may be misleading because, in normal English, "God" is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead.

With respect to John 1:1, Ernest Cadman Colwell writes:

The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb, it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it.

So, whether the predicate (theos) is definite, indefinite or qualitative depends on the context. Consequently, this article raises the concern that uncertainty with respect to the grammar may result in translations based on the theology of the translator. The commonly held theology that Jesus is God naturally leads to a corresponding translation. But a theology in which Jesus is subordinate to God leads to the conclusion that "... a god" or "... divine" is the proper rendering.

Shuoooo
Oturugbeke !!!!!!!!!!

"For the Gnostics, Jesus was the true God, as opposed to Yahweh, the creator....."
The same claim Oga Tctrills have been making repeatedly on this thread.

The Gnostics were the source of your Trinity GIBBERISH.
Not genuine believers, NOT Jehovah's servants.


Oga, continue your belief in the Gnostics philosophy you call "Trinity".

Congratulations

achorladey:
Hitting the nail on the head about how your religious leaders mode of operation.

Have you donated your brain to the 8 men?

Janosky:

Shuoooo
Oturugbeke !!!!!!!!!!

"For the Gnostics, Jesus was the true God, as opposed to Yahweh, the creator....."
The same claim Oga Tctrills have been making repeatedly on this thread.

The Gnostics were the source of your Trinity GIBBERISH.
Not genuine believers, NOT Jehovah's servants.


Oga, continue your belief in the Gnostics philosophy you call "Trinity".

Congratulations

cornelboy:
You better face where your going make car no jam you.

achorladey:
You see how your heart be. .

Na person wey motor go jam you dey find ni?

achorladey:
This one is playing the victim card game



Person wey no know wetin dey experience feelings. How can you be in my shoes when you don't know what happened in the first place. Consolation.



Una like to merry in that thinking that when your doctrines and beliefs are examined it means HATRED of your religious organization Pele



I didn't ask for where to go from you


Na like the image below una be when playing the victim card games

cornelboy:
Pls take my advice. Face road.

cornelboy:
I play only PUBG mobile.

achorladey:
You should be playing ASPHALT racing or real racing in order to keep seeking for who you go jam or who person motor go jam since that's what your heart brings forth

achorladey:
I no dey road in the first place . The advice is therefore of no value.

tctrills:
Show me where I said Yahweh is not the one true God?

Tctrills Post:
"For the Gnostics, Jesus was the true God, as opposed to Yahweh, the creator....."

The same man who said Janosky doesn't know Jesus is the true God.

Achorladey coman help your friend explain wetin he post.

Janosky:
Tctrills Post:
"For the Gnostics, Jesus was the true God, as opposed to Yahweh, the creator....."

The same man who said Janosky doesn't know Jesus is the true God.

Achorladey coman help your friend explain wetin he post.

Janosky:
Tctrills Post:
"For the Gnostics, Jesus was the true God, as opposed to Yahweh, the creator....."

The same man who said Janosky doesn't know Jesus is the true God.

Achorladey coman help your friend explain wetin he post.

tctrills:
Did you understand the document I sent, It was a compilation of different arguments from scholars. Some argued your position, others argued the catholic position and So many other arguments. Please read it.

cornelboy:
Which one gangan you believe and accept as Bible TRUTH?

NNTR:
All sons are distinct from their fathers, so Jesus isnt an exception to this rule.

Jesus, is a distinct person from God, the Father, who in this instance and even context, is the one true Begetter, or Paterfamilias of Jesus

Philippians 2:6
'5The attitude you should have is the one that Christ Jesus had:
6He always had the nature of God,
but he did not think that by force he should try to remain equal with God.
7Instead of this, of his own free will he gave up all he had, and took the nature of a servant.
He became like a human being and appeared in human likeness.'

John 1:1-5, 10-11
'1In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (i.e. Jesus Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.
2He was [continually existing] in the beginning [co-eternally] with God.
3All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him not even one thing was made that has come into being.
4In Him was life [and the power to bestow life], and the life was the Light of men.
5The Light shines on in the darkness, and the darkness did not understand it or overpower it or appropriate it or absorb it [and is unreceptive to it]
10He (Christ) was in the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him.
11He came to that which was His own [that which belonged to Him--His world, His creation, His possession], and those who were His own [people--the Jewish nation] did not receive and welcome Him.'

Of course, God is all by Himself. He's the source of all life. Amen to that

Two simple questions for you please:

1. Whose word is this 'God created Jesus and through Jesus he created everything else' quote? Is it you or it isnt you?
2. At one point in the passage of time, was Jesus created.?

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

cornelboy:
Person wey tell me say God is not a person but a state . Also said Jesus is JEHOVAH.
He's here for the fun after all.

tctrills:
Yes God is a state. If the bible teaches that We are Gods then clearly, it was not referring to a person. And I gave you over 50 scripture that clearly taught Jesus is the Jehovah of the old testament.

cornelboy:
But you denied you said that the other time.

What's your religion?