₦airaland Forum

Julia25:
The bible categorically states that we are joint heirs with Christ, we will rule with him. The same way Christ rules with God Rev3:21. By nature, we are all the same because we will be like him! Ontologically, we will have Christ's nature, God's nature, In its fullness upon us. 1john3:2, Romans8:17, Gal4:7, Gal 3:29, 1Peter 1:4, John1:12, Hebrew 1:2, John17:22.

The Father has delivered all judgement to the Son but we, the saints, will perform judgement on the world along with Jesus. 1cor6:2, Luke 22:30, Dan7:22, Rev 20:4, Matthew 19:28, Rev 3:21.

So yes, ontologically speaking, we will be co-equal to God. Functionally, not so as Christ is head of us and God the Father is head of Christ 1Cor 11:3, (cf Col3:19). This is what I believe.

Is it safe to say that you thus believe that you and all your fellow "saints" are God?

Julia25:
It's boomark's claim
Just going with the flow of his position.

OK, so the word "Godhead" is nowhere in the scriptures.
Thanks for this!

DeepSight:
Is it safe to say that you thus believe that you and all your fellow "saints" are God?

Of course!
Since Jesus is a brother to his disciples and shared the same nature with God as given to him and all his disciples will equally be given/possess the same nature then all believers are not Gods but God.
Note that Jesus said himself and the father are one {John 10:30} and his disciples will also share the same glory to become one with God and Jesus {John 17:22} so all of us are God not Gods o!

DeepSight:
Is it safe to say that you thus believe that you and all your fellow "saints" are God?

No we shall be like God, we are Godlike .
We might not have the inherent essence or substance of God but in his exuding nature we will be like him, the more suitable word would have been attributes ,my bad .

MaxInDHouse:
Of course!
Since Jesus is a brother to his disciples and shared the same nature with God as given to him and all his disciples will equally be given/possess the same nature then all believers are not Gods but God.
Note that Jesus said himself and the father are one {John 10:30} and his disciples will also share the same glory to become one with God and Jesus {John 17:22} so all of us are God not Gods o!

Probably, the word "ontological" was misleading as it might have suggested us having the inherent substance of God, that's not what I meant but rather we will have his "nature"—attributes. That's more befitting and doesn't cause confusion.

Julia25:
The bible categorically states that we are joint heirs with Christ, we will rule with him. The same way Christ rules with God Rev3:21. By nature, we are all the same because we will be like him! Ontologically, we will have Christ's nature, God's nature, In its fullness upon us. 1john3:2, Romans8:17, Gal4:7, Gal 3:29, 1Peter 1:4, John1:12, Hebrew 1:2, John17:22.

The Father has delivered all judgement to the Son but we, the saints, will perform judgement on the world along with Jesus. 1cor6:2, Luke 22:30, Dan7:22, Rev 20:4, Matthew 19:28, Rev 3:21.

So yes, ontologically speaking, we will be co-equal to God. Functionally, not so as Christ is head of us and God the Father is head of Christ 1Cor 11:3, (cf Col3:19). This is what I believe.

We do not have the ontological nature of God —Our nature will always be "human" and even in our "elevated state", we do not have His ontology. We have his nature in the form of divine attributes or fruits 🤨Apart from this inaccuracy, I agree partially with the rest. We are solely partakers of the "things of God".

Julia25:
Probably, the word "ontological" was misleading as it might have suggested us having the inherent substance of God, that's not what I meant but rather we will have his "nature"—attributes. That's more befitting and doesn't cause confusion.

Never mind jàre whatever Jesus shared with the father will be shared with all of us since we are all worshipers of the same God including our brother Jesus.

When talking about David we know him according to the Bible as:
Shepherd boy.
Psalmist, composer and singer.
Warrior.
King.
The above titles makes us appreciate the part David played in ancient Israel.
But later we discovered some bad traits in this same man we also know him as:
Womanizer.
Adulterer.
Murderer.

But despite the bad traits in this man God focuses on the good side of David and chose him to become the forefather of Jesus.

In David's time Isrealites knew him as one of their brothers an Israelite, son of Jesse from the tribe of Judah but when he became the anointed King of Israel they started referring to him as "Lord"

Jesus is from the lineage of David though not just a human like the rest of us but an angel in heaven who has been in control of all other angels because he is the first to be created and God gave him the privilege to create all other things both in heaven and on earth that's why he is rightly called the first born of all creations! Colossians 1:15-16

So if Jesus later speaks of the glory he shared with his father before creation it doesn't mean he is God Almighty rather he had the privilege of being the first of all creatures.

Julia25:
It's boomark's claim


Just going with the flow of his position.

Why do you people enjoy telling and believing lies? Or is it that you people don't understand how to use english?

Where did you see me say, "the divine nature is... given to the God head?"

You are flowing with falsehood and not what I said. Cool down say exactly what I said. I don't want another headache please.

Max asked where you got what you said, you quoted me and still didn't point out where you saw exactly what you wrote. This was why I chose AI because human beings will be talking out of point without even knowing it. And you went further to insist it was what I wrote.

DeepSight:
Is it safe to say that you thus believe that you and all your fellow "saints" are God?

You can add they are to also be worshipped as God too for her.

This is a very big problem and they don't know they have such problem.

Boomark:
Why do you people enjoy telling and believing lies? Or is it that you people don't understand how to use english?

Where did you see me say, "the divine nature is... given to the God head?"

You are flowing with falsehood and not what I said. Cool down say exactly what I said. I don't want another headache please.

Max asked where you got what you said, you quoted me and still didn't point out where you saw exactly what you wrote. This was why I chose AI because human beings will be talking out of point without even knowing it. And you went further to insist it was what I wrote.

Exactly the same reason why I use Ai too when discussing Trinity with them.....you can see that after I have shown her with Ai that her idea of ontologically having the same nature of God is not in harmony with her fellow Trinitarians, she changed mouth. That is to tell you that many of them don't really understand this Trinity doctrine. The founders of the Trinity doctrine have always been debating amongst themselves until they went to their graves. It is the same with those who believe in the Trinity doctrine today. They don't even speak in agreement too.

MaxInDHouse:
When talking about David we know him according to the Bible as:
Shepherd boy.
Psalmist, composer and singer.
Warrior.
King.
The above titles makes us appreciate the part David played in ancient Israel.
But later we discovered some bad traits in this same man we also know him as:
Womanizer.
Adulterer.
Murderer.

But despite the bad traits in this man God focuses on the good side of David and chose him to become the forefather of Jesus.

In David's time Isrealites knew him as one of their brothers an Israelite, son of Jesse from the tribe of Judah but when he became the anointed King of Israel they started referring to him as "Lord"

Jesus is from the lineage of David though not just a human like the rest of us but an angel in heaven who has been in control of all other angels because he is the first to be created and God gave him the privilege to create all other things both in heaven and on earth that's why he is rightly called the first born of all creations! Colossians 1:15-16

So if Jesus later speaks of the glory he shared with his father before creation it doesn't mean he is God Almighty rather he had the privilege of being the first of all creatures.

what about the spirit of God? is he also a creature?
Jesus is the "first of all creatures" as in preeminence, i can also say that Jesus is the head of all principalities and then according to your logic conclude that He is the one dishing orders for Devil and Co. to be doing evil . Do you see how misleading this is?

Boomark:
Why do you people enjoy telling and believing lies? Or is it that you people don't understand how to use english?

Where did you see me say, "the divine nature is... given to the God head?"

You are flowing with falsehood and not what I said. Cool down say exactly what I said. I don't want another headache please.

Max asked where you got what you said, you quoted me and still didn't point out where you saw exactly what you wrote. This was why I chose AI because human beings will be talking out of point without even knowing it. And you went further to insist it was what I wrote.

Follow the quotes, you will see what you wrote that prompted my reply to such. Also, you haven't answered me—the questions I asked of you

Truthseeker10:
Exactly the same reason why I use Ai too when discussing Trinity with them.....you can see that after I have shown her with Ai that her idea of ontologically having the same nature of God is not in harmony with her fellow Trinitarians, she changed mouth. That is to tell you that many of them don't really understand this Trinity doctrine. The founders of the Trinity doctrine have always been debating amongst themselves until they went to their graves. It is the same with those who believe in the Trinity doctrine today. They don't even speak in agreement too.

It's a misuse of the word "ontological" from my part as I must have conflated it with the synonym "nature", thanks for pointing that out. We will always be "created beings" but we will partake of all his attributes, the fullness of it.

I don't understand why the addition of the snide remark , let me understand your version of trinity? Also what I wrote about was not in anyway related to trinity, it was about our partaking of God's nature.

Julia25:
what about the spirit of God? is he also a creature?
Jesus is the "first of all creatures" as in preeminence, i can also say that Jesus is the head of all principalities and then according to your logic conclude that He is the one dishing orders for Devil and Cos to be doing evil . Do you see how misleading this is?

This is the problem with false religionists!
Instead of asking what i meant you started putting your own meaning into my post and accusing me at the same time!
Ọmọ what i mean is that Jesus is the first son as in creature God made so he as the first born knew a lot about our heavenly Father than anyone else.
And as regards being the commander of all the angels that's what orderliness means but Satan and his likes decided to rebel against God's arrangement that's why they formed their own group and Satan became their leader!

Maximus692:
This is the problem with false religionists!
Instead of asking what i meant you started putting your own meaning into my post and accusing me at the same time!
Ọmọ what i mean is that Jesus is the first son as in creature God made so he as the first born knew a lot about our heavenly Father than anyone else.
And as regards being the commander of all the angels that's what orderliness means but Satan and his likes decided to rebel against God's arrangement that's why they formed their own group and Satan became their leader!

So, here's the thing—I still haven’t gotten a clear answer to my question . Is the Spirit of God a creature or not? You’ve left me hanging on that one.

Now, Christ is the Head of all principalities (which, by the way, includes Satan and his whole entourage of troublemakers ). I get that the word head is used here, but let’s break it down, shall we? According to the Cambridge Dictionary (I mean, we’re both trying to be logical here, right? ), head is defined as 'someone in charge of or leading an organization, group, etc.'

So, based on this, are we really saying that Jesus is the one leading Satan and his band of misfits? Is He in charge of all the chaos, the evil, and the drama that’s being pulled off by Satan and his minions? I’m just using your logic here, so if that’s the case, maybe we need to start calling Jesus 'The CEO of All Villainy' . Or perhaps, Head of the Evil League of Evil? You’ve got to admit, your claim is ridiculous. Since, you decided to use a misleading logic in the form of "first born of creation" to denote it literally , I have decided to use this one to show you, the errors in taking things literally without using proper context.

Julia25:
Christ is the Head of all principalities.

This was his position as the archangel but after the rebellion in heaven he is no longer in control of all the angels that's why he later fought against Satan who is in control of rebellious angels! Revelations 12:7

I'm different from your friends here so if you want to discuss with me you have to pick the points one after another not putting everything together and expecting a straightforward response.

All of them knows me very well!

So what is your next question?

Gabrielshow24:
We do not have the ontological nature of God —Our nature will always be "human" and even in our "elevated state", we do not have His ontology. We have his nature in the form of divine attributes or fruits 🤨Apart from this inaccuracy, I agree partially with the rest. We are solely partakers of the "things of God".

It seems that your brothers from the eastern orthodoxy and some Catholics who believe in Trinity do not agree with you. You seem to be pushing protestantism views. When will you guys settle?

Maximus692:
This was his position as the archangel but after the rebellion in heaven he is no longer in control of all the angels that's why he later fought against Satan who is in control of rebellious angels! Revelations 12:7

I'm different from your friends here so if you want to discuss with me you have to pick the points one after another not putting everything together and expecting a straightforward response.

All of them knows me very well!

So what is your next question?

Now, apply this logic to the phrase "firstborn of creation" given other biblical verses that suggest his primordial nature .

If you didn't expatiate like this, providing "context", then anyone can use what I said as a rebuttal. Now add the necessary context taking other biblical verses about him into account—Jesus.

Julia25:
It's a misuse of the word "ontological" from my part as I must have conflated it with the synonym "nature", thanks for pointing that out. We will always be "created beings" but we will partake of all his attributes, the fullness of it.

I don't understand why the addition of the snide remark , let me understand your version of trinity? Also what I wrote about was not in anyway related to trinity, it was about our partaking of God's nature.

Well, Eastern orthodoxy and some forms of catholicism will say that you are pushing a western protestantism view. So where do you wish to stand?

Truthseeker10:
It seems that your brothers from the eastern orthodoxy and some Catholics who believe in Trinity do not agree with you. You seem to be pushing protestantism views. When will you guys settle?

It’s all a matter of perception, isn’t it? 🤨 But seriously, how does this argument even negate the concept of the Trinity? It’s been a while since I’ve heard from you 😂, especially after that memorable discussion where you called the Father the 'prince of princes'—as exposed in your publication, of course 🤞.

I had to give your crew a sabbatical. Interacting with them was doing no mental good, it rather dulled brain cells—very mundane🤕.

From Janosky, who can’t seem to decide whether his God can do anything on His own, to Max, the self-proclaimed inventor of Primus Conventus 😂. It was fun while it lasted, but at this point, I’m pretty sure you are one debate away from a sabbatical 🤨.

So, if you’ve got anything new and genuinely thought-provoking to discuss—something a little more original and less mundane Aristotelian inquiry 🤨—let me know. Otherwise, I might need to send you to meet your colleagues on a permanent sabbatical. 😎

Julia25:
Now, apply this logic to the phrase "firstborn of creation" given other biblical verses that suggest his primordial nature .
If you didn't expatiate like this, providing "context", then anyone can use what I said as a rebuttal. Now add the necessary context taking other biblical verses about him into account—Jesus.

Remember that God's word was written to mankind like a letter.

So each word carried similar meaning to what is peculiar to humans.

The word "FIRSTBORN" means one of the children but specifically the first child. So if all creations is from God's making then the firstborn of all creations is also from God's making!

Please be specific with your questions!

Gabrielshow24:
It’s all a matter of perception, isn’t it? 🤨 But seriously, how does this argument even negate the concept of the Trinity? It’s been a while since I’ve heard from you 😂, especially after that memorable discussion where you called the Father the 'prince of princes'—as exposed in your publication, of course 🤞.

I had to give your crew a sabbatical. Interacting with them was doing no mental good, it rather dulled brain cells—very mundane🤕.

From Janosky, who can’t seem to decide whether his God can do anything on His own, to Max, the self-proclaimed inventor of Primus Conventus 😂. It was fun while it lasted, but at this point, I’m pretty sure you are one debate away from a sabbatical 🤨.

So, if you’ve got anything new and genuinely thought-provoking to discuss—something a little more original and less mundane Aristotelian inquiry 🤨—let me know. Otherwise, I might need to send you to meet your colleagues on a permanent sabbatical. 😎

Oga do you agree with the orthodox and some Catholics view of "ontological participation"? Yes or no?

Truthseeker10:
Oga do you agree with the orthodox and some Catholics view of "ontological participation"? Yes or no?

To what end is this your question🤨? We‘ve had lots of fruitless discussions and it‘s foolishness to do the same thing ”over and over” expecting different results🤷. If you don‘t categorically state your problem statement then you are wasting your time—I won‘t engage in frivolities with you.

We both know, their stance is of no importance to you, so cut the circumlocution and go straight to the point🤨.

Gabrielshow24:
To what end is this your question🤨? We‘ve had lots of fruitless discussions and it‘s foolishness to do the same thing ”over and over” expecting different results🤷. If you don‘t categorically state your problem statement then you are wasting your time—I won‘t engage in frivolities with you.

We both know, their stance is of no importance to you, so cut the circumlocution and go straight to the point🤨.

😂😂😂😂as usual...after arguing against ontologically participation he sees his brothers from eastern othodoxy who do not agree with him and turns a blind eye to their argument and sticks with western protestantism.😂😂 na wa oo.

Truthseeker10:
😂😂😂😂as usual...after arguing against ontologically participation he sees his brothers from eastern othodoxy who do not agree with him and turns a blind eye to their argument and sticks with western protestantism.😂😂 na wa oo.

No, I didn't turn any blind eye. I am well aware of their posits along with their scriptural evidences, likewise I didn't even argue against ontological participation, you inferred that to soothe your ’contrived straw’ as a way to inveigle the untrained eye.

What I am more concerned about is, ’How is this of any benefit to you? ’🤷—You don't even believe in Trinity to begin with🤔. Ergo, state your cause or leave my mention👌.

Gabrielshow24:
No, I didn't turn any blind eye. I am well aware of their posits along with their scriptural evidences, likewise I didn't even argue against ontological participation, you inferred that to soothe your ’contrived straw’ as a way to inveigle the untrained eye.

What I am more concerned about is, ’How is this of any benefit to you? ’🤷—You don't even believe in Trinity to begin with🤔. Ergo, state your cause or leave my mention👌.

So do you agree with ontological participation of Easter orthodoxy since they have scriptural evidences?

Truthseeker10:
So do you agree with ontological participation of Easter orthodoxy since they have scriptural evidences?

This is the last time, I will indulge you🤧. If you have anything to say, do so👌.Kindly, state your business else ’you shall not pass’🧙!

Gabrielshow24:
This is the last time, I will indulge you🤧. If you have anything to say, do so👌.Kindly, state your business else ’you shall not pass’🧙!

bye bye....your hypocrisy will never allow you to take a stand. You will either offend Eastern orthodoxy whom you claim have scriptural evidences to their claim or offend western protestantism. So take care while sitting on the fence of dilemma.

Maximus692:
Remember that God's word was written to mankind like a letter.

So each word carried similar meaning to what is peculiar to humans.

The word "FIRSTBORN" means one of the children but specifically the first child. So if all creations is from God's making then the firstborn of all creations is also from God's making!

Please be specific with your questions!

So according to you, God made the first born then the "first born" made the rest? Is this right? ⁽¹⁾ The scripture is clear, Jesus, the word of God, made all things so, is he still a creature? ⁽²⁾ According to you.

Also, do you realize that time and space is part of this "creation" so if Jesus made these then he is immutable. Do you agree with this? ⁽³⁾ Or you want us to believe that God, within his immutability made his "word" and his "spirit"? ⁽⁴⁾ Then he is automatically subject to time! Do you agree with this? ⁽⁵⁾

Truthseeker10:
Well, Eastern orthodoxy and some forms of catholicism will say that you are pushing a western protestantism view. So where do you wish to stand?

What's your belief on trinity? I will like to hear your standpoint. As for the question, my stance is inconsequential to the topic at hand.