₦airaland Forum

Julia25:
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

I don't have anything to answer you or anyone that lies. Make screenshot where I said exactly what you wrote.

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.

The delusion God sent on those who have refused to believe the Truth is at work on them. I showed one of them some scriptures about what Jesus said concerning the Father (the Father is his God, the Father is greater). He called these scriptures kindergarten scriptures.

He used that as a way of rejecting the words of Jesus Christ. They don't know what they are doing. And they will be the first to claim they are relying on the Holy spirit for interpretation.

They will beg you to define trinity for them. After disturbing me for so long, I told on of them him it is 666. Case closed and still didn't define the trinity he was defending. They tell lies a lot to support themselves where necessary.

They won't want you to use AI so they can easily twist your words and insist on a lie they told. This is what Julia is doing already.

Boomark:
I don't have anything to answer you or anyone that lies. Make screenshot where I said exactly what you wrote.

Here are your words

Boomark:
Yes. So how then will Trinitarians come and say that since Christ has the fullness of God, it means that he is equal to God. They don't even know that it was given to him by God. They don't have respect for the Father. ¹Trinity Is the agenda of satan and the antichrist against the Father who reconciled us to himself since they lost when Christ died and resurrected.

God the Father is the owner of Godhead (divine nature). It is his nature and not a position for trinity or 3 persons. The Father, who is One God over all owns it.²

See my rebuttal on it. Trinitarians don't understand scripture. They don't know the meaning of things.

https://www.nairaland.com/8486945/bible-challenge-trinity-boomark-image123/6#136513274

You can't pick holes in what I wrote because they are true.

I will ignore the "exact" because that's just misleading on your part, if Jesus was given the divine nature being the word of God and you claim the Father owns the nature and the Godhead as you said in ² then it's safe to assume that the "spirit" as well was given the nature of God.
Which prompted this reply from me

Julia25:
So let me guess, according to you, Jesus was given God's nature . Ok...what nature did he have as the word of God before his earthly dispositions?

Also, let me see what you understand by the "Spirit of God" because technically God is a spirit but yet he has a Spirit? Is this spirit in the same nature has God?

I don't get what you drive at , if you state the nature of God in its fullest is imputed or "given" to the God head then based on capabilities, are they not the same? Your "diversification" is more functional, as the Father is the head of Christ which is well exemplified in the logos; the same way the man is the head of the woman . Still, they are of the same nature.

Do you understand the above? You are only focused on functional roles not ontological roles. If this is your full-proof rebuttal then you are just repeating trinity creeds

The bible also adds that we will be like him, Christ, therefore we will have his nature because he has the nature of God. Hence our end result, ontologically speaking, is God(or like) but functionally we are subject to Christ.

Do you also understand the above?

Also, kindly answer the question I posed towards you . I hope to understand your standpoint better. As you can see from the above, I am not a liar.

Julia25:
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.

Is your stand inconsequential to what it means to be filled with all the fullness of God as seen in the debates between the eastern orthodoxy and the western protestantism?

my belief on what trinity means is whatever Ai says it is. I bring all the arguments from the opposing sides of believers of trinity whether from the eastern orthodoxy or from the western protestantism.

Truthseeker10:
Is your stand inconsequential to what it means to be filled with all the fullness of God as seen in the debates between the eastern orthodoxy and the western protestantism?

my belief on what trinity means is whatever Ai says it is. I bring all the arguments from the opposing sides of believers of trinity whether from the eastern orthodoxy or from the western protestantism.

Ai changes its own weight function everytime a new information is fed into it . Is that your basis for biblical proof?
So, what did your AI(meta), say about Trinity? Which we are all aware you must have personalized , so tell us.

Boomark:
The delusion God sent on those who have refused to believe the Truth is at work on them. I showed one of them some scriptures about what Jesus said concerning the Father (the Father is his God, the Father is greater). He called these scriptures kindergarten scriptures.

He used that as a way of rejecting the words of Jesus Christ. They don't know what they are doing. And they will be the first to claim they are relying on the Holy spirit for interpretation.

They will beg you to define trinity for them. After disturbing me for so long, I told on of them him it is 666. Case closed and still didn't define the trinity he was defending. They tell lies a lot to support themselves where necessary.

They won't want you to use AI so they can easily twist your words and insist on a lie they told. This is what Julia is doing already.

what way have I done this? How can you define trinity as 666 ? Are they the same thing ? Perhaps, he wanted to understand what you were calling trinity or your idea of it .

Julia25:
Ai changes its own weight function everytime a new information is fed into it . Is that your basis for biblical proof?
So, what did your AI(meta), say about Trinity? Which we are all aware you must have personalized , so tell us.

Ai gives views of people stands. I have given you an example of eastern orthodoxy view and western protestantism view of Ephesians 3:19 even when those two bodies believe in Trinity....You've refused to take a stand even when you believe in Trinity....is that not amazing?

Truthseeker10:
Ai gives views of people stands. I have given you an example of eastern orthodoxy view and western protestantism view of Ephesians 3:19 even when those two bodies believe in Trinity....You've refused to take a stand even when you believe in Trinity....is that not amazing?

Kkk, you still haven't told me your stance.

Julia25:
Here are your words

I will ignore the "exact" because that's just misleading on your part, if Jesus was given the divine nature being the word of God and you claim the Father owns the nature and the Godhead as you said in ² then it's safe to assume that the "spirit" as well was given the nature of God.
Which prompted this reply from me


Also, kindly answer the question I posed towards you . I hope to understand your standpoint better. As you can see from the above, I am not a liar.

Please all these things you wrote here are out of point. I don't even understand if you are telling me what you believe or what.

So I want you to mark where I said this thing in this screenshot. Mark it as marked your own. I want to be sure you will not continue twisting my words.

Julia25:
Kkk, you still haven't told me your stance.

Madam if you can't stand with either of your fellow believers in Trinity then let's call it a day.....it therefore means that for me to believe in Trinity, it either I stand with you or the eastern orthodox or the western protestantism on the interpretation of Ephesians 3:19. Madam I choose to rest. Bye bye.

Boomark:
Please all these things you wrote here are out of point. I don't even understand if you are telling me what you believe or what.

So I want you to mark where I said this thing in this screenshot. Mark it as marked your own. I want to be sure you will not continue twisting my words.

I didn't twist any word, those are your words. The implication is very simple which I have outlined , now you are claiming I twisted your word. Mind you, you said Jesus is not the word and at the same time, in the same post, you called him the word of God .

You can likewise call whatever you like "out of point", it just shows you don't own up to the implications of your statement. I have marked them in bold, whatever else you are looking for is just self delusion .


You claimed God gave Jesus is nature which is your word in ¹ then you asserted God owns the Godhead and it's his nature², automatically including the spirit as being imputed the divine nature .
Which prompted my questions, which you are desperately trying to avoid?

I just experienced what image123 talked about , it's disheartening.

Truthseeker10:
Madam if you can't stand with either of your fellow believers in Trinity then let's call it a day.....it therefore means that for me to believe in Trinity, it either I stand with you or the eastern orthodox or the western protestantism on the interpretation of Ephesians 3:19. Madam I choose to rest. Bye bye.

Alright, why are you both dodgy? Seeking to poke holes, reluctant to respond. I have answered the questions you posed to me but the one time I ask you, you jet off . Very sad, indeed. Trinity is in no way, related to "Ephesians 3:19" except you had hoped to use this verse to negate trinity which I guess hasn't worked well for you. Hence the persistence in wanting to force an answer out from me .

You can just assert whatever you belief about trinity with going through this intellectually dishonest route. I have assumed you are non-trinitarian, still trying to figure out your school of thought and denomination .

Julia25:
Alright, why are you both dodgy? Seeking to poke holes, reluctant to respond. I have answered the questions you posed to me but the one time I ask you, you jet off . Very sad, indeed. Trinity is in no way, related to "Ephesians 3:19" except you had hoped to use this verse to negate trinity which I guess hasn't worked well for you. Hence the persistence in wanting to force an answer out from me .

You can just assert whatever you belief about trinity with going through this intellectually dishonest route. I have assumed you are non-trinitarian, still trying to figure out your school of thought and denomination .

lol......you mean you gave an answer that is not in agreement with Eastern orthodoxy of ontological union with God?

The funny thing is that I never said that Ephesians 3:19 negates the trinity doctrine. I only said that if you and other bodies can't agree on Ephesians 3:19, why should I join you and other bodies in believing in the Trinity.

Julia25:
Alright, why are you both dodgy? Seeking to poke holes, reluctant to respond. I have answered the questions you posed to me but the one time I ask you, you jet off . Very sad, indeed. Trinity is in no way, related to "Ephesians 3:19" except you had hoped to use this verse to negate trinity which I guess hasn't worked well for you. Hence the persistence in wanting to force an answer out from me .

You can just assert whatever you belief about trinity with going through this intellectually dishonest route. I have assumed you are non-trinitarian, still trying to figure out your school of thought and denomination .

Save your breath, it's not useful arguing with them. They are all JW except DeepSight—he sees Jesus as a mere man🤕.

One of them believes God is compositional 😂, even God's eyes can become flesh along with other parts of him but they are not God in anyway 😂, the rest believe God is non-transcendental🤕. Use your energy to do other things, leave them.

Julia25:
I didn't twist any word, those are your words. The implication is very simple which I have outlined , now you are claiming I twisted your word. Mind you, you said Jesus is not the word and at the same time, in the same post, you called him the word of God :'

You can likewise call whatever you like "out of point", it just shows you don't own up to the implications of your statement. I have marked them in bold, whatever else you are looking for is just self delusion .


You claimed God gave Jesus is nature which is your word in ¹ then you asserted God owns the Godhead and it's his nature²,

automatically including the spirit as being imputed the divine nature .
Which prompted my questions, which you are desperately trying to avoid?

I just experienced what image123 talked about , it's disheartening.

The green is twisted. Go back to where you got what I wrote. I said, in the beginning, the word of God is his spoken word which he used to create everything. The word of God became Jesus when the word was made flesh (When angel Gabriel told Joseph that the child will be called Jesus). This is where you and I can now say Jesus is the word of God. And the reason you are saying, all things where created by Jesus (by the word of God)

Follow things the way I say it.


The black bolded is correct. The automatically... you added is your own personal assumption. I don't know what it means.

I only dodge people who twist my words.

See what you wrote in the screenshot. I don't know where I wrote such a thing. So use my exact word because they are usually borrowing from scripture not theology. Reduce the way you use theological words and focus on how things are written in the scripture.

"divine nature (Godhead) is given to God head"

I never said anything like this. That was why it is difficult for you to point out.

Don't be like your colleague that was asking us "who is godliness?"

Gabrielshow24:
Save your breath, it's not useful arguing with them. They are all JW except DeepSight—he sees Jesus as a mere man🤕.

One of them believes God is compositional 😂, even God's eyes can become flesh along with other parts of him but they are not God in anyway 😂, the rest believe God is non-transcendental🤕. Use your energy to do other things, leave them.

Who are you referring to with the bold?

I hope its not me, because you have tried to misrepresent me before.

Julia25:
what way have I done this? How can you define trinity as 666 ? Are they the same thing ? Perhaps, he wanted to understand what you were calling trinity or your idea of it .

I gave him a version of trinity because you people have different versions.

My work is to destroy whatever definition anybody give to it.

DeepSight:
Who are you referring to with the bold?

I hope its not me, because you have tried to misrepresent me before.

No be you, the person knows himself 😂—Boomark, the slayer of lies.

Gabrielshow24:
No be you, the person knows himself 😂—Boomark, the slayer of lies.

Do you agree with the lady's summation in which she basically equates herself with God? Sure you cant and if so, why ask her to "save her breath" as though she is sying something sensible.

DeepSight:
Do you agree with the lady's summation in which she basically equates herself with God? Sure you cant and if so, why ask her to "save her breath" as though she is sying something sensible.

I have given my two cents about the matter—You can check it out. Her misuse of "ontological" gave her theological issues🤕 which she has later clarified.

The reason I asked her to save her breath is not about ’her mistake’ but rather the declivity of wisdom trying to do so will result in—Arguing with those guys is baseless, many have done so in the past—myself included. It's a waste of time, you can easily trap the JW crew using logic then they flee or avoid you like a ’plague’.

The other is just a plain ’Mike Oscar Romeo Oscar November’ 🤕.

Boomark:
I gave him a version of trinity because you people have different versions.

My work is to destroy whatever definition anybody give to it.

without understanding what it entails, I even read from the other thread that you made God 'compositional', how come?

What's your school of thought? And what's the idea you have about trinity? If you think, you are not wearing green while you don't even know what green is; that's self delusion

Others have pointed out, that you are just repeating the creeds of trinity, as the Father is greater than the Son in authority and they both are God—which you have affirmed yourself. To what end? What did you hope to achieve? What did you aim to prove? That Jesus has a God? While he was a man —Is that not a corollary of being flesh ? After all he ascended in his earthly body .

Gabrielshow24:
Save your breath, it's not useful arguing with them. They are all JW except DeepSight—he sees Jesus as a mere man🤕.

One of them believes God is compositional 😂, even God's eyes can become flesh along with other parts of him but they are not God in anyway 😂, the rest believe God is non-transcendental🤕. Use your energy to do other things, leave them.

Thanks, I will take note of this.

Boomark:
The green is twisted. Go back to where you got what I wrote. I said, in the beginning, the word of God is his spoken word which he used to create everything. The word of God became Jesus when the word was made flesh (When angel Gabriel told Joseph that the child will be called Jesus). This is where you and I can now say Jesus is the word of God. And the reason you are saying, all things where created by Jesus (by the word of God)

Follow things the way I say it.


The black bolded is correct. The automatically... you added is your own personal assumption. I don't know what it means.

I only dodge people who twist my words.

See what you wrote in the screenshot. I don't know where I wrote such a thing. So use my exact word because they are usually borrowing from scripture not theology. Reduce the way you use theological words and focus on how things are written in the scripture.

"divine nature (Godhead) is given to God head"

I never said anything like this. That was why it is difficult for you to point out.

Don't be like your colleague that was asking us "who is godliness?"

The green is twisted how? you basically started with the "word of God is not Jesus" then "you continued later to say Jesus is the word of God".

Now, based on this. According to you, Jesus and the "primordial word of God" can't be the same! Hence you negated his pre-existence . Is that your stance?... Nevermind, I see you shy away from questions so I will limit them . In simple words, The above is your submission!

Can you now see that I didn't twist your words? take note everyone, the primordial being, "word of God" is not Jesus; Jesus is just the flesh covering it

"Divine nature is given to God head is the result of your two statements, which you have affirmed are yours ". It's not an assumption, it's your stance—"God owns the Godhead, it's his nature...not theirs, he gave Jesus...so he must as well given the Holy Spirit "

It wasn't difficult for me to point it out, I pointed it immediately, you are one trying to avoid the implication of your statement.

Julia25:
without understanding what it entails, I even read from the other thread that you made God 'compositional', how come?

What's your school of thought? And what's the idea you have about trinity? If you think, you are not wearing green while you don't even know what green is; that's self delusion

Others have pointed out, that you are just repeating the creeds of trinity, as the Father is greater than the Son in authority and they both are God—which you have affirmed yourself. To what end? What did you hope to achieve? What did you aim to prove? That Jesus has a God? While he was a man —Is that not a corollary of being flesh ? After all he ascended in his earthly body .

So what is trinity?

You are speaking grammar and human sentiment. So wherever you see anybody called God you assumed it is trinity.


I speak and slay falsehood with scriptures.

Truthseeker10:
lol......you mean you gave an answer that is not in agreement with Eastern orthodoxy of ontological union with God?

The funny thing is that I never said that Ephesians 3:19 negates the trinity doctrine. I only said that if you and other bodies can't agree on Ephesians 3:19, why should I join you and other bodies in believing in the Trinity.

if that's the case then don't join Christianity after all there over 4000 denominations —Your excuse is weak. Each 'church' has its own theological doctrine, based on what Gabrielshow24 has said that you are a JW; I can say the same for you? why should I believe Jesus is Michael?

Can you see how illogical you sound? There are core doctrines that do not deviate from most of those churches while they are divided upon 'minor doctrines'. The resolution of Ephesians3:19 doesn't negate the stance of trinity! Find something else as an excuse

Julia25:
The green is twisted how? you basically started with the "word of God is not Jesus" then "you continued later to say Jesus is the word of God".

Now, based on this. According to you, Jesus and the "primordial word of God" can't be the same! Hence you negated his pre-existence . Is that your stance?... Nevermind, I see you shy away from questions so I will limit them . In simple words, The above is your submission!

Can you now see that I didn't twist your words? take note everyone, the primordial being, "word of God" is not Jesus; Jesus is just the flesh covering it

"Divine nature is given to God head is the result of your two statements, which you have affirmed are yours ". It's not an assumption, it's your stance—"God owns the Godhead, it's his nature...not theirs, he gave Jesus...so he must as well given the Holy Spirit "

It wasn't difficult for me to point it out, I pointed it immediately, you are one trying to avoid the implication of your statement.

Show me in a screenshot, how I started with "the word of God is not Jesus." If this is a cut and join statement then know that my discussion with you has ended.

Do it with screenshot.

Boomark:
So what is trinity?

You are speaking grammar and human sentiment. So wherever you see anybody called God you assumed it is trinity.


I speak and slay falsehood with scriptures.

I asked you this question but you rather you asked me? That's dishonesty, so far you have evaded most of my questions .

I can't be begging you to answer questions, I will mark them down for you when you are ready, perhaps after a rethink, you will answer them.

Julia25:
if that's the case then don't join Christianity after all there over 4000 denominations —Your excuse is weak. Each 'church' has its own theological doctrine, based on what Gabrielshow24 has said that you are a JW; I can say the same for you? why should I believe Jesus is Michael?

Can you see how illogical you sound? There are core doctrines that do not deviate from most of those churches while they are divided upon 'minor doctrines'. The resolution of Ephesians3:19 doesn't negate the stance of trinity! Find something else as an excuse

Lol so funny....so if Ephesians 3:19 does not negate trinity, it is logical that different churches should have contradictory interpretations of Ephesians 3:19? Na wa oo...bye bye

Boomark:
Show me in a screenshot, how I started with "the word of God is not Jesus." If this is a cut and join statement then know that my discussion with you has ended.

Do it with screenshot.

Why are you lying like this? or do you forget your words so soon?

Boomark:
I understood your questions.

In the beginning, the word of God is his speech. It was not Jesus.

Genesis 1:3 NIV
[3] And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

"Let there be lights" is word. His word created light because he didn't use machine to create it.

The world was created by his word.

You people became confused when his word was made flesh and was known as Jesus. Those who know the truth and the source of everything won't be confused by this below.

The world was created by Jesus (his word)

This is why trinitarians don't want me to rest. They refused to accept the source while holding unto the surface.

The other questions will be answered in my last claim tonight or tomorrow morning in the trinity challenge thread.

I don't know where you got the bolded. It is too early to start making mistakes.

Now answer the question, is it still the same "word of God" or "speech" that became Jesus?

If yes, then is Jesus as a being separate from the " word of God" that became him?

If no, why?

Julia25:
I asked you this question but you rather you asked me? That's dishonesty, so far you have evaded most of my questions .

I can't be begging you to answer questions, I will mark them down for you when you are ready, perhaps after a rethink, you will answer them.

So after lying against me to make people think I said so so things which I never said. You will now ask me question and expect me to stand on your falsehood. Then after you will have the boldness to tell people that I am contradicting myself.

I am not the type to be deceived. If you don't know how to take screenshots ask Ai. I want proof that you are not a hardened lahyah.