₦airaland Forum

DeathStroke007:
#laughing# this isn't ignorance.. Its stupidity..




Your business claim in religion concerning prophet Muhammad (saw).... If Islam were business or created by Muhammad... It won't be Islam.. It will be muhammanity... Like other religion named after their founder.... Mind you, Muhammad (saw) was illiterate..



Muhammad (saw) didn't talk to anyone or Allah.. Allah communicated with him through angel jubril.. That's how Quran was revealed..



Christians and their miracle claim... Is their no miracle in Hindu, traditional religion, messianic, Judaism and others?




Its not that you are ignorant.. You are stupid ni..



Always think before you Post

DeathStroke007:
Answers like/
Validate beliefs like
Theories like

dragunov:
'course you can't know. You're plain dumb.

dragunov:
Islam wasn't just a small business venture. It was predicated on both a political and economic desire to rule the world. That's why islamists and Arabs hate the West so much because that's the only factor frustrating their efforts.

DeathStroke007:
Laughing.. . You a fool.. I needn't argue with you.

Even a toddler knows that it's a church (Christianity) that's a business venture. . Go read my thread on Church as business organization

dragunov:
And you're the biggest fool. 'Cause you don't know how things work in the world. All you do is hit your head on the ground , utter some mumbo jumbo, and assume you're praying. You're completely ignorant of the inner workings.

DeathStroke007:
Laughing.. . You a fool.. I needn't argue with you.

Even a toddler knows that it's a church (Christianity) that's a business venture. . Go read my thread on Church as business organization

DeathStroke007:
That's exactly how jesus knack his head for ground dey say mubo jumbo.. Abi Jesus go church?

dragunov:
Xtianity may have degenerated into a business venture but Islam is about world dominance. That's business at a global level. Kids like you can't understand what's going on.

dragunov:
Question begging answer. Deedeereen!

DeathStroke007:
Laughing.. . You a fool.. I needn't argue with you.

Even a toddler knows that it's a church (Christianity) that's a business venture. . Go read my thread on Church as business organization

tempem:
You've really worked hard in getting this your references. It's a job well done. All you need is just an open heart, and a good time to know more about the quran. The Quran you are holding (The holy book) forbids fowl languages( curses ) you know that. But, unfortunately, you've flooded this thread with such words. Next time, if you want to argue out a point, you'll do it reasonably and tactfully. All I saw in you was a person totally against the bible. There is nothing meaningful one could say that'll you'll agree with. And that's why I stopped my conversation with you. You don't force people to believe you or to hold to your point. Rather, you say your point based on your references, and you'll let them decide. Thanks.

DeathStroke007:
V) Conclusions

1. An anarthrous theos (θεος) can actually refer to God.
2. Articled theos (ο θεος) does not always refer to God.
3. θεος in John 1:1c is qualitative, not indefinite.

(John 1:1 [TR]) εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

(John 1:1 [NIV]) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In the end, I’ll leave you with my favorite translation of this verse:
John 1 Aramaic Bible in Plain English
(John 1:1)
In the origin The Word had been existing, and That Word had been existing with God, and That Word was himself God.

truthman2013:
Let me ask you bro, do you believe this book called 'Bible"?

DeathStroke007:
Absolutely NO

truthman2013:
Then what are you trying to prove on this thread?

DeathStroke007:
Am surprised you asking.
Isn't it obvious?

truthman2013:
It is, but I see no need for this.

DeathStroke007:
The need is to make people see that Bible is not word of God and Jesus isn't God

Annunaki:
It was then that I realised my standards for criticising the origins of Christianity would raze the foundations of Islam if I applied them consistently.  Nabeel Qureshi (ex-muslim christian)

DeathStroke007:
Grow up

DeathStroke007:
Laughing.. . You just accepted that Jesus no church, and that church na business..


You be fool

DeathStroke007:
From :
http://www.christiandefense.org/NWT.....1_article.htm

Simply put, if John had written: ho theos ēn ho logos (lit., “the God was the Word” making theos definite), he would have been teaching Oneness doctrine (or Modalism)! In other words, the passage would have indicated that “God” in 1:1b (the Father) and “God” in 1:1c (the Word) were the same Person! But semantically, theos is (qualitative), not definite (and surely not indefinite).

"Definite" nouns point to the specific identification of someone or something (thus, in 1:1b “the God” identifies the Father) while "qualitative" nouns point to the essence or nature of someone or something [1]. The anarthrous theos indicates exactly as to what John was communicating: As to the Word’s nature (quality), He was fully God, but as to His Person (or specific identity), He was not identified as the Father, but personally distinct from Him: “The Word was with [pros] God.” [2]


[Footnote 1] Nouns generally fall under three semantic categories: Definite (identity), Indefinite (one of a class of others), or Qualitative (essence or nature—not identity). The anarthrous theos in John 1:1c is qualitative. As with the noun “flesh” in John 1:14: “The Word became flesh,” not “the flesh” (definite), or “a flesh” (indefinite), but “flesh” (qualitative)—as to the Word’s new nature. Likewise, it would be most unnatural to translate "ho theos agapē estin" in [1 John 4:8, God is Love] as “God is a love” (tagging agapē [“love”] as indefinite) or “God is the love” (definite) “ο θεος αγαπη εστιν”. Here agapē is qualitative. Grammatically, in John 1:1c, theos is an anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominative. A predicate nominative describes the class or category to which the subject (the “Word”) belongs. Hence, the Word belongs to the category of theos (“God”) as to His essence or nature—not His personal identity.

Besides the blatant polytheism that an indefinite rendering of theos in 1:1c produces, there are two additional problems. First, theos is placed in the “emphatic position.” Thus, John placed theos *first in the clause* to draw attention to it as if he wanted the reader to shout out the word of emphasis: “GOD! was the Word,” which makes an indefinite rendering (one of many gods) all the more improbable. And second, John 1:1a (“In the beginning was [ēn] the Word”) indicates that the Word was eternal.


The verb translated “was” (ēn) is an imperfect tense (from the verb eimi). An imperfect tense denotes an on-going past action. Thus, in the beginning the Word was already existing—no beginning. And in verses 3, 6, and 10, the aorist verb egeneto (from ginomai), which does denote a beginning, is used to refer to all things created:“all things came into being (egeneto) through Him” (v. 3) while the imperfect verb ēnegeneto is used of the Word to describe the Word’s new nature—which had a beginning: “The Word became [egeneto] flesh.” (“was”) is used of the eternal Word. It is not until verse 14 that egeneto is used of the Word to describe the Word’s new nature—which had a beginning: “The Word became [egeneto] flesh.”

We find the same verb contrast (eternal vs. origin) in John 8:58: “Before Abraham was born [genesthai], I Am [eimi]. Both egeneto (“came into being”) in 1:3 and genesthai (“was born”) in 8:58 are from the same baseverb ginomai denoting a beginning. And ēn in 1:1 (“was”) is from eimi (“Am” as in 8:58) denoting eternality, that is, the Word’s preexistence in those contexts. Thus, in 1:1 and 8:58 the contrast is clear: the Word’s eternal existence (eimi) vs. all things created (ginomai; cf. also Ps. 90:2).

[Footnote 2] Of all the Greek prepositions that John could have used in 1:1b (such as en, para, sun, which all can mean “with”), he specifically chose the preposition pros (lit., “facing” or “toward”). Pros (when persons are in view) signifies more than being near or beside. Rather, pros denotes intimate personal fellowship between persons. Thus, in 1:1b, pros expresses the intimate and special relationship that Christians will experience “at home with [pros] the Lord.” And in 1 Cor. 13:12, the double use of pros describes the personal converse believers will have with the Lord “face to face” (prosōpon pros prosōpon).