₦airaland Forum

@Thor,

This glib quip of "If you really are a Christian then please show an understanding and tolerant Christian attitude" is a bit weathered now, so try something else. You really should be asking yourself if you have been tolerant to others' beliefs and persuasions.

Second, don't try to patronise me with this child talk about answering your questions when you actually are not answering any questions offered you.

If you want to engage reasonably in a duscussion without the usual sly disrespect you pander about for your speculations, welcome anytime.

@Thor, no one's really interested in your speculation - if it doesn't work for you because you don't want it to, good for you. Those who know the Bible is real don't need your hypothesis.

And while we sidon-look and do notin, several other Rev-Kings will emerge and petrol-bomb other fives souls, abi? Have we not had enough of such dastardly acts in the name of religion?

Personally, if the guy is convicted by evidence for his inhumane and unspeakble atrocity, whatever sentence he gets is well deserved - and as a Christian, I'm not ashamed or afraid to say so. MOG ko, man-of-god ni!

When God gave a warning about abuse of (civil) authority in Rom. 13, He did not exclude anyone with a pretended badge of MOG. If a pastor, bishop, m-o-g, superintendent. . . or even imam commits atrocity in the name of whatever was their fancy - they should face the music.

Rom 13:3-4
"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

What's all the sancti-spiritum of growing butter hearts when the man clearly committed evil?? Forget the MOG badge he pretends on himself; if the chap committed the evil for which he is accused and convicted thereof, serve him his sentence kia-kia!

Okay, just for the records 8oracle. Could we possibly infer that your view of Christ is no more than a mere man so that all you know is try to rebuke others, even though you can't coordinate a sane sentence?

May we say that your view of Christ is no more than a mere man so that you can't handle issues but always go about with whips in your hand?

Can we conclude that your view of Christ is no more than a mere man who has nothing positive to offer when you're pointed to God's Word?

You're an epistle of your background and everyone's reading who you show about yourself. Can we infer that you hardly know the real Jesus Christ and that's the reason for your infantile tattling?

They'll come back with another theory about how the Quraish expression for "he struck me on the chest" is a light tap!

@babyosisi, more power to your exposing the fraud o jare!

iamhe:
You complete fool! ROTF! Wow I can't fool you at all, you COLUMBO you! . . .Why don't you take your stupid simple minded self somewhere and go speak in tongues or something. ROTF! For the record dummie I AM HE, but I am NOT Fr. Israel, ROTF! What a idiot you are, really.

That says it all - the above tongues, according to you is the "changed life" now evidenced after reading THE PERFECT WAY. Right!

iamhe:
I have read his book THE PERFECT WAY and it has really changed my life.

It's just that so many people are polarised to just one thing - whatever it is they discover in the word.

For some, it's the fire:
2Kings 1:12 - "If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty."
So, everything is according to fire!

For yet some, the anointing:
Isa. 10:27 - ". . .and the yoke shall be destroyed because of the anointing"
Again, everything is according to some oil in the bottle.

Even oyibo dey practise their own:
"If you send us a cheque of $(undisclosed) or your January salary, we will send you this powerful miracle healing water. . . or the prayer cloth for an additional suggested donation!"

May God help many to see what needs to be done to their situation, rather than over-emphasizing a particular doctrine.

Thanks to you both windywendy and goodguy for your inputs - added to my understanding.

Honestly, though I do not wish it, yet more sinister minds will emerge. This is only one example, and he's a late arrival.

@mrpataki,

Lol. . . many blessings to you as well. Here's Nebuchadnezzar's quip:

Dan. 3:25 - "He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

There's so much noise and distraction in our house just now _{partying and stuff}. . .When the noise has died down, I'll be able to concentrate and post the sequel to my previous entry.

Cheers.

mrpataki:

davidylan link=topic=25738.msg813046#msg813046 date=1168610480:
2. Do you really want me to start giving you verses where women are explicitly described as no better than dogs or donkeys? Or is this another escape strategy of idol worshippers? Pretending not to see the obvious?

Please could you helpme out with the verse pertaining to the bold statement above.There is a muslim here who is getting to realise the truth more than before. Hope his heart will be touched by God.

Tabari VIII:62 Ishaq:496
"Ali [Muhammad's adopted son, son-in-law, and future Caliph] said, ‘Prophet, women are plentiful. You can get a replacement, easily changing one for another.'"

Volume 1, Book 9, Number 493:
'Narrated 'Aisha:
The things which annual prayer were mentioned before me (and those were): a dog, a donkey and a woman. I said, "You have compared us (women) to donkeys and dogs. By Allah! I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in (my) bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I disliked to sit and trouble the Prophet. So, I would slip away by the side of his feet."'

Volume 1, Book 9, Number 498:
"Narrated 'Aisha: It is not good that you people have made us (women) equal to dogs and donkeys."

@Thor,

Appreciate your answers. I'm quite aware that a lot of people believe in a "God" of sorts, quite distinct from the Christian faith. However your persuasions, it does not lend credence to what is being discussed; and I believe that your concerns have been addressed in another thread - if you could take the time to do a search.

Regards.

@Thor,

If nothing exists for you, including yourself, we can understand your joke. However, we would like to focus on the present enquiry of the topic. TY.

@babs787,

That's exactly the point - we're all concerned about lying to promote one's faith or religion, and that's not a virtue by any stretch.

In the same context, so many Muslim/Islamic websites have done precisely the same thing: taken quotes out of contexts; lied about texts in the Qur'an; and yet sought to deny documented evidence of Muhammad's atrocities. At the end of the day, no one needs to lie about Muhammad's atrocities; for he actually deceived people (including his follwers); maimed, murdered, and robbed people; and was sexually promiscuous in his career.

The topic as regards the Second Coming of Jesus Christ is of concern to Muslims as well, since they believe that He will return to earth at the end of the world. What is of interest to some of us is Muhammad's reaction to the prospect of facing judgement on that Day. You know as well as anyone discussing the subject that no thieving marauder and sinner will escape divine judgement.

Now, this presents vital questions. Let's develop a framework for examining the claims of Muhammad as a 'prophet' - afterall, at the end of the day, we're seekers of truth that will ultimately lead to salvation. I offer a few in this regard:

1. Are the quotes taken from the Qur'an and Hadiths exposing Muhammad on this Forum all lies??

2. Did Muhammad not do the very things that we read of in the Qur'an and the Hadiths already quoted on the Forum?

3. Does the true God sanction the lifestyle exemplified by Muhammad?

4. Are you very certain that Muhammad never used deception and lies or encouraged them in his life and career as a "prophet"?

5. Could you count Muhammad as a more sinful 'prophet' in contrast to any other prophet mentioned in the Qur'an and the Bible?

6. Why would you (if at all) suppose Muhammad would not be more severely judged for his atrocities than any other 'prophet' in the Qur'an and the Bible??

This will help us see who the Quraish prophet was, regardless of any misreadings between folks on other websites.

Look my dear 8oracle, why don't you rather make informed inputs? What's all this babbling about - and how does that even persuade anyone about your view of the Person of Jesus Christ?

@Analytical,

I'd like you to refresh your memory about the points made so far in my inputs:

(a) both men and women are to preach the Gospel

(b) both men and women can teach - in the settings recommended in the Word

(c) there are no distinctions between the sexes as far as salvation is concerned

(d) there is definitely a distinction made between the sexes in service

(e) all things are to be done by both sexes in the contexts revealed in the Word.

Now, if you suppose that all things are just about done with no regard for context, I offer that you're missing the gist of Scripture. Here:

Rom. 12:4 - "For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office."

I Cor. 14:31 - "For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted."

I Cor. 14:34 - "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law."

I Cor. 14:37 - "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

"Calling and anointing" is a cliche people always use today without a clue as to the sphere of their operations. That someone has an anointing from the Spirit does not automatically qualify that person for just about any role - even though most people want to be "speakers" and take center stage. There is clearly a difference made in the various kinds of speaking roles - as in prophesying, teaching, exhorting, speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues. Not all are the same; and especially so, the Word shows us that a woman is not to be a teacher in the setting of the Church.

Let's apply a bit of common sense here. If the case in I Tim. 2:12 was simply about a home setting, what's the rational behind the thought that a woman ought not to teach her husband (according to YLT), but as long as she has "the anointing" then she can teach in the church??

If we take the time to consider the contexts of the use of the gifts, we cannot fail to see that each has their different roles and offices to apply themselvs to - whether men or women. And we are on safe grounds only when we go by what we understand contextually from Scripture, and not what tradition has led many to believe.

Cheers.

@TV01,

Thank you so very much for that input. I wouldn't want to sound accusative or pedantically persecutive. And God bless you for levelling the platform - you will not lose your reward, in Jesus Name!

@Analytical,

Many thanks for your well-reasoned rejoinder, and you've made effective use of some study material in your outline - which is commendable. However, I think the sense is lost if one drives the issue too for beyond what the texts actually convey.

First, I'm very much with you on certain lines; not necessarily so in your summation. here's how:

Analytical:
A woman, from the scriptures you've cited and many more, can and should prophesy and sing in church.  The scriptures you've been using in 1 Cor. 14:34 and 1 Tim. 2:11-12 should be balanced with other scriptures so as not to teach out of context.  This is how doctrines and principles of Christ are established.

Concur.

Analytical:
Let's examine them properly.

1 Cor. 14:34

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law."

If you take this as it is, then women should not even say anything in church, not by prophesying nor singing!  But that will be contrary to what Paul was addressing in that scripture.

Glad you know I didn't advocate that women should be mutes in church.

Analytical:
If you read a little downward, you will read further that

39 Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues.
40 But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.

Note verse 40 very well.  That is the crux of the matter Paul was addressing in much of his epistle to the Corinthians, and by extension any such church with their characteristics.

So far, so good.

Analytical:
The church (group of churches actually) at Corinth was a very carnal church.  They manifest the gifts of the spirit but they had issues!

But there again, what church on earth hasn't had issues?

Analytical:
Promiscuity, rowdiness, disorderliness, selfisheness, disobedience to their husbands and higher authority, etc.  Some posts addressed some already.  It is in that church that everyone wants to speak in tongues or prophesy at the same time!  People were sleeping with their father's wife and all still come to prophesy in Corinth Church!

Other churches have done worse, sad to say. So, I'd rather we slow down pointing accusing fingers at them and look a bit closer to what's on ground among ourselves in this age and current of social and spiritual concourse.

Analytical:
To set things in order, Paul as the Apostle had to reprimand them, especially their rowdiness and disorderliness even in church, especially among their women.

That doesn't take away from the fact of the gist of that epistle. What was applicable to the Corinthians is also applicable anywhere and anytim else.

Analytical:
1 Tim. 2:11-12 (Young Literal Translation)

12 and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness,

This particular reference (as made clear in this translation) was not even talking about worship in church!

Two things:
(a) Young failed to convey the sense of that verse, so I do not pander to his "literal translation". The word translated "husband" in YLT is the word used for man in a generic sense; and this is obvious from the fact that if Paul was merely addressing "husbands", he would have been admonishing "wives" in that verse;

(b) it's simply above the turf to suppose that Paul was not addressing issues in the church. Please read chapter 1 of I Timothy and see that the apostle's scope was far more than mere domestic issues. If you take just those two verses alone without considering their context, then the whole scope is lost and what we have is only a narrow view left.

Analytical:
It's a home setting, which is also in sync with the rest of the scriptures about meekness and submission.

Sad to say, it's wider than mere home setting as explained above. The rest of the Scriptures actually bear out the context as being far wider than the home.

Analytical:
Note the immediate refrence to Adam and Eve. Verse 15 especially is quite revealing, talking about the curse that came upon the woman in child bearing as a result of the fall in the Garden of Eden.

But that simply misses the point, bro. The immediate reference in dealing with matters of church setting as mentioned in I Cor. 11 also alludes to the creation scenario of Adam and Eve (see verses 8-12).

Analytical:
Note my emphasis on the 'they' that is the husband and the wife.

Wrong again as explained earlier. YLT misses the point of I tim. 2:12, and if you go by that, you'll keep reading a poor rendering of the divine afflatus.

Analytical:
One thing of note is Paul's distinction when he speaks and when the Lord speaks.  In this very instance, it's very clear who was speaking- Paul, notice his use of 'I' in verse 12.  Some translations put it as 'In my opinion'.

"In my opinion" is not a translation because you won't find that in the Greek texts - it only reveals the political leanings of the liberal interpreters. However, Paul uses the first person singular pronoun (I) in a number of contexts; and as far as used in the cases under review, he most definitely was convenying the very mind of the Lord Jesus Christ. The reason for my persuasion about this is because -

(i) in II Cor. 13:3 he verily confirms that his speaking was the mind of the Lord: "Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, which to you-ward is not weak, but is mighty in you."

(ii) even in the text that you quoted earlier, it is obvious that Paul was conveying the mind of the Lord: "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment." (I Cor. 14:37 - see, that it is not Paul's personal opinion, but a commandment from Jesus? How did you miss this point, dear bro??)

Analytical:
Are you still with me?

Very grateful for your rejoinder - blessed by it all the way. Ta-ra!!  

Analytical:
@ Shahan,

If I understand you very well, a woman can prophesy in church and she can also sing in church.

How do you understand these verses, please:

I Cor 11:5 - "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven."

I Pet 2:5-9 >> "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light."

Analytical:
In other words she can deliver God's message to edify or instruct in church (which is to prophesy) and she can also use the avenue of songs to teach God's word?

Please don't put words in my mouth - I didn't state what you're misreading. Once and again, I have adduced texts to show that the Word does not recommend women teaching in the church. Please refer and let me know what exactly you'd like me to address.

Cheers.

Hi winie,

For a moment I had to understand where you were coming from and took a look at the verse you quoted:

Rom. 5:1 - "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."

Bless.

Seun:
Isn't Paul the one that wrote that women are supposed to be meek and quiet in church, to be seen but not heard?

Oga Seun, lol. . . You've managed to throw in some kulikuli in the whole thing.

Paul indeed wrote that women are not to be speakers in church (you missed the setting) - and the Bible recommends that both men and women should be meek (Matt. 5:5 & 11:29). It was rather the apostle Peter (not Paul) who penned these words:

"But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price" - I Pet. 3:4.

I suppose men would do as well to observe this glorious word in that verse (some men are so talkative, haa!!   ).

Anyway, for those who have thought the calling or anointing settles the matter regardless of any distinction whatsoever, please I beg them to interpret this verse for me:

Rom. 12:4 - "For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office."

To further help the discussion, women can do more than preaching the Gospel and teaching other women about core family truths. If it's about being heard in church, they can also pray and prophesy (I Cor. 11:5); and also worship vocally as much as the men in church (I Pet. 2:5 & 9). Women can also be heard on important matters on church policies or decisions (Acts 6:1-6. . . yes, the women certainly participated actively on the whole event of selecting the seven men). I could offer several very active roles women are encouraged to participate in church. However, the foregoing is to disabuse anyone's mind from the notion that the Bible was promoting chauvinism. The previous points I've been trying to make still stand - and that is, the Word of God does not recommend women to assume the role of teaching in the church.

@Analytical, I hope that answers your question.

Bless up y'all.  

=============================================
_{PS. TJX: I don't know how you got my email addy, but if you read this, I want you to know for certain that I'm not offended by your email and I love you in Jesus! I still continue to pray for you. May God really bless you, TJX.}

@lafile,

Hope the previous entry helped. We start off by asking another question that may be helpful on the subject: Why did the apostle John write in his epistles about confessing "that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" (see I John 4:2-3 & II John 7)? This strengthens the understanding that indeed Jesus had an existence before He came in the flesh (or, before He became Man). We have already established His pre-Human existence as God. Now to adduce texts that support the claim of Jesus' nature as deity (God).

Jesus' Pre-Human Existence as God

John 1:1
Many people struggling with the deity of Jesus would rather look away from this verse; or they would seek some so-called translations that categorically deny what it says. An example is the NWT used by the JW group, and scholars have exposed the fraud in its pretended erudition.

The conventional rendering of the verse well-captured in the KJV is:

               "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

This is more or less the same rendering as in the NIV, ASV (American Standard Version), Darby, Douay-Rheims Bible 1899, ESV, LITV, RV and a few others. The argument by the JW group that "the definite article (the) appears before the first occurrence of the·os′ (God) but not before the second" is a weak premise for denying that Jesus was God. Rather, when compared the results show that the Word/Logos (i.e., Jesus) was actually God, not just 'divine' as if He was "a god".

However, we need to be careful here to understand that John 1:1 is not stretching the deity of Jesus to mean that He was the Father; rather, it only concretely evinces to us that the Logos (Jesus the Son) was exactly what the Father was in His essence as "God". This is clear from the Greek construct itself in the Textus Receptus (TR) manuscript; and if we attempt a rough transliteration of the verse, this is what we have:

          Greek:  εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
          English: in beginning was the logos and the logos was with the god and god was the logos
          outline:
          in(εν) beginning(αρχη) was(ην) the(ο) logos(λογος) and(και) the(ο) logos(λογος) was(ην) with(προς) the(ο) god(θεον) and(και) god(θεος) was(ην) the(ο) logos(λογος)

Look again at the last two clauses: "the logos was with the god and god was the logos". Two interesting things here: (a) "the god" and "god" were not two separate 'Gods' - that would be paganism. The verse rather points out that what the Father was in His essence as God, the logos (the Son) also was exactly the same in essence; (b) the verse also makes clear that the Son was with the Father in intimate fellowship (see verse 2), and therefore could not have been a created being.

How did the other apostles express the essence of the Son? The writer of Hebrews calls Him (the Son) "the brightness of His [i.e., the Father's] glory, and the express image of His [the Father's]  person" - meaning that the Son is the very expression of who and what God the Father is in Himself. Paul affirms this in II Cor. 4:4 - "Christ, who is the image of God"; and in Col. 1:15 - "the image of the invisible God". Does it then make sense when Jesus said whosoever had seen Him had seen the Father (John 14:9)? Jesus did not say "has seen God", but has seen the "the Father". He came to declare the Father (John 1:18), and has done exactly that in Heb. 2:12.

From the foregoing, it now becomes clear that before Jesus became Man, He was always God in eternity. He was not a created being, for indeed the inspired apostle tells us that He created all things (John 1:3). This is why John wrote that He "came in the flesh" (I John 4:2-3 & II John 7).

Next we shall be examining the testimony of the other apostles on Jesus deity.

Bless up.

You haven't got it yet, Dave. . . lol.

15/12 = 1 is a scientific proof that only the Qur'an knows how to calculate. We're dealing with Quraysh mathematics, remember??

8oracle:
A little research (by reading other bible rendering of same verse) will go a long way to clear the fuzzy nature of your king James bible and others along same translation line written under the prying and bearing eyes of political authorities like King James and King Henry V111, William Tyndale contested the inconsistent nature vss 1 has with vs 18 of same chapter,(One cannot be with someone and be the same person) am not fully a student of history, but its on record that,that cost him his life and evidence of his burning on the stake ( a church door scorched by the heat of the fire) still stands in England today.

Sad history, no doubt. However, William Tyndale was not basing his argument on what the Bible texts declared, but on his personal assumptions. When he argued that "one cannot be with someone and be the same person," he was rather closing his eyes against the testimony of God's Word. Let me illustrate the point:

Zec. 12:10
"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."

This is one classic example of how God speaks of the work He would accomplish by Himself. Notice the construct of the divine afflatus - first, God speaks of Himself in a first person singular pronoun (me); then He speaks of Himself as of someone else in the second person singular pronoun (him). The outline is this:

(a) ". . .they shall look upon me whom they have pierced

(b) ". . .they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son,

Do you see the example here presented in what William Tyndale coulnd't understand? Here God Himself was speaking as our Redeemer: the One who comes by Himself as our perfect Sacrifice. When He says "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced," of course, that reminds us of the Messiah, Jesus. But then again, He refers to Himself in (b) above as "him" - indicating that He is the very same One.

I submit therefore that Tyndale, praised for his courage against the tide of religious corruption in his day, yet was unable to see this point and as such denied it on the premise of his weakness about John 1:1 & 18.

8oracle:
Maybe someday when you have cash to spare, take a visit to Hebraic Mesieum in Tel Aviv,original text of this bible still remain. You will be given all the asistance to make all research thereof, even ancient manuscript written during same time, like Josephus,Pling the Younger etc can help clear you this fuzzy nature of Jesus that many have failed to grasp.

I assure you indeed that there's nothing fuzzy about the understanding of the deity of Jesus. Men will go any length seeking some remote document to deny what they cannot accept in the Bible - I'm not one of them. But even then, the Bible still has the clear text to assure us that Jesus Christ was known as God by the apostles and early Christians.

If you could access the writings of the early Church Fathers, please understand that they actually believed in the deity of Jesus Christ - and these documents are as well dated closer to the first century just about the time of the apostles. Sample the following:

Ignatius of Antioch,To the Ephesians,7(A.D. 110):
"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin "

Tatian the Syrian,Oration Against the Greeks,21(c.A.D.175)
"We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man." [compare John 1:14 & I Tim. 3:16].

St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, (c. A.D.105-115?)
"I extol Jesus Christ, the God who has granted you such wisdom."

There are volumes of such attestation that Jesus Christ was believed to be God come in flesh. And I do hope that these have helped your understanding. More questions welcome.

Cheers.

8oracle:
@ shahan: Prophet Isaiah knew what he was talking about, and who he was reffering to, their expected messiah. Though a humle prophet he was ,he had no theological, or unversity education, knew the clear difference between "The Almighty God" Genesis 17vs1(Absolute) and the messiah "The mighty God" (Relative).

If there is a difference between "The Almighty God" as absolute and "The mighty God" as relative, doesn't that suppose that you're worshipping two Gods and therefore defeating your own argument? You can't go round this issue with such reasoning; but let me help you.

There are several other scriptures that declare God both as "Almight" and as "Mighty". These are not two separate "Gods" but the very same One. If you state that the mighty God refers to the Messiah (and therefore, Jesus), are you willing to apply the same rule to the other scriptures where the term appear? Let me break it down:

According to you, the mighty God refers to the Messiah (i.e., Jesus); therefore, do the following refer to the same Messiah?? Here:

Deut. 7:21
"Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the LORD thy God is among you, a mighty God and terrible."

Jer. 32:18
"Thou shewest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the LORD of hosts, is his name."

Hab. 1:12
"Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die. O LORD, thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, thou hast established them for correction."

Psa. 50:1
"The mighty God, even the LORD, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof."

Now, you see, 8oracle that if you equate the mighty God to the Messiah, then infact the Messiah indeed was the very same One whom the Jews worshipped as The LORD (i.e., Jehovah). Are you now convinced that Jesus is the mighty God and the very same Jehovah of the O.T.?

Further, let's establish the fact that "the mighty God" is the very same "Almighty God" in the Scriptures. Notice in the verses above that the mighty God is called the LORD? Jer. 32:18 identifies the mighty God as "the LORD of hosts"; while Psa. 50:1 refers to the mighty God as "even the LORD". So, if the mighty God is the Messiah, then the same Messiah is the LORD of hosts. And what the mighty God is called, is the same that the Almighty was called in the O.T. - the LORD!! See the following:

Gen. 17:1
"And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect."

Exo. 6:3
"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them."

The point I am trying to make here is that there is only one God; and the mighty God is the very same as the Almighty God (or, God Almighty). To infer that they are different and separate is not sustained in God's Word, otherwise such a person would be worshipping "two Gods"!

Lol, TV01. . . my posts are still clear, I pressume. Women can and are encouraged to preach; they are also encouraged to teach according to the settings in God's Word - as in the case of Tit. 2:3-5.

The issue many of us may not have grasp is that the Bible does not recommend women teaching in the church. That would be an abuse of the recommendations in God's Word.

TV01:
Sister trini_girl,
You are starting to sound preachy. Please stop, the holy scriptures forbid it !

I support 1000% - please Nne trini, preach am well-well as you're doing to Seun!! Don't let anybody hold you back o jare! Who knows?? Perhaps a woman will convert him! Amen and Amen!!

trini_girl:
Seun , you have come again with your attack on God oooo , what did the scriptures ever do to u now , haba!
See my submission to "Does God Exist" thread. We need to discuss this issue you are having with seeing God as a mean dictator.

@damosky,

Thanks for yours, and here's a link where I'll be posting some outlines to some of these questions.

Who Was Jesus Before He Became A Man?

To answer your question succinctly here: He was God before He became Man. The reasons why He was not a created angel are given on the page to the link above. More questions welcome.

Bless.

belloti:
Shahan, don't you think its easier to notice a sign of adultery on pregnant woman than a signless man? thats my point.

. . . And your point still is - ??

Let me assure you: it is indeed easier to notice the sign of adultery on a pregnant woman than on a "signless" man, especially after Amina Lawal's case in northern Niegria came to light. Of course, there was no clamour for the stoning of the male culprit as it was "not easy to notice the sign" on the "signless man"!

I chose not to reply earlier so as to afford you time to gather yourself together and think through that befuddled line of yours.

belloti:
However, i noticed the new found vibe that you came here with to bastardise our discussions. you are very much welcome but i advice you tread carefully. We have had the likes of maliki, david, pataki and havila before you and we shall expect more new comers like you to bring in their haphazard knowledge of theology and blend it with the figments of their imaginations in maligning our already acrimoniuos debates here.

Wait a mo; is it the 'acrimonious debates' you thought i was maligning. . . or you meant something else but just didn't have the right punch to express it??

belloti:
However, the question is i feel christianity is wrong and i expect you to correct my apprehension.

We all have, but it seems some bolts and screws need adjusting to help your comprehension. In plain language: Christianity offered life to Muhammad; he lost it by denying what would have saved him - and he fell into the worst kind of idolatory ever imagined, as authenticated in Islamic history.

Havila:
"If a man is called upon, for medical reasons, to look upon a woman other than his wife and to touch her body, he is permitted to do so, but if he can give such care by only looking at the body he must not touch it, and if he can give it by only touching, he must not look at it."

The Ayatollah may be the last true Muslim who understood the message of Muhammad even better than the Caliphs! Or how else can this issue be resolved? Let's see:

1. Possible they leave the poor woman dying, since the 'Ayas' says not to look. Don't forget that the woman was supposed to be wearing her burqa as a true Muslim!

2. They begin to send all muslim men on emergency medical training to augment the lapses, since the 'Ayas' would rather not see women driving cars, getting educated. . . much less becoming surgeons.

Havila:
"A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, other sexual act such as forplay, rubbing, kissing and sodomy is allowed.

He was just telling "the truth" - as revealed by Muhammad!

Havila:
A man having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not comitted a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged.

I said it - this 'Ayas' knew Muhammad very well, nevermind the divide of over 14 centuries.

Havila:
If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man's four permanent wives. He also is not permitted to marry the girl's sister."

The reason is simple: by the time he goes through his rounds of 4 abused infants, he would have reached his 72 rounds of earthly virgins, then blow himself up to receive them anew for in janat. (Do the maths: 4 x 18 = 72! He needs 18 rounds of every 4 infants!)

Havila:
"A woman may legally belong to a man in one of two ways; by continuing marriage or temporary marriage. In the former, the duration of the marriage need not be specified; in the latter, it must be stipulated, for example, that it is for a period of an hour, a day, a month, a year, or more."

Adultery by revelation - from Muhammad!! This is not new - the Quraysh prophet encouraged it in his days among his marauding band.

Havila:
"A father or a paternal grandfather has the right to marry off a child who is insane or has not reached puberty by acting as its representative. The child may not annul such a marriage after reaching puberty or regaining his sanity, unless the marriage is to his manifest disadvantage."

From the cradle to the cage! Slavery obviously has many colours.

Havila:
"A marriage is annulled if a man finds that his wife is afflicted with one of the seven following disabilities: madness, leprosy, eczema, blindness, paralysis with aftereffects, malformation of the urinary and genital tracts or of the genital-tract and rectum through conjoining thereof, or vaginal malformation making Coitus impossible."

All these maladies are the direct effects that must be expected after the long bearded guys have messed up the lives of the infants they abused.

Havila:
"If a wife has her marriage annulled because her husband is unable to have sexual relations with her either vaginally or anally, he must pay her as damages one-half of her mehryeh (her price) specified in the marriage contract. If the husband or wife annuls the marriage for any of the above-mentioned reasons, the man owes nothing to the woman if they have had sexual relations together; if they have not, he must pay her the full amount of the dowry."

Havila:
"A woman temporarily married, say, for a month or a year, has her marriage automatically annulled at the end of that time, or at any other time when the husband releases her from the balance of her engagement. It is not necessary for this that there be any witnesses, or that the woman have had her period."

Where is babs787 - did I not hint that muslim men don't need evidence for their atrocities?? Hear it direct from the only exegete of Muhammad's illusions.

Havila:
"A woman who wishes to pursue her studies toward the end of being able to earn her living through respectable work, and who has a male teacher, may do so if she keeps her face covered and has no contact with men; but if-that is inevitable, and religious and moral tenets are thus undermined, she must give up her studies. Girls and boys who attend coeducational classes in grammar schools, high schools, universities, or other teaching establishments, and who, in order to legalize such a situation, wish to contract a temporary marriage may do so without the permission of their fathers."

If it doesn't please Muhammad or his idol, nothing works in Islam. Your face has to be covered [interpretation: *allah* doesn't know you, and does not wish to see your face; otherwise he is easily distracted]; you have to give up your education if moral obligations makes it obvious the girl will become smart and refused to be lashed with a pole!

Havila:
No, let me get this straight; a boy and girl in a mixed school should get "temporarily married" for them to be able to attend class in a mixed school, and that a girl should give-up her studies if she has a male teacher and the logistics of the course wil not allow a nikab. Is this insanity or what?

I told you before: it's called "the culture of the electric cable" (for the bulala), or "from cradle to the cage!"



[quote][/quote]

@lafile,

Right, I'm back now - and thanks for your patience. Quickly to the point. At least a lot of people have no issues with accepting the Humanity of Jesus Christ; but that is as far as it takes some of them. To even suggest that the same Bible declares the deity of Jesus is something that is unacceptable to many. However, the question that might be helpful to us in considering this issue is:

Who Was Jesus Before He Became A Man?

Other questions that might be ancillary to the above are: 'Did Jesus even exist before He became Man? If He had a pre-Human existence, what was His nature?' The answer to the first, of course, is that Jesus actually existed before He became Man, and this is established in the following texts:

Micah 5:2
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

The last clause reveals that the Messiah was heralded to be from everlasting - pointing to His eternal past. I offer that the pre-Human existence of Jesus was confirmed by Himself in John 5:58 when He said: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." Nevermind the arguments about the last two words of that verse for now - however one may interpret them. The substance of the verse is that Christ truly attested to His pre-Human existence as occuring even before Abraham's existence.

His Pre-Human Nature

We next come to the question of what His nature was in His pre-Human existence. Some would have us believe that He was an angel, albeit the highest angel to have been first created by God before others; or something like that. The collective testimony of Scripture refutes that idea; and here's why -

(a) angels were never involved in creation
Not one verse in the Bible shows any angel to have been involved in the divine work of creation. However, several times in Scripture we read of the Jesus as the Creator together with the Father and the Spirit [John 1:3; Psa. 104:30 & 148:5; Isa. 45:12].

(b) angels were never created to be worshipped
Again, not one angel was to be worshipped in God's divine economy (and only fallen angels actually seek worship). However, when God brought His firstbegotten into the world, He proclaimed: "And let all the angels of God worship him" [Heb. 1:6]. If Jesus had been an angel, He surely would not have been worshipped by any other angel.

So, what then was the nature of Jesus before He became Man? He was God. He was exactly what God the Father and the Holy Spirit have been from all eternity; and in the following entry, I'll be adducing some texts to the point.

Cheers.

@8oracle,

Okay, I'm back. I sought to engage in dialogue with you as every reasonable person should, but your latest entries have been somewhat jocular - and that's good for the laughs.

Anyhow, no worries about your polarised emphases on the Humanity of Jesus Christ. What I would like you to do is give us your own interpretation of the following texts:

John 1:1 - the Word was God
Who is the Word in that text?
What did the verse say He actually is?

Isaiah 9:6 - "and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God,
The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
Who is called "The mighty God" in this verse?
What does that say about Jesus Christ?

Rev. 22:12-13
"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according
as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and
the last."
Who was speaking in that verse?
What did He call Himself?

Nevermind the 'apostate' and all else you thought of me: can't hate you for that, bro.

However, with much love and patience, my style is to reason with people and get the gist of what brought us here in the first place. And I trust you'd tackle those verses as best you can. Much blessing.