₦airaland Forum

goodguy:
Also, I agree with what Kimba said . . . ". . . Remember the Bible says, they drank, meaning the people at the wedding drank the "high quality", enjoyed themselves, celebrated with the Bride and groom, and all of them still knew their way back to their different homes. The Groom went home with His wife, he was not assisted."

May I add that no one arrived somewhere else by surprise,. . . or woke up with the grrom's wife!

Drunk koo, drunkedness nii!!

mrmayor:
What is the point of GOD creating or making something ( SATAN) that he knew will rebel and challenge him,destroy all his good works and his only son has to die to save humans from his (SATAN) clutches?

If you (GOD) knew he (SATAN)was going to ABUSE the choice given to him;why create him?

Hmmm, I don't know where you're coming from; but let me see how this plays out if I ask the following questions in just about the same way:

If God knew that man would abuse his choice and fall into sin, why was he created anyway?

If after the fall, God knew that His Son would come to earth to redeem man by facing a cruel death, why was Jesus sent anyway?

If Satan knew that through death Jesus would destroy him, why didn't he beg God not to send Jesus anyway?

If God knew that man would believe in Jesus Christ and be saved, why did He still send His Son anyway?

If salvation in Jesus Christ makes us joint heirs with God's Son, sets us as more than conquerors through Him that loved us, makes us overcomers against the wiles of the enemy, prepares us for the home of righteousness. . . why did God still go ahead to save us anyway?


You get my drift? It's not my fault for the choices Lucifer made to become Satan. I won't be held responsible for Satan's choice to be thrown out of heaven when by choice he opted to be proud with a sinister twist.

All I know is that God offered me salvation in His Son Jesus Christ, and Satan won't be held responsible for the choice I have made to received God's offer of grace in the Saviour.

If some people knew that they would still be dropouts in school, why did they seek admission into university anyway? Rather than winge about it, I'm more interested in what God has offered me in Jesus Christ.

I understand your persuasions, and agree with some of the things you stated. However, what you infer that a person can see exactly what Paul is saying by "common sense" does not really handle this matter.

Even Paul acknowledged that when he prayed in the spirit, his understanding was unfritful - that is, "common sense" was unable to decode his prayer. However, he sought to both pray and sing in the spirit with a fruitful understanding (I Cor. 14:14-15). I am persuaded that this is the reason he also acknowledged that one speaking in tongues does not necessarily understand it; so such a one should "pray that he may interpret" (vs. 13).

There is no shortcut understanding to the gift of tongues; and I sense that God has a special place for tongues in the Church as for the apostle to have devoted a whole chapter expounding it. Some think that tongues are to be "downplayed" - but my question is, why would God inspire the apostle to devote such a lengthy chapter on something He wished to downplay? I'm rather persuaded that He actually meant for us do the opposite - pay good attention to it.

Tongues are as legitimate as other gifts of the Spirit - for "the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal" (I Cor. 12:7).

Well, me - I'm not in naija at the mo. . . but:

Coco29, good start off.

Another perspective, perhaps, is to highlight the issues which do not make up a good church. Basically, there's hardly anyone who would say bad things about their church - the pastor preaches the word, etc. After all said and done, what are we missing?

Reverend:
I have not lost the plot as unlike you I am not following the plot!

The plot as in the sense:

1. a secret plan or scheme to accomplish some purpose, esp. a hostile, unlawful, or evil purpose

Thanks for grabbing a dictionary - at least, my inputs are driving you to sweat it out! The whole summation of the "plot" (as defined by you) which you claim you "have not lost" is this:

- the secret, hostile, unlawful, or evil purpose of the kinkychurch promoted by your crew with Rev. Fletcher as leader -

says it all.

You really have not lost the plot, and I was dead wrong!! Apologies. You really have not lost "the secret, hostile, unlawful, and evil purpose" of exposing 'otherwise normal people' to your schemes. You really have not lost the plot, spare me, of still vaunting such evil purposes on others while you hide your faces from the same webpage that you expose others in their nudity.

I apologise that I got it all wrong at first - you really haven't lost the plot. But no thanks to such secrecy and evil purposes: I'm only sorry for the people who have been held all these years in your plot!

Getting back to topic: your denial of the existence of Jesus is a laugh - why does your dad and his crew still have His name on your kinky website - perhaps as bait for more of your "secret, hostile, unlawful, and evil purpose"?

See, just let it rest; and if you can't bear. . . keep seeking attention.

@muske,

Here, let me help you:

muske:
to all supporters of jesus is God especially M4MALIK, am sure this little explanation will shed light on the lies perpetrated by some people to dilludioned people into acepting that jesus is God.

First of all, those of us who accept the deity of Jesus Christ as God manifest in flesh are not that "disillusioned" to know that your whole premise falls flat on its face in your opening defence:

muske:
John 1:1

In the "original" Greek manuscripts (Did the disciple John speak Greek?), "The Word" is only described as being "ton theos"(divine/a god) and not as being "ho theos" (The Divine/The God). A more faithful and correct translation of this verse would thus read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine" (If you read the New World Translation of the Bible you will find exactly this wording).

I observe that you favour the JW persuasion denying the deity of Jesus Christ. But what you missed out is that the New World Translation is spurious in its translation. You question if John spoke Greek; however, you failed to see your own weakness in Greek. Simply put, the last line of the text is correctly translated as "the Word was God", for there is no definte article ("the" before God.

More than that, "theos" simply means "God" and you can't interchange "God" and "divine". Look at the following texts for example:

2 Pet. 1:2-3 >>
"Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, According as his divine  power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue."

What I can't get is the weakness of your presuppositions in trying to stress a definite article where there's none ("the God".

If you insist that "God" and "divine" are interchangeable, you only concede to what you deny and make yourself out to be the "disillusioned person" trying to window shine others. No offence, but compare what you stated for graphic effects:

muske:
"The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine"

Beautiful. Now let me spread that statement out like this without changing a word in it:

1. The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning,

2. and the Logos was with God,

3. the Logos was divine.

In order words, if "divine" and "God" are the same, what you have just stated above is simply this:

3. the Logos was God.

Oh yes!! The Word was God!! What would you do without Dr. James Moffatt - because you definitely quoted him to buttress your vexed denial? So, what's all the noise about? Jesus is God, and you have just proved it yourself!

@Bobbyaf, no qualms, and blessings.  


@Reverend,

Reverend:
Talking about rationalities, what is the rationality of arguing whether Jesus is God or that God is Jesus or a space alien even?

If for no other reason, at least we are better off without your own version of a 'cannabis jesus.'

Reverend:
What is the rationality of worshiping an invisible man that is supposed to love us but has no problem with burning people in hell for eternity if we upset him?

If you had asked your dad the Rev. Fletcher why he still has the name 'Jesus' on the kinkychurch website, maybe you'll get answers? If all you see is the fear of burning in hell because you 'upset him', you leave me amused for just one reason - because fear is antithetical to the One you truly love.

Reverend:
What is your problem with the naked human body? Why is it that you look down on everything and everybody that does not follow your doctrines? What makes your pretend God better than any other pretend God?

1. My problem with naked human bodies on your website is that, while you expose Africans in the nude, none of your European kinkychurch members are exposed to such indecencies. Why is your dad not there; why are you not there in the nude? Do I suspect it is you've lost the plot that all sense of decency has left you.
Test: ask Seun what is wrong with posting such nude pictures on Nairaland.

2. I haven't looked down on "everything and everybody that does not follow" my doctrines, thank you. You'd be better for it if you can look more closely at how you have pedantically looked down on whatever does not square with yours - is that why you can't preach to your dad about what he's doing?

3. Oh, in case you can't read, I haven't been pretending God at all; so if that's what you are bent on by "any other pretending God", you missed the whole point miles away.

Reverend:
We use it as a way to deal with the terrifying prospect of death and the reality that when you die that is it. There is nothing else , physically or spiritually,

Okay, if you use 'it' (faith) to deal with "the terrifying prospect of death" as a way of acknowledging your own uneasiness, that says it all. Why should death be a "terrifying prospect"? Sorry, but you still are losing the plot.

Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.

Jesus said that heaven and earth shall pass away; but what will not?

Uhm. . . is that about taking the kingdom by force?

The disciple chosen by casting lot to replace Judas, and was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Reverend,

Your premise about faith is wrong, and what is worse is that the sword you've tried to swing only ends up chopping your arm. Here's a little something for your reflection:

Reverend:
Believers, in response, flee from rationality and abandon themselves to a way of life commanded by emotion: that way of life is faith.

Can you explain how "rational" is the practice of your own sensualities in the kinkychurch? How "rational" is the naked baptism your own crew demands of unsuspecting applicants to your group? And how rational is it to expose nude pictures of Africans on your kinkychurch website - without the slightest consideration of what psychological effect such would have on their progeny?

If faith is a way of life "commanded by emotions", you've only demonstrated that such an idea best describes the sorry state of your own group. Such 'irrationality' as is promoted by your own group misses the whole point of what actually is faith.

Prophet.

Her name means 'delicate' and she managed to betray this strong man of Israel into the hands of the Philistines who shaved his hair - the secret of his strength.

belloti:
If the Holy prophet muhammadu (SAW) said he was god, i wouldnt have worshipped him, because i knew human being can never be God. If he said he was the son of God, i would probably take it in figurative term.

Well, if Christianity is wrong because of Who Jesus Christ proved Himself to be (sinless and loving); could Islam be right if we apply the same test to who Muhammad proved himself to be?

Okay, I get you. I've learnt not to assume positions without first asking why people say what they do - that's why I asked. However, your personal message was for Bobbyaf. Cheers.

Christians And Alchohol (CAA):

Eph. 5:18 - And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.

Why Christian dating is so difficult? Ever heard of people rubbing minds together? Until they both get to know where they'r coming from, they can't see where they're going. And mind you, non-Christian dating can be as tedious.

nferyn,

How do you mean 'Lying for Jesus' and 'a happy lying new year'?

Bobbyaf:
First and formost the word "unknown" is a supplied word, meaning, it wasn't apart of the original Greek.

With good sense the KJV supplied the word "unknown" without detracting from the flow of the text; just as the word "gift" in I Cor. 14:1 was supplied without affecting the sense of the text.

The gift of tongues expounded by the apostle Paul goes beyond the mere language of men - that is why the line in your quote: "no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries." If it is merely human effort, then it is no more a phenomenon "in the spirit" nor legitimately a "mystery" - for the fact that in the first place "no one understands him", neither does the speaker himself understand what he says in the Spirit.

The gift of "interpretation of tongues" is predicated upon the gift of tongues. It is not merely a question of "translation" (which men can easily accomplish as polyglots); rather, it is a charisma given by the Spirit of God to 'interpret' what is being spoken 'in the spirit'. The sheer mention that "no one understands him" indicates the power of tongues in the Spirit.

In the whole Church at Corinth, folks were present who could understand one another's speech in their native languages and dialects - including, for example, Italian, Aramaic, Greek or Hebrew (see the background in Acts 18 - Jews and Greeks, some of which had come lately from Italy). There were more than one person who could speak, at least, one of these languages. But when a believer speaks in tongues 'in the spirit' and 'no one' understands him or her, the context becomes apparent that it is a phenomenon altogether distinct from what might otherwise have been attained by human wisdom, effort, intellect or genius.

There were already all types of languages in the world during the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ - and He knew that. But when He was commissioning the disciples in the power of the Holy Spirit, He noted that "they shall speak with new tongues" (Mark 16:17). The gift of 'tongues' and of the 'interpretation of tongues' are gifts given to the Church by the risen Lord - and they don't come as a discount, nor are they optional to other gifts.

We find the gist of the whole passage in two verses in I Corinthians 14 here

(a) "Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts [including the gift of tongues], but rather that ye may prophesy"; (vs. 1)

(b) "Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues." (vs. 39)

Blessings.

I agree this is quite a mature approach to inter-faith understanding.

This question has been on my mind for quite a while now: Muslims have always claimed that Islam is the only authentic monotheistic religion in the world. How can this be substantiated by the seeming plurality of deities that claim to be acting like the Islamic 'Allah'?

First Google it up, and then gist will follow.

Bobbyaf:
. . .What it means is that God doesn't always choose to reveal the evidence when we think He aught to. He is in control, not us. He knows all circumstances and situations.

"Faith is . . . the evidence of things not seen",

Although this thread is about the deity of Jesus Christ, I think the Bible simply defines faith as 'the evidence' of things not seen. As long as there's faith, there's always evidence . . . or there won't always be 'the substance' in the first place. In context, that verse would simply mean: faith is substantiating the things I hope for - by how I live.

Two things, though:

1. Rev King is just one among many who are designed to be the percussors of their 'don' - the antichrist.

2. Let those who know Jesus Christ take heed and protect themselves against 'false christs' - read Matt. 24.

Phew!

ps. I hope whistling will not attarct a ban?? Happy New Year!

It's a new year - use it well.

goodguy:
Shahan,
Thanks for shedding more light to John 1:1.

God bless you, bo. I don't mean to offend anyone, but perhaps I can understand how they feel - having myself been one of those who was taught wrongly to deny the deity of Jesus Christ.

@gbade. x, Happy New Year to you, too.

8oracle:
Hence should anyone misdirects his or her woship to Jesus,it will be counted as pure idolatry,for christ never accepted to be worship (Luke 4vs8,John20vs17,Romans 1vs25)

So, was Christ asking us to become "idolaters" when He categorically asked believers to honour Him even as we honour the Father (John 5:23)? Is it only in the name of the Father a believer is baptized (Matt. 28:19)? Did He damn those who worshipped Him by faith, such as the wise men (Matt. 2:11); the leper who was healed (Matt. 8:2); the ruler (Matt. 9:18); the disciples (Matt. 14:33 and 28:9 & 17)?

If that hasn't clicked, think about this: was the Father asking angels to engage in idolatory when He asked them to worship the Son? "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." [Heb. 1:6]. The Father instructed all the angels to worship Jesus the Son; and yet some believers fuss at men doing the same! No harm meant, but if you choose not to worship the Son, try not denouncing others who understand Jesus as engaging in "pure idolatory."

8oracle:
Finally at nowhere can one read in the bible that God prays or prayed,if Jesus was God can it be said he prayed to himself to answer his own prayer or prayers.

God doesn't pray to Himself, granted. But did you never read in Heb. 5:7 that:

"Who [Jesus] in the days of his flesh [that is, as Man], when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared."

Jesus as a Man "in the days of his flesh" offered up prayers. Prior to that time before He became Man (John 1:14), He nowhere offered up prayers.

8oracle:
Christopagan, a la carte,fast food made christain know the truth before it is too,too late

That is my prayer for you - and may God bring you to acknowledge His truth before it's late!

I've tried to follow your reasoning, 8oracle; but it just doesn't add up. Here's why -

8oracle:
It isn't suprising that most so called christains have been polluted by unbibilical, devilish teachings which was propanded by a philisophical pagans the so called St Augustine and Pluto ascribing Godship to the person of Jesus Christ.

If you are misconstruing St Augustine and Pluto as the same person who penned John 1:1, then you might well be on your way to becoming the next Dan Brown. Long before St. Augustine, John 1:1 had been written.

8oracle:
NOWHERE, I REPEAT NOWHERE in the scripture was the almightness of Godship is alluded to Jesus.

It makes me wonder what "scripture" you have been reading. Talking about verses "alluding" to the deity (or 'Godship') of Jesus, sample the very same "scriptures" you deny:

Isaiah 9:6
Who is being described there as "mighty God"? Now if you concede that is it Jesus, are you then denying that He is the very same One actually called "God"? Don't stumble over "the almightiness" of God - there are a couple other texts that simply refer to the Lord as "mighty God" ==

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

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

"The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God." [Isa. 10:21].

"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." [Jer. 32:18].

Question: Is the mighty God any different from the Almighty God (or if you prefer, how is "the mighty God" any different from "the almightiness God"? How "mighty" does God have to be in order for anyone to trust Him as simply "GOD"?

John 1:1
Often quoted, would you deny that the Bible says that "the Word was God" - alluding to the very fact that Jesus is God?

Dozens more can be quoted to attest to the fact that Scripture alludes to the deity of Jesus Christ, the Word who became flesh in order to die as Man for our Redemption (see I Cor. 15:21).

8oracle:
1 The bible made it clear that Jesus was the first thing created by God (Colossian 1vs15,Revelation 3vs14) and so no other thing both in the heavens and upon the earth was created without Jesus knowing i.e in the beginning of any other creation (John 1vs1,3,Proverbs 8vss 22-31)

Did you read carefully the texts you quoted to support you personal views? I'll take just two of them: John 1vs1,3 ==

Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:3  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Do those verses read like what you insinuated about Jesus being the first "thing" created by God? Sorry, but verse 1 called Him "God" = "the Word was God."

Col 1:16  For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him

Jesus created all things. QED.

8oracle:
2 When angel Gabriel came to Mary he did not inform her that she was going to bear in her womb God rather he said Read Luke 1vs 31

No problem. The angel did not Gabriel categorically announce to Mary that she was to bear "God"; but the very same angel Gabriel would have joined innumerable other angels in rejoicing to announce the birth of the divine Son as "the Lord" =

Luke 2:11 - "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Further, when the heavenly hosts saw the marvel of the Creator becoming a Man for our redemption, they further rejoiced as we understand from 1 Tim. 3:16 =

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

8oracle:
3 When he came to the earth neither himself nor his disciples and apostles saw to it or belief that he was God (Mathew 16vs16,John 14vs 28, John 3vs 17, I Corinthians 11vs 3

You're kidding, right? Was it an apostle or an apostate who wrote clearly in John 1:1 that "the Word was God"? Was it yet another Jesus who said in 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"?

8oracle:
4 God almighty cannot be seen, (Exodus 33vs20 John 1vs 18) but Jesus had walked and been seen by thousands of persons.

Exo. 24:11 - "And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink."

John 14:9 - "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"

Col. 2:9 - "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

8oracle:
The almighty God cannot be killed,or subject to death (Habakkuk 1vs 12) but Jesus had died once under the hands of false accusers(the Jews) and the ruling Roman armies during his lifetime here on earth

Phew! What did you do with these verses:

". . . the Word was God. . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." [John 1: 11& 4].

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" [Rom. 8:3]

"Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." [Rom 9:5]

See the last line of that Rom. 9:5 - declaring that Christ is over all, God blessed for ever. More than that, He came in the flesh (see I John 4:2) for the express purpose of dying in the flesh to save men:

"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; " [Heb 2:14].

Bro, Jesus became Man in order to die in the flesh for your salvation - he did not die as "God", but as Man. The Bible defines death as the body without the Spirit (James 2:26); but it also says that after Jesus died in the flesh, He went to the spirits in prison =

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison." [1 Pet 3:18-19].

Hi all,

Much as this is a great forum for exchange of ideas, I am a bit concerned that a few entries have sought to 'correct' others by quoting some texts while closing their eyes to others. For those who deny the deity (or divinity) of Jesus Christ, I wonder if they have been reading the very texts that declare His very deity. Let me offer a few by way of repetition (as I risk going over what have been said already by many):

ayinba1:
First to answer the question,, Jesus is not God. If you read your bible the right way up and not upside down, you will find many instances when he referred to himself as "son of man", more times than "son of God" and never as "God". I will not be listing biblical quotes here.

Question 1: who then was being referred to as the Word who is God in John 1:1?
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Was the apostle John a little brainwashed as well when he penned those words under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? The only way to dribble round that clear affirmation is to deny that the Bible called Jesus "God" indeed. If John 1:1 can be denied by those denying Jesus' deity, then there is no reason why they can't deny His humanity.

Question 2: how many times does Jesus have to refer to Himself as "Lord" before you can confess Him as such? "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am" (John 13:13). Or how many times does He have to refer to Himself as "Christ" before you believe He is actually the Christ? I hope you actually read your own Bible the right side up to know that even if Jesus referred to Himself only once as what He did, He is actually both the "Son of Man" and the "Son of God".

Question 3: if Jesus never declared His deity, what did He mean by His claiming the very title of God for Himself in Rev. 22:13 (" I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."? More than that, what did He mean by claiming equality with the Father in John 10:30, as well as claiming equal honour and worship with the Father in John 5:23? In John 10:33 the Jews understood His assertion fully, and nowhere did Jesus deny or refute that assertion - that He was actually God.

ayinba1:
Also when Jesus said in the same bible that on the day of judgment, some people will say "Oh but I performed miracles in your name" and Jesus will tell them " No,you are not of me" , Now do you think these people are non christian.

I'm amazed how you can contradict yourself in just one breath. First, you seem to argue that those people were 'christian', and yet you quoted a statement that denied their being recognized as such. What is even more - you actually misquoted the Word of God: and how then do you suppose anyone would be persuaded that you've actually read the Bible?