₦airaland Forum

Janosky:
Jesus Christ the word has a separate existence from the Father his God.

John 14:24 & Hebrew 1:1-2 is the answer in your Bible.

"the one not loving Me does not keep My words. And the word that you hear is not Mine, but that of the Father having sent Me"
Yahweh can not send Himself Isaiah 6:8.
Yahweh sent Jesus his son to speak Yahweh's word, John 14:24
Jesus is the word because he & Paul agreed that Jesus is the Spokesman sent to speak the words given to him by God his Father.

Do you SirTee15 agree with Jesus Christ and Paul, both apostles of God?

If U think the word of God has a separate existence from the Father, U need your head checked.

So when God said ' Let their be light'. That statement that was spoken by the Father is a separate existence from the Father?

DaddyCoool:
My question is, WHY is the Father sacrificing at all when it's only Him involved - it would make sense if there were another person involved that needed to be appeased

I'm not sure I fully understand your question.

But the work of atonement by God is a self sacrifice from him to safe humanity. It doesn't involve another being.

Self sacrifice is different from human sacrifice.

Jesus who is God in flesh sacrificed himself for us.

It's not like the Father created a fully separate human being and send him to the world to die for our sins.
That would depicts the pagan practice of sacrificing humans to appease their deity.

Jesus is human with fullness of father's divinity in him. He's not a separate being from the Father.

Janosky:
Your Trinitarian mentors at Nicene in 381 AD made their holy spirit they installed as deity.

Jesus said holy spirit is God's finger often referred to as hand of God in your Bible.Luke 12:20 Matthew 12:28.
Egyptians agreed at Exodus 8:13 that Jesus is correct.

God has eyes , Psalm 11:4 ,ears,Nehemiah 1:6 & finger, Exodus 8:19 and mouth, Matthew 4:4.
Is God's mouth a person? No.
Is God's eyes a person? No.
Is God's ears a person? No
Is God's finger a person? Definitely not!

So are U saying the word of God and holy spirit are not depicted as persons in the bible.
Is that what U saying because I need U to be clear.

Janosky:
Constantine assembled men at Nicene to make it a deity in 381AD and instal l it as a being.

Holy spirit is not a being. No Christian ever said holy spirit is a being.
Pls understand the difference btw being and person b4 embarrassing yourself in public.
GOD IS ONE BEING NOT 3 BEINGS.

Janosky:
[b]Origen and other church fathers never believed nor agree with that Nicene invention.
John 16:13 , holy spirit is referenced as "he" but "he" is not in the Greek manuscripts.
English translators of your Bible put "he" there because Greek Paraclete in John 16:7 is masculine gender in Greek language.
Holy spirit is personified as "he".
KJV Romans 8:16,26 accurately referenced holy spirit as itself because in Greek language holy spirit neuter,no gender.

Ok if U say holy spirit is not a person. Explain this verses
Luke 2
25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was on him. 26 It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah.

So how can holy spirit communicates and give revelation If it's not a person?

Janosky:
"Christianity before emperor Constantine" go and study this subject very well and cure your delusion.
[/b]

Why are U talking about Nicene creed again. U already said said U don't believe in church fathers and I said fine.
Let's stick to scripture and leave church fathers doctrine out of our discussion.
Stick to the scripture.

Now if U say the word of God is not a person, explain this verses.
Genesis 15
After this, the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision:
“Do not be afraid, Abram.
I am your shield,[a]
your very great reward.[b]”

Explain how the word can be expressed as an action force if it's not a person.
How can the word of the LORD be speaking of it's not a person.

Janosky:
Your footnotes reads @ Exodus 3:14
"I will be what I will be". the correct rendition of Hebrew Exodus 3:14
"I AM" is desperate attempt by Trinitarians to deceive themselves about John 8;58.

The screenshots evidence speaking the truth.

I'm not going to waste my time on Hebrew grammatical argument with U because none of us speak ancient Hebrew.

The word ehye is pronounced as YHWH. AND THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT JESUS SAID- I AM.
THE Septuagint Translates 'ehye to ego eimi'.
The original John manuscript wrote I am as ego eimi'.

Lucifyre:
The amount of confidently ignorant people on this platform is too damn high😅. Like the frigging irony of saying you want evidence from scholarship when anyone with the daintiest clue about the stance of basic academic scholarship wouldn't make the outstandingly ignorant statement you did is beyond laughable. Then again its the typical apologist way of making assertions before even understanding the context of said assertions cause they think it supports their conclusion, so not suprised there.

Anyway, first off, which is basic knowledge and a fact and consensus among the academic community, is that there is no single "Bible." There are multiple Bibles, and they say different things depending on the adopted canon, translation method, and source manuscripts. They range from 24 to as many as 82 books, depending on the sect, from the Codex Sinaiticus to the Tanakh to the Targum, to the Septuagint, to NA28, etc. This is just to paint a backdrop of the confusing mess of zero objectivity.

Now, whatever Bible you use or choose, one thing is certain, and that is the fact that it is not univocal. Different authors say different things with different agendas, directed at different audiences, which is why there are so many contradictions. The Gospels contradict themselves at virtually every turn, from the birth narrative to the death narrative, with no harmony and no objectivity. This is despite the fact that the authors basically copied each other but tweaked the story to appeal to their particular audience, as there were numerous Gospels in circulation, all wanting to drive their narrative. Many of these Gospels and their narratives didn't make it into the canon, as they brought about even more contradictions.

The Gospels and other books are historically inaccurate. Various accounts depicted in them, when verified with external sources, are found wanting, pointing to creative liberty. For example, the census in Luke, which was conducted at Jesus' birth, was used to fix location contradictions from the other Gospels. However, the census, as claimed by the Gospels, took place during the reign of Herod the Great (who wanted to kill Jesus, by the way), which we know is flat-out wrong. According to other sources, the census took place during the reign of Quirinius, 10 years after Herod's death.

These contradictions and historical inaccuracies are not surprising, considering that the earliest Gospel (Mark) was written at least four decades after the said event and wasn't even written by eyewitnesses. Most of it was made up after the fact, sometimes drawing motifs from other older myths (similar to most of the Bible), like the virgin birth of Dionysus and his turning water into wine...

I will daze you with bible scholars evidence.unril U are purged of those beer parlour opinion.

This is what Bart Erhman have to say about the New testament reliability.
FYI Bart Erhman is a confirmed atheist and is the foremost crusader in the argument of NT textual corruption.
At the end of it all, this is what he has to say in his book called misquoting Jesus




Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

Lucifyre:
The amount of confidently ignorant people on this platform is too damn high😅. Like the frigging irony of saying you want evidence from scholarship when anyone with the daintiest clue about the stance of basic academic scholarship wouldn't make the outstandingly ignorant statement you did is beyond laughable. Then again its the typical apologist way of making assertions before even understanding the context of said assertions cause they think it supports their conclusion, so not suprised there.

Anyway, first off, which is basic knowledge and a fact and consensus among the academic community, is that there is no single "Bible." There are multiple Bibles, and they say different things depending on the adopted canon, translation method, and source manuscripts. They range from 24 to as many as 82 books, depending on the sect, from the Codex Sinaiticus to the Tanakh to the Targum, to the Septuagint, to NA28, etc. This is just to paint a backdrop of the confusing mess of zero objectivity.

Now, whatever Bible you use or choose, one thing is certain, and that is the fact that it is not univocal. Different authors say different things with different agendas, directed at different audiences, which is why there are so many contradictions. The Gospels contradict themselves at virtually every turn, from the birth narrative to the death narrative, with no harmony and no objectivity. This is despite the fact that the authors basically copied each other but tweaked the story to appeal to their particular audience, as there were numerous Gospels in circulation, all wanting to drive their narrative. Many of these Gospels and their narratives didn't make it into the canon, as they brought about even more contradictions.

The Gospels and other books are historically inaccurate. Various accounts depicted in them, when verified with external sources, are found wanting, pointing to creative liberty. For example, the census in Luke, which was conducted at Jesus' birth, was used to fix location contradictions from the other Gospels. However, the census, as claimed by the Gospels, took place during the reign of Herod the Great (who wanted to kill Jesus, by the way), which we know is flat-out wrong. According to other sources, the census took place during the reign of Quirinius, 10 years after Herod's death.

These contradictions and historical inaccuracies are not surprising, considering that the earliest Gospel (Mark) was written at least four decades after the said event and wasn't even written by eyewitnesses. Most of it was made up after the fact, sometimes drawing motifs from other older myths (similar to most of the Bible), like the virgin birth of Dionysus and his turning water into wine...

Ok after writing your long opiniated opinion U failed woefully to bring any evidence from any scholar that says the gospel is fabricated.

Your opinion counts for nothing. It's at best beer parlour gist.

Now let me bring U the writings of topmost bible scholars and what they have to say about the reliability and integrity of the gospel.

1. Bruce M. Metzger
Renowned New Testament scholar and textual critic.
Professor at Princeton Theological Seminary for over 40 years. He's regarded as the greatest NT scholar of the 20th century.

"The amount of evidence for the text of the New Testament, whether derived from manuscripts, early versions, or patristic citations, is so much greater than that available for any ancient classical author, that the need for resorting to emendation is reduced to the smallest dimensions. Despite some scribal errors, the core message of the New Testament is intact and well-preserved.


2. F.F. Bruce
Distinguished biblical scholar and historian.
Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester.
Specialized in the historical reliability of the New Testament.

"There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament. The New Testament is one of the best-attested works of antiquity, with thousands of manuscripts supporting its textual integrity. The variations among manuscripts do not affect essential Christian doctrines because the unparalleled textual evidence supporting the New Testament authenticity.
(The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, p. 15)

3. Daniel B. Wallace
Leading textual critic and New Testament scholar.
Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.
Founder and executive director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM), focusing on digitizing ancient manuscripts.


"The New Testament has far more manuscripts that are also much earlier than any other ancient text. The average classical author’s literary remains number no more than twenty copies, whereas the New Testament boasts over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts... Such an embarrassment of riches is unequaled by any other ancient literature. The overwhelming quantity and early dating of New Testament manuscripts, supporting its preservation.
(Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament, p. 28)

4. Bart D. Ehrman
Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Leading scholar in textual criticism, known for his work on scribal practices and variations in New Testament manuscripts.

"The New Testament is by far the best-attested work of any work from the ancient world."
(Misquoting Jesus, p. 7)
Significance: Although Ehrman critiques scribal practices, he acknowledges the exceptional textual attestation of the New Testament.

5. John A.T. Robinson

Biblical scholar and theologian.
Dean of Trinity College, Cambridge university, and author of influential works on the dating and historical context of the New Testament.


"The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the very substantial papyri dating from the second and third centuries, makes it overwhelmingly probable that we have a text which is very close to that originally written this very reliable."
(Redating the New Testament, p. 36)

I brought U evidence from 5 bible scholars some of them atheist who all confirm the reliability and integrity of the new testament.
You brought none, not even one.

So the question is who should I believe, bible scholars or Your beer parlour baseless opinion?

MindHacker9009:
I have presented you with evidence which are the truth from the OT, but because you hate the truth and prefer to hold on the the invented story of the NT is the reason you are so confused now.

Now answer this question: Where in the OT did your God say he will send his only begotten son to come this world and" "I will also make him a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach ends of the earth."?

Did the old testament ever mentioned the Messiah would be the salvation to the world?

Regarding begotten son, read this...

Psalm 2.7
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

FYI ANCIENT JUDIASM REGARD PSALM 2.7 AS A MESSIANIC PSALM.

Janosky:
Are you more christian than Martin Luther?
Martin Luther the protestant reformer opposed the Catholic church because among other reasons he found out from the scriptures that Jesus is archangel Michael.

This doctrine is well known and popular before your ancestors were born.

Oga go and do extensive research.
Don't expose your ignorance on this forum.

Oga answer my question on trinity, I'm not interested in your heretic belief.

Is the word of God a separate existence from the Father.
Is the word of God ever depicted as a person in the bible.

Is the holy spirit a separate existence from the Father.
Is the spirit of God ever depicted as a person in the bible.

This is what I want U to answer.

Janosky:
The ghost deity was added to the combo in 381 AD at Nicene chaired by Roman Emperor Constantine.

What a man made invention!

Leave Nicene alone. Focus on the scripture.
Answer my question

Is the word of God a separate existence from the Father.
Is the word of God ever depicted as a person in the bible.

Is the holy spirit a separate existence from the Father.
Is the spirit of God ever depicted as a person in the bible.

It's ok to reject the doctrines of church fathers but to reject what is written in the scripture automatically makes U an unbeliever.

That's why Jehovah witness are no longer called Christians.
Answer my question.

Janosky:

Meta A.I posted by DaddyCool insists that Jesus is distinct from God his Father.
Jesus is not God his Father.
Jesus exist separately from God his Father.
Don't ndelude yourself.
Revelation 1:1. Revelation 3:5,12 is in your Bible.

Trinitarians invented the same being theory to cover up the Trinity delusion.

That delusion invented at Nicene in 326 AD and 381 AD chaired by Roman Emperor Constantine is not in the holy scriptures


Oga , you have REMOVE Matthew 27:46 and Hebrews 10:10 from your Bible.

SirTee15 "Christian" rejecting the holy scriptures.
Na wa!!!

Another Jehovah witness has entered the arena.
Personally, I don't really see the need to discuss the scripture with U guys because Jehovah witness are not Christians.

People who believe Jesus is an arch angel cannot be called Christians.

However, I will be fair with U guys because the earlier JW guy on this thread was sweating as he saw how heretic beliefs crumbling when examined.

So I will do U the honour to step up....probably he's a baby JW, still growing

Now regarding trinity, answer this question

Is the word of God a separate existence from the Father.
Is the word of God ever depicted as a person in the bible.

Is the holy spirit a separate existence from the Father.
Is the spirit of God ever depicted as a person in the bible.


WHAT JESUS DID FOR US IS SELF SACRIFICE NOT HUMAN SACRIFICE.
HE KNEW THE PURPOSE HE WAS CREATED AND FULLY EMBRACED IT.

answer the first question, then we will go into Christology to dissect the Father/Son relationship.

Nachmonides:
The idea of trinity if I could explain it simply, though not accurately, but for starters.

I would use the concept of water to explain the Trinity. Using the three states of water: solid (ice), liquid (water), and gas (steam).

"Think about water. It can be ice when it’s frozen, water when it’s liquid, and steam when it’s really hot. It looks different, but it’s all still water.

The Trinity is like that. God is one, but we can know Him in three ways:

The Father is like the source of everything, like the water.

The Son (Jesus) is God coming to us, like water we can drink or see.

The Holy Spirit is like steam, moving around us and helping us feel God’s love.


Even though they seem different, they are all the same God, just like ice, water, and steam are all still water."


Nota Bene:

While this analogy is helpful, it's not a perfect representation of the Trinity, as it could lean toward the theological error of modalism (the idea that God is one person showing up in three forms).

What U described is modalism not Trinity.
Trinity is One God existing/manifesting in 3 persons.
The 3 persons are distinct but not separate-meaning it's only one existence.

Nachmonides:
I was referring to the idea of the Trinity.

I have placed scriptural evidences all over this thread, Sir.

First U know trinity isn't written in the bible. What we see in the scripture is the concept of trinity.

Now let me ask U a simple question

Is the word of God a separate existence from the Father?
Is the spirit of God a separate existence from the Father?

Uptownerd:
E shock me

My message is for U not someone else.
Dumb.

MindHacker9009:
Israel is the servant.
Isaiah 41:8-9 "But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend, I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said, ‘You are my servant’; I have chosen you and have not rejected you."

I know the servant you are thinking of is the character in your NT storybook, invented by the Roman empire

Hahahaha
So Israel is acting as both 2nd and 3rd person in the same passage. U go fear extent people go to manipulate scriptures.

And now the Lord says—
he who formed me in the womb to be his servant
to bring Jacob back to him
and gather Israel to himself,
for I am[a] honored in the eyes of the Lord
and my God has been my strength—
6 he says:
“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that my salvation may reach

So the servant who is Israel is anointed by God to gather himself to God. Then he will bring himself again to God as Jacob.
Then he will restore himself as Israel to God, then God will give Israel salvation so that he can bring salvation to Israel.

Confusion galore!!!!
Every religion belief makes sense until U produce evidence that are quickly destroyed by simple logic.
See as your theology is crumbling in your own eyes.
God will help out black Jewish brethren.

Nachmonides:
If one does a honest study on the scriptures, one would see that it is true, then the question of whether to believe it or not is left to the person. Are there evidences in the written word?—Yes, of course!

What is true? And what is the scriptural evidence for this your truth?
I don't want to assume anything.

DaddyCoool:
Atonement means reparation, reconciliation. But the atonement is NOT towards a third person, so why is all that necessary?

The bone of contention here is whether the son is another existence from the Father.
Christians don't believe the son is another existence/being from the Father because that would mean there are two Gods.
We believe in one God, not 2 or 3.

So the issue of father sacrificing his son does not arise at all. It's a meaningless argument not backed by any Christian theology.

Qasim6:
In short

Na God died on the cross?

I hope U know divinity is the essence of God.
It's a substance and not a person.
So I don't understand where U arrive at God dying in the cross.

If I become a supernatural person and I become powerful. If I give another person my power, does that mean I am now that person? because I don't understand U guys question sometimes.

MindHacker9009:
Stop asking irrelevant questions. I have stated my points with facts to back them up, so it's left for you to accept or hold on the NT invented religion and the characters in the NT storybook.

Somvinya, see as I destroy evidence of your fellow African Jew.
He's stuck and has no where to go.

Pls help him

He brought Isaiah 49.6 as evidence judiasm is for the whole world.

The LORD says:
“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make YOU a light for the Gentiles,
that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

Now my question is who is that servant of the LORD that will be the light of the gentiles and bring the LORD's salvation to them.

Who is the LORD's servant that will make Judiasm for everyone.
Answer the question.

sonmvayina:
Ode, Messiah means anointed king.
Last time I checked, kings are human beings. Not divine.
The Messiah will be anointed with a special oil kept at the ark of the covenant. He will be a ruler and king.israel will become a monarchy..
And there will be world wide peace and no form of oppression. That is what I am looking forward to. Not to worship a man as god, that is called idolatry..

Resorting to abuse won't safe U.
Ancient Judiasm believed in a divine messiah.
Evidence abound everywhere in their scriptures.
We can start with Daniel 7

sonmvayina:
Logos simply means word.
According to the Torah, God spoke the world into existence...
What else do you have?
Bring it let see it..

No I mean logos acting as a person and creating the world instead of the Father just speaking it.
That's what I mean.

Would U accept if I bring the evidence
I don't want to stress myself or waste my time if U will not accept evidence from Jewish scriptures.

MindHacker9009:
In front of the Romans your Jesus is very gentle and remembers to forgive but in front of his own people he forgets about forgiveness:
Matthew 23:13: "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces."
Matthew 23:33: "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?"
John 8:44: "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires."
Matthew 11:20-24: "Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent."
Matthew 27:24-25: During Jesus’ trial, when Pilate offers to release Him, the crowd (made up of Jewish individuals) shouts: "His blood is on us and on our children!"
Luke 19:41-44: "The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you... They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you."

Even the tree that had not sinned, he could not forgive:
Matthew 21:18-19: "Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, 'May you never bear fruit again!' Immediately the tree withered."

Mr Man, I'm not Interested in your exegesis of a book U dont believe in.
I'm interested in you defending your argument.

The forgiveness Jesus offered to his persecutors on the cross- was it only for the Roman soldiers?
Yes or No.
This is my question.

Jesus didn't offer forgiveness to his people but he forgave the paralysed man- He told him your sins are forgiven.
Jesus didn't forgive sin of his own people but forgave the woman accused of adultery- he told her go and sin no more.

Jesus didn't forgive sin of his own people but forgave the woman whom others regarded as a sinner.
Luke 7
39 When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner.”.......

.......48 Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”

49 The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”

50 Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”


Jesus didn't forgive sin of his own people but forgave Zacheus the tax collector and told him today salvation has entered your home

Jesus didn't forgive forgive sin of his people but forgave the sin of the blind man at pool of bethesda.
John 5
14 Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, “See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.” 15 The man went away and told the Jewish leaders that it was Jesus who had made him well.


Pele, your blind hypocritical eye will be forced open sooner or later. The more U dig accusation against Jesus, the more your own beliefs crumble.

Now answer my question in Isaiah 49, U brought the verse not me

WHO IS THE SERVANT MENTIONED IN THAT PASSAGE THAT WILL BRING LIGHT TO THE GENTILES.
WHO IS THAT JEWISH SERVANT THAT HAS MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO ENJOY THE BEAUTIFUL GIFT
OF GOD CALLED SALVATION.

danvon:
A better question should be, if Jesus performed all those miracles and wonders why were there so many Jews who didn't accept Jesus, mind you the Pharisees were very educated moral abiding people who would have common sense to see the truth.

I hope U know the first Christians were Jews- they were called Nazarenes by their own people.
Some were coverts from other Judaism sects like Pharisees and Essenes.
They actually wrote their own gospel called the Hebrew gospel.
Matthew also wrote a gospel to the Christian Jews in Hebrew language.
They had their prayer book called the Didache which is very much around today.
As at the turn of the 1st century AD, judiasm had 4 sects- Pharisee, zealots, Sadducees and Essenes.
As at the collapse of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the sects had become 5, the 5th one are Jesus followers- they call themselves THE WAY. Gentiles called them Christians.

danvon:
James was a Christian but he was a conservative Christian he strictly abided by the teachings of the Torah (unlike Paul), which is why his madness was tolerated, i use the word 'tolerated' because eventually he was killed by the highest moral authority in the land.

Guy that's the problem with U atheist. Neither here nor there, most times everywhere- changing goalpost at will or once U cornered.
Initially U said the gospel was a fiction work by Jesus followers. Now U don't change mouth to some of his followers didn't lie too much. Which is which- did Jesus followers write the truth about him or not?

James regularly preached in the temple in Jerusalem. He would be killed instantly by the people if he utters any blasphemous statement on the altar.
They let him alone albeit didn't accept his teaching because he wasn't uttering heresy. He was simply pointing to them that Jesus is the fulfilment of their scriptures as The Messiah foretold.
Jews have zero tolerance for blasphemy when it comes to thier beliefs.
They went to war with Greece because one of their kings slaughtered pig on temple altar and forced the priests to eat it.

danvon:
Jews caring about James death was simply because of the abuse of authority and the hasty trial, so it was classified as murder to them which was a violation of the Torah.

U gotta be kidding me. Extra judicial killing was rampant in the last 70 years of Jerusalem existence.
The zealots were keen to go to war against the Roman occupation and the Sanhedrin were keen to avoid this.
Perceived enemies were eliminated quietly while the Romans looked the other way
Some of Jesus apostles were mobbed to death in Judea and nothing happened. James case was different only because he was very popular amongst the people.

gohf:
according to the picture you posted a part from the part you highlighted which is absolutely nonsense

When a king honors a person by putting him at his right hand, giving him honor and status, it doesn't mean that person becomes the king or replaces the king. That person is still under the king and example is Joseph when he was honored by Pharaoh.

Isn't it dumb or don't you consider it stupid for one to think that because Eph.2.6 For he raised us from the dead along with Christ, and we are seated with him in the heavenly realms--all because we are one with Christ Jesus. (ALL)

Because we are seated with Christ we are equal to him and as such we should also receive worship as well?

Are if Christ is god because he is seated beside God then we too are gods because we are also seated with him?!

Ok tell me, according to Jewish philosophy, what does it mean to be seated at the right hand of God?

MindHacker9009:
Did the Roman soldiers repent and ask for forgiveness. No your Roman invented Jesus gave them automatic forgiveness, but he could not forgive his own people.

I will reply your other post when I get the chance

At this point I don't think U making sense anymore.
Was it Jesus that told Judas to commit suicide and not repent as punishment for what he did?
Who told Peter to repent when he denied Jesus?

Was it only the Roman soldiers that were mocking
Jesus at the cross?

Matthew 27
39 The people passing by shouted abuse, shaking their heads in mockery. 40 “Look at you now!” they yelled at him. “You said you were going to destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days. Well then, if you are the Son of God, save yourself and come down from the cross!”

So when Jesus said 'Father forgive them, for they know not what they doing'
Was it only for the Roman soldiers?
Even the 2 robbers by his sides also mocked him.
At least one Roman general repented and confirmed Jesus is the Son of God, none of the Jews at the cross was recorded to have repented!!!

I repeat, when Jesus asked for forgiveness for his persecutors, was it only the Roman soldiers?

Uptownerd:

Lol.

You should blame yourself for having cheap brain.

So Satan cannot die huh? No wonder oyinbo people said you guys have 70% IQ, lesser than a chimp.

I'm not surprised that someone who doesn't understand the concept of death would swallow anything from his god called the white man.

Attributing physical human being characteristics to an entity regarded as non physical.
I'm sure he's never heard of MR NIGER D.

so obviously the problem is not the church but also the school.
Lack of quality education has turned him to dunce. No wonder he's on social media asking if satan can die.
Ode.

Uptownerd:
Always pretending to know history of a Middle East county. But doesn't know his own history.

Guy I take my spirituality very seriously.
If I'm to follow a foreign religion, common sense dictates I do a thorough historical research about it b4 believing it to be true.

That doesn't mean I don't know the history of my people. It's equally important to know why the spirituality of my ancestors isn't the true one.

Lucifyre:
😅 Wait o! Is the bolded a joke or just typical brazen ignorance.

Bring evidence to the contrary.
Evidence that says our gospel is a fabrication.

Pls I want evidence from academic reputable bible scholars not some beer parlour gist.

danvon:
He was killed by Jews;

According to a passage found in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews (20.9.1), "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" met his death after the death of the procurator Porcius Festus but before Lucceius Albinus had assumed office – which has been dated to 62.[100] The High Priest Hanan ben Hanan (Ananus ben Ananus) took advantage of this lack of imperial oversight to assemble a Sanhedrin (literally a synhedrion kriton in Greek, a "Sanhedrin of judges", which condemned James "on the charge of breaking the law," then had him executed by stoning (Antiquities 20.9.1). Josephus reports that Hanan's act was widely viewed as little more than judicial murder and offended a number of "those who were considered the most fair-minded people in the city, and strict in their observance of the Law", who went so far as to arrange a meeting with Albinus as he entered the province in order to petition him successfully about the matter. In response, King Agrippa II replaced Ananus with Jesus son of Damneus.[101]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_brother_of_Jesus

Very good U did some research. Now U are transiting from just being a beer parlour atheist based on gossips and gists rather than real factual evidence.

Now James the brother of Jesus was killed by the Sanhedrin. The open minded Jews didn't like it and petitioned the Roman procurate to have those who killed him be punished.
This is because James was well loved by the people- jews or Christians, he often preach in the synagogue and temple.
James was killed around 62 AD, 30 yrs after lifetime of Jesus. Most Jews who loved James and whom he preached to were very much alive during Jesus ministry.

Now if the Jews knew Jesus as a common rabbi, Do U think they will tolerate people like James going about making legendary statements about him.
Won't they call him out for lying?
Would he have such significant following and command respect among the Jews if he's known for fabricating stories about a former rabbi?
Why would they fight their own Jewish leaders for killing James if he was known as a liar and gospel fabricator. I bet they would be glad the blasphemer had been dealt with.

Think my friend, think.

There's a reason no reputable bible scholar has come out to condemned the gospel as work of fiction.
Evidence we keep discovering goes against such narrative.

gohf:
I do need to read more of God's word and not books and fairly tales and fables of men

But instead of boasting and in your pride call God a liar

Read
2Chr.30.12 Also in Judah the hand of God was to give them one heart to do the commandment of the king and of the princes, by the word of the LORD.

Ezra.8.18 And by the good hand of our God upon us they brought us a man of understanding, of the sons of Mahli, the son of Levi, the son of Israel; and Sherebiah, with his sons and his brethren, eighteen;

Isa.62.3 Thou shalt also be a crown of glory in the hand of the LORD, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God.

1Pet.5.6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:

Acts.7.55 - But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
Rom.8.34 - Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Col.3.1 - If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
Heb.10.12 - But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb.10.31 - It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
1Pet.3.22 - Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

Ezek.8.1 - And it came to pass in the sixth year, in the sixth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I sat in mine house, and the elders of Judah sat before me, that the hand of the Lord GOD fell there upon me.
Mark.16.19 - So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.


Job.27.11 - I will teach you by the hand of God: that which is with the Almighty will I not conceal.
Eccl.9.1 - For all this I considered in my heart even to declare all this, that the righteous, and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God: no man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before them.

Ok, since God has a right hand, what about his left hand. Who seated on his left hand.

I asked U a question earlier but U refused to answer.
What does it mean to be seated on the right hand of God according to Jewish tradition

gohf:
oh is it because of that that people made up the whole Jesus is God, God came himself to die to enlight an emotional response from him. That's deceptive and manipulative.

God doesn't hate human sacrifice, he hates murder. Offer your bodies as living sacrifice to God. Sacrifice is service, giving your life for God's purpose, martyrs.

It's appointed every man to die, Jesus becoming a man was going to die or do you think God sent a God to die.

Listen do you understand what John wrote
1John.4.2 By this you may know (perceive and recognize) the Spirit of God: every spirit which acknowledges and confesses [the fact] that Jesus Christ (the Messiah) [actually] has become man and has come in the flesh is of God [has God for its source]; (AMP)
1John.4.3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. (NKJV)


Ask yourself where does your doctrine, teaching and believe where does it come from?

First let's clarify one thing God hates human sacrifice

Leviticus 18
21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.

God who banned Israelites from sacrificing their sons would not then offer his own son as sacrifice for any reason whatsoever
That's a contradiction.

2. The book of John makes it clear Jesus is God.

John 1
18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

So the 1 John passage U quoted is within above context

3. I never said Father came down and died for our sin, neither did I say God died because it's impossible for God to die.

I said the Father put his divinity in a prepared body. So that's not human sacrifice but self sacrifice.
Jesus is human nature + divine nature.
At his death, the divinity separated from his human nature. The divine nature didn't die

danvon:
The Jews did not keep quiet infact they fought hard against the madness, unfortunately their fight against insanity was simply free advertisement the mad people needed to brand themselves as victims and gain support.

How do U know the Jews at that time fought Jesus followers.
What's your source?

danvon:
I do not know how James the brother of Jesus died and I'm not sure you know either.

I'm not even sure Jesus had a brother.

The death of James the just- brother of Jesus is well documented in history by both christians and non Christians.

His manners of death is very important to our discussion here. When he was killed, Jerusalem almost erupted in riot if not for timely intervention of the Roman procurate.

So tell me, how did he die?

AntiChristian:
The Hadith, “Adam was created in His image” means that Allah has a face, an eye, a hand, and a foot, and Adam had a face, an eye, a hand, and a foot. Yet, it does not mean that these things are exactly similar.

And no where does it says anything about blokos!

So tell us why your God was barren for 33 years?

So Allah doesn't have genitals, why did he give Adam one then?