₦airaland Forum

Dtruthspeaker:
We have all seen this before and you know it and you know that you are not the first but your insistence tells me that you have an evil to serve.

The evil you do serve is the evil that you will eat.

I thought she was a honest person seeking answers. I never knew I spent my precious time on a cynic.
Even when u produce irrefutable evidence, they will deny the truth.

I've asked her a simple question on the John resurrection account. She will never answer that question.

TheMadame:
In reporting the same event here is a different gospel. John 18. V1-6

Let me ask u a simple question. According to John's account, did Mary Magdalene visit the tomb alone?

I'm sure u will never be able to answer the question honestly.

TheMadame:
You in your heart know that this your explanation is not realistic especially the one about what Mark says the women did after discovering the missing body and what the other gospels say.
These are simply matters of comprehension. You however have left that and started trying to explain what you BELIEVED happened, thus adding your own ideas and beliefs to what you think happened. Christians/believers must always remember Revelation 22 v18 whenever we try to interpret the holy book please 🙏.


Here is what Mark says happened after the women found the body gone from the tomb. Mark 16 v8.

I think I already addressed this issue. Haven't I?
Are u actually looking for answers or u looking for faults in the bible at all cost. What exactly is your point.
U raised 4 contradictions, I added 2; using the scriptures I explained them all logically.
But u remain obstinate holding on to a straw as an excuse to reject the resurrection claim.
It's like u simply pursuing the letter and not the spirit.

Are u a critic or a Christian seeking answers.
Apparently all other ones made sense to u but wants to hold on to one seemingly contradiction.
If all other could be explained, what gives u the idea that the issue of bewildered women remain a contradiction.

I have seen people who became numb and couldn't talk after experiencing a traumatic situation.
I don't think seeing an angel, an unexpected empty tomb and being told a dead person being alive is a simple story. It's enough to give someone PTSD.

The best explanation is that the women initially said nothing- Mark 16: 8 and then later told the disciples what they saw (Matthew 28:8; Luke 24:9). It would make sense that they were frightened and didn’t know what to do or say. But then later, of course, they spoke up. It's simple logic.

If u are a bible critic pretending to be a Christian, I will advise u read up on chronology of resurrection, u may find your answers there.

TheMadame:
I ask these questions because such a significant event such as the resurrection of our Lord should be a constant and consistent account.
I will post the passages from the four gospels for those more enlightened to cast more light and explanation. Thank you.

I've gone thru the different resurrection accounts in the 4 gospel and the there's actually no contradiction at all.
In fact the different stories complement each other and when merged together the resurrection events makes logical sense

U raised 3 salient points which I will address.
1. The number of women or people who visited the tomb
2. Number of angels
3. Who rolled the stone away
4. What happened after they left the tomb.


1. How many women visited the Tomb?

The important thing to note here is that none of the gospel writers said 'only' a particular number visited the tomb. They simply mentioned names of women they knew that visited the tomb.
actual logical contradiction requires exclusionary clauses such as “only x, y, and z were there and no one else” or “only three people witnessed incident a.” None of the Gospel texts do that here; hence, no demonstrable contradiction exists (see Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1-10; John 20:1).

Gospel of John seemingly makes it like only Mary Magdalene visited the tomb until we get to John 20:2. Mary finds the tomb empty, runs to Peter and (presumably) John, and says the following, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and WE do not know where they have laid Him.”

In reporting the words of Mary, John reveals that there were others with Mary.

2. Number of angels

The area which has generated the most discussion concerns the angels who were at the tomb of Jesus. Matthew and Mark relate that one angel addressed the women, while Luke and John say that two angels were at the tomb. This seems to be a discrepancy, with Matthew and Mark knowing of only one angel while Luke and John speak of two. However, Matthew and Mark do not say that there was only one angel at the tomb, but that one angel spoke to the women.

This does not contradict Luke and John, for Matthew and Mark specify that one angel spoke, but they do not say there was only one angel present or only one angel spoke. Quite possibly, one of the angels served as the spokesman for the two, thus he was emphasized.

3. . Who rolled the stone away

The issue with this question is centrally dealing with whether the stone was rolled away from the tomb when the women arrived. Notice that all but one account are in definite agreement. Mark, Luke, and John all say the stone had been moved when the women arrived. It is only Matthew who reports, or appears to report, that the stone was moved as the women were there. So let’s take a careful reading of the verses in question.


Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. (Mt. 28:1-2)

The event in verse 2 had already happened before the women arrived. They did not witness the earthquake or the angel rolling the stone. By the time they arrived the tomb, the stone was already rolled away. Matthew is only telling the readers how the stones was rolled away.


4. What happened after they left the tomb.

This is another area where we have a large degree of agreement between the Gospels. To varying degrees, the Gospels each report that the disciples were told. Or at least it was the intent to tell the disciples, which is all Matthew reveals. I will merge my explanation here with another seemingly contradiction which is who among the women saw Jesus.

If we study the accounts carefully, we can make the FF logical conclusion;

Mary Magdalene & the other women travel from Bethany to Jesus’ tomb.

Nearing the tomb, they notice the stone is rolled away. Mary runs to tell Peter and John while the rest of the women continued to the tomb.

With no corpse, empty tomb and encounter with strange men; the other women were initially shocked and took time for them to recover from these extraordinary encounter, until they got over their shock they told nobody.

Mary Magdalene returns to Jesus’ tomb with Peter and John.

Peter and John return to the house after seeing the empty tomb. Mary stays behind where she sees Jesus.

Afterwards, the other women returned to Bethany, stopping first in the city to report their findings to Clopas and other disciples. Thereafter, Jesus appears to the other women as they’re headed back to Bethany.

Another popular contradiction bible critics love to raise is the time the women visited the tomb which I will explain here.

All accounts indicate that it was early on the first day of the week. Matthew says it was as the day began to dawn. Mark, Luke and John all say “early”. The difficulty comes when we see John say that it was still dark, yet Mark say that the sun had risen.
Sunrise could vary in appearance depending on subjective observation. What is dark to some could be cloudy to another.
So these terms in reference to the same approximate time of day are not mutually exclusive.

Moreover, another explanation could be where the women journeyed from.
Earlier in the week some of the disciples lodged at Bethany, two miles from Jerusalem. It’s possible that the women were staying there for the Sabbath, and when John says it was “still dark”, he’s referring to the time they left Bethany and “went to the tomb”.
That’s more than enough time to go from “still dark” (Jn. 20:1) to “when the sun had risen” (Mk. 16:2).

While these explanations may be unsatisfactory to the skeptic, they are at the very least reasonable explanations to this apparent discrepancy and an open and honest mind will feel reassured about the consistent account in the bible.

FRANCISTOWN:
Good one.
Are they equal?

Let me help u with this passages in the bible to understand what Christian mean when they say the father and the son has the same essence.

You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
John 14.14


Very truly I tell you,[b] my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. [/b]Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete.
John 16.23-24

Both verses makes it clear u can either ask the father or the son, it's the same outcome. So long as it's in the name of Jesus.
Divinity is one. The substance in the manifestation of the persons is the same.

FRANCISTOWN:
Good one.
Are they equal?

Guy it's the same thing. It's like asking if your soul, spirit and body are equal.
They all posses the same divine essence.

vannessa7:
First of all, there is blood atonement in Islam, when you give birth to a new baby you MUST kill a ram for the naming ceremony on the eight day, if you don't have money you will do it later but give your child name on eight day but you will still kill the ram, during our Eid festival we kill ram or one of the specified animals for celebration but not fish, when you go for Hajj in Mecca each person must kill a ram at a specific time over there during the Hajj.
Now, that said, I will have you know that the more sin the more blood that is required to atone for it. There is a lot of sin wherever grace abound and that's why Christianity require a human blood, Islam however purifies it's followers through the word of God and thats why there seems to be less blood required.

Islam is not actually about good works but about holiness obtained by praying five times daily using the word of God in the Quran, the word of God is mighty, sharper than any two edged sword, especially the Quran which is purely the word of God, no man's opinion in it whatsoever, that is why we revere the Quran because the word of God is God, we don't handle it anyhow and the Quran is also so alive that if you handle it anyhow you will know by yourself very soon because of what you will see, it is not like the Bible where grace of Jesus Christ has made the anger and judgement of God to be tempered down but grace leads to corruption because the devil have a free hand to operate.

Anyway because a genuine Muslim pray using the word of God 5 times daily, crams and recite the Quran which is the pure word of God regularly, performs all the physical cleansing of the body as ordained by Islam using the name of God, he fast Ramadan and also many other specified fasting in Islam, he pays his zakat or sadaka and also obey some simple Islamic injunction such as don't eat pork and don't expose your body, etc, he becomes holy and continues to be holy basically because of the word of God he reads during his five daily prayers and also crams carry the mighty power and presence of God, this make him lose appetite for many sin because the spirit of God comes to live in him, that is why when you go to real Islamic settlement you will find crime rate to be very low. I know many christians don't think Muslims have the holy spirit because I was shocked too to feel the mighty presence of the holy spirit in Islam but genuine Islam is full of the Holy spirit of God.

We also ask for forgiveness of sin verbally without telling God to look at the holiness of another person in order to forgive us as christians do which make their soul redundant, why will your soul be purified when all you need is the holiness of Jesus Christ, instead any evil living in that soul flourish because grace covers him too, it's only when the anointing of the holy spirit is brought down which is actually the power and presence of God during some programs that such evil might leave the soul but it will soon come back due to grace in Christianity, this presence and power of God is always available in Islam you don't need special programs to experience it.

The grace in Christianity comes through sacrifice on the cross while Islam is about obedience because we go to God directly without proxy or load of sin. Obedience is better than sacrifice. A Christian must carry a load of sin to qualify for grace, you must say you are a sinner and Christ died for your sin for you to be qualified for grace. Jesus himself said he came for sinner so if you are holy you don't need him, that's why a possessed person will continue to be possessed and never be completely delivered. Jesus is gentle so the demons and witchcraft powers remain whereas Islam will destroy them immediately you accept Islam and as long as you are a Muslim they will not have power over you because that grace and gentle anointing is not in Islam. The devil flees at the sight of Islam.

Christians however will be given time to be perfect by going through a wilderness experience because although they enjoy grace in this life, they will not see such grace in afterlife, no witch or wizard or familiar spirit will make heaven, you must allow the Holy spirit to destroy them here and that's why most people with serious warfare always receive call into ministry so they can have access to a higher presence of the Holy spirit in order to overcome because it's only holiness which is also the presence of God in ones life that brings permanent deliverance,

Islam brings you closer to God thus your warfare ends as soon as you accept Islam, the strongest pastor in Christianity is in the same category of holiness as a normal regular genuine Muslim who keeps himself and environment clean because dirtiness will nullify Islam in ones life because God will not stay in a dirty place or body. I think I've said enough. Lol

P S: when I talk about warfare I don't mean regular life challenges anyone might experience, I'm talking about darkness, being possessed with demons, witches, idols, familiar spirit, curses etc, because many of my Muslim brethren don't even know what all this mean because a genuine Muslim will never experience them unless you are dirty, it is normal to go through some life challenges but when the devil comes to live with a person, it is not normal , you need Islam.

What I see here is extrapolation of biblical doctrines into Islam which is common among modern age Muslims.
However since u were once an ex Christian and now a Muslim, I would appreciate if u answer this question honestly.
We Christian believe Muhammed is a false prophet because he fails to fulfil the prophethood criteria according to the Abrahamic faith. He failed in most criteria.
Can u show me in the bible evidence that proves Muhammed is a true prophet of God, I'm talking of evidence not some subjective rationality.
It's ok if u produce koranic evidence so long as such can be seen in the biblical prophets.

22jumpstreet1:
Jesus falls in the same category..that's why i reject him..

Then you ve not read the new testament.

Caveatemptor:
Were the gospel writers anonymous or not?
Did they write the gospels in Greek or in Aramaic?
Did the church elders fraudulently name these anonymous books after Mark,Luke, Matthew and John knowing these were not the real names of the authors
We're the gospels not written at least 60 years after the crucifixion?
Were any of these anonymous writers witnesses to the Christ ministry or did they rely on unreliable hear say to write these gospels?

50s AD wasn't 60 yrs after crucifixion my friend.

I will come back and debunk the nonsense anonymous authors u parroting but let me focus on the op first. Seems to be genuine in her quest to learn.

Caveatemptor:
Oga,
You are the one turning a pot of amala and trying to top it up with gbegiri soup. I on the other hand have been consistent that the gospels were written by anonymous people based on hearsay because none of the writers was a witness to the ministry. They only wrote based on he say,she say. None of them wrote in Jesus native tongue which is Aramaic. The gospels were written in GREEK language!
For reasons best known to the church elders they decided to attach the names Mathew, Mark, Luke and John to these anonymous books.

Consistent indeed!!!! It's like we need a new definition of consistency from u. Is this not u talking about 60 yrs gap, suddenly it's been debunked and next thing is to deny it
As I said, good thing u swallowed back your vomit

Caveatemptor:
Oga, stop turning amala for us here. The point I am raising is that none of the four gospels were written by the names ascribed on them. The gospels were written in Greek and they were nameless/anonymous. At a point in time the elders of the early Christian Church fraudulently ascribed names of Apostles to these anonymous books!
There is NO reasonable and true scholar who attributes any of these books to any of the Hebrew followers of Jesus who knew him or were part of his ministry.
Know this and know peace.

Ok u've swallowed back your vomit that the gospels were written 60 yrs after the crucifixion of Jesus. Good.
Now we will examine the authorship of the gospel in detail.

Caveatemptor:
Where did you get the emboldened from? Why tell lies because you want to win an argument?
It has been proven beyond doubt that none of the four gospels were written by immediate followers or even disciples of Jesus Christ!
In fact the gospels of the new testament were written over 80 years after the life of Christ. None of the writers was a disciple. These gospels were anonymous writings with no names attached but were later attributed to Mathew, Mark,Luke and John by the early Church for easy identification.
In the early church period there were more than over 100 various gospels of the life of Christ but when the Bible became a Canon many versions of the gospel were expunged and burnt and only these four were chosen and labelled the gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John.

Historical accounts of the gospel themselves is another strong evidence for their earlier dates.
The books of Luke and acts were written by the same author.
Since Acts is the sequel to Luke, then this must mean that Luke predates Acts. And if Mark predates both Luke and Matthew, then this would date Mark even earlier. Hence, if we can date Acts early, then we can date Luke earlier, and we get the date for Mark thrown in for free.

Arguments for dating the book of acts very early- AD 50s or early 60s.

First, the book of Acts doesn’t record the Jewish War or the Fall of Jerusalem (AD 66-70). The Romans completely decimated the city of Jerusalem in an absolute bloodbath. The Roman army killed 1.1 million Jews, and they took 200,000 captive as slaves. There was an initial siege with a consequent brutal starvation that lasted three years and was an absolute nightmare.

And yet, Luke didn’t write a word about it in the book of Acts! To put this in perspective, this would be similar to a reporter failing to mention World War II, while he was on assignment in Paris in the early 1940s.

Second, the book of Acts doesn’t record Emperor Nero’s persecution of the Christians in Rome (AD 64). Nero began a horrific persecution of Christians after the great fire in Rome, crucifying Christians and burning them alive by the thousands. But yet again, Luke didn’t mention a word about this in his book.
Luke recorded other persecutions (Acts 8:1; 11:19), he also mentioned the expulsion of Jews from Rome by Emperor claudius but he didn’t mention this one, which was one of the worst of its kind. Indeed, a late date for Acts seems utterly out of character with Luke’s picture of the Romans being so friendly and positive to Christianity, which would make no sense after Nero’s campaign.

Third, the book of Acts doesn’t record the death of Peter (AD 67), Paul (AD 67), or James (AD 62). Luke had no problem recording the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7:58) or James of Zebedee (Acts 12:2). And yet, Luke writes nothing about the death of Peter, Paul, and James. These were the three central leaders of the early church, but Luke doesn’t even hint at their deaths.

Fourth, Acts presents theological disputes that would only be issues before AD 70. For instance, Acts 15 centers on the question of whether Gentiles should be circumcised. But after AD 70, most Jewish Christians were sadly gone, and Gentile-centered Christianity grew exponentially. Indeed, the gospels are thoroughly Jewish, but Judaism and Christianity departed radically after AD 70. Luke never highlighted this new fact but left readers guessing if the disciples were indeed pushing for Christianity as a continuation of judaism.

Why did Luke fail to mention all of these cataclysmic events? At this point, the answer is surely obvious: These events hadn’t happened yet! To put this in perspective, this would be like a modern biographer writing an account of the life of Dr. Martin Luther King or JFK, but failing to mention their assassinations!

Of course, this is an argument from silence, but it is a conspicuous silence or deafening silence. That is, we should expect to read about these events, but we do not. This strongly suggests that Luke finished the Book of Acts before any of these events occurred.

This would place the gospel of Luke much earlier and then place the book of Mark and Mathew further earlier in the 1st century. It's just common sense.
There's strong possibility the first gospel was written in the early 50AD.

Caveatemptor:
Where did you get the emboldened from? Why tell lies because you want to win an argument?
It has been proven beyond doubt that none of the four gospels were written by immediate followers or even disciples of Jesus Christ!
In fact the gospels of the new testament were written over 80 years after the life of Christ. None of the writers was a disciple. These gospels were anonymous writings with no names attached but were later attributed to Mathew, Mark,Luke and John by the early Church for easy identification.
In the early church period there were more than over 100 various gospels of the life of Christ but when the Bible became a Canon many versions of the gospel were expunged and burnt and only these four were chosen and labelled the gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John.

All 4 gospels were written in the 1st century AD, one of the criteria used for their canonisation. They were written by people who knew Christ or met with people who knew Christ.
We have evidence that the gospel letters were very much around and publicly read in churches in the 1st century AD
The apostolic fathers were very much aware about the gospel. They quoted from it on their own writings. Apostolic fathers were early church leaders who didn't meet Jesus Christ but knew Jesus disciples in person.
They lived and were active in the 1st century AD.
Father papias mentioned Mathew actually wrote the gospel of Jesus in Hebrew. Polycarp, irenaeus and papias all confirmed John also wrote the gospel of Jesus which is the last of the four to be written.

There's a fragment of John gospel with us now and this has been dated to around ~AD 125!
The John Rylands Fragment (P52) is quite small—only 2.5 by 3.5 inches—and it contains John 18:31-33, 37-38.
This showed all the 4 gospels were likely written within the 1st century.

Moreover, we have texts written in the first century AD that quoted the gospel letters.
The Didache (AD 95) is most likely the earliest extra-biblical manuscript. In 8.2, the Didache quotes from Matthew’s version of the Lord’s Prayer (Mt. 6:5, 9-13).

Father Clement of Rome dates very early as well, because he mentions the Temple still standing in his letters. And Clement cites Matthew (1 Clement 13.2) and the other Synoptic Gospels (1 Clement 24.5; 46..

TheMadame:
Good day.
Recently I was reading the four gospels (Mathew,Mark,Luke and John) accounts of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and found that the four accounts are surprisingly very different.
I said surprisingly because I found out that in some accounts it was many women that visited the tomb while in others it was at least two women.
In one account the women ran away and told the Apostles but in other accounts the said nothing. In fact in one account Peter even followed them to the tomb to see for himself.
There is also discrepancies in how the stone in front of the tomb was rolled away. One account says there was an earthquake while other accounts say the women found the stone rolled away when the women arrived at the tomb.
The accounts also differ on the number of angels at the entrance or inside the tomb. Were they two or was it one angel?
I ask these questions because such a significant event such as the resurrection of our Lord should be a constant and consistent account.
I will post the passages from the four gospels for those more enlightened to cast more light and explanation. Thank you.

U sound like a sincere person and it's a good thing u looking into accuracy and historicity of the bible.

Now in Christianity, there's a difference btw the message and the book. They are not the same.
The message giveth life but the letter killeth.

And we have such trust through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
2 Corinthians 3:4-6

The message is the spirit, the book is the letter.
God delivers his message to his prophets. This message is consistent and devoid of contradiction or errors.
These men of God or prophets writes down this message and pass it across it to us with their human understand and capacity which are most times limited and imperfect.
A good example is when prophets see God in a vision and describe him with a face or hand or sitting on a throne. God is a spirit and is invisible, nobody has ever seen God not even the angels except the son of God.
What the bible writers are describing is what we call anthropomorphism. They assign human characteristics to God to help us understand his action and nature. That doesn't mean the writers were in error or wrong about God, they simply wrote within their own restricted human cognition.
God wants his message to be perfect and preserved, but not the messengers. God doesn't need his messengers to be perfect for his message to be delivered or perfect.
God had never looked for perfection in men and wouldn't do so when it comes to writing his message. He is more than able to protect and preserve his message.

God's message is very clear when it comes to the redemption work of Jesus Christ. He came as a Messiah to redeem mankind by being the eternal atonement for sin. He was crucified, died and resurrected. He was seen by hundreds after his resurrection and ascended into heaven.
All gospel writers confirm and attest to these facts. There's no ambiguity or contradiction regarding his resurrection.
Now as to adjuvant description of the events surrounding the resurrection, each witness would likely give an account of what he could recall or remember. The gospel letters were written few decades after they actually happened, each writer got his source from independent different sources who are likely to give different narratives according to their perception of events. That's not to say they were wrong, and it's possible they were all correct. If we take a careful look into each narrative and do a detailed chronology of events, we may be able to come to a logical non-contradictory conclusion of what happened.
But honestly it doesn't matter. It's the letter and deliberating on such serves no useful purpose.
The key is that the tomb was empty which is the message. The 4 gospels all confirmed this fact.

[quote author=Expanse2020 post=125394999][/quote]And when Peter used the sword he brought along to cut the ear of the high priest servant few hours later...
What did Jesus tell him.


“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.


U and Peter or whichever disciple( b4 he was filled with the holy spirit) are the same. Filled with carnal understanding of the scripture and wanting to interpret it literally.
Jesus was talking about fulfillment of the scripture against transgression and the need to do everything it takes to be well equipped.
He would no longer be with them to help them every now and then, this they need to be adequately prepared including having the sword of the spirit.

One of the disciples took the word literally and brought out 2 swords as evidence of battle ready. Jesus knew he was off point and cautioned him.

“Look, Lord, here are two swords.” the disciples said;
“That’s enough!” Jesus replied

Expanse2020:
I know you don't read Bible just come to blah blah on the net check these out
Matthew 10:34-39
Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law'; and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household. 🤣🤣🤣 he shock you...

Luke 19 vs 27
27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
If you want more make I open your eye

Such a weak attempt at attaching violence to Jesus. A metaphorical statement and a parable depicts Jesus as violent.
When Peter used his sword to defend jesus, what did he tell Peter. How did Jesus calm the situation.

When Peter and John called Jesus to act violent against a samaritan town, what was Jesus' response?

See them, they always looking for ways to justify the atrocious and immoral acts of their false prophet.

AntiChristian:
Ehn! Ehn! So make he go debate with Arab ex-Christian that's a Muslim!
That will balance it up!

Abeg I no get time for the argument holy spirit is directing you to at this moment!

I'm yet to come across an ex Arab christian who became Muslim thru conviction. Most conversion I know are thru compulsion or marriage.
The hatred, violence and hostility showed against Arab Christians is more than enough to make them run away from Islam.

One thing I've noticed about antiChristian, anytime he jams superior argument his spirit leads him to do Usain bolt.
He's yet to respond to my robust prove that God indeed enter his creation.
Now running away from an opportunity to expose his Koran as a book of confusion.
Can naffs be use for spirit in your Koran. Yes or No. I don't need your explanation.

FRANCISTOWN:
Well! You indulged me.

Lemme ask again, what is your stance on the Holy Trinity?

Do you agree that it's 3 different people functioning as one, or one person functioning as three?

Did u check my previous explanation I don't do numbers with trinity.
I will only talk numbers with u if u want to play the game of numbers.

Trinity is one God- ONE BEING manifesting in three persons.
Now check my definition of being and person on this thread.
U would also do yourself a favour if u read up multiple personality disorder, because I know where your thought process will direct u.

AntiChristian:
Christian prince na cannibal?
I know say he get more holy spirit than you all.

Christian prince na Arab christian who was an ex Muslim.
He's well versed in the Koran n hadiths, he also speaks good Arabic. So no where to run for u Muslims when u engage him.
He expose Islam as a sham using your books. Nobody has been able to disprove his points, but many gave their lives to Christ right on his show after he's done with Islam.
That's what will happen to u.

Abi no be ordinary ruh n naff u couldn't answer properly.
I ask u again, which one is called soul and which is called spirit in your Koran.

zoer:
I will really like to see a discussion between Antichristian,Empiree and Drlateef with Christian prince.

These ones to debate Christian prince!!!!
They will give their lives to Christ right on the spot by the time Christian prince is done with them.
At least I've debated 2 of them... antiChristian and Drlateef, them no too Sabi. Christian prince will chew them raw.

Argentina that just dollarised it's economy. Ethiopia is just looking for free money from China nothin more.

BRICS is all about China. China has to make a lot of sacrifice for it to work, they are the only BRICS nation with economic might n financial muscle enough to counter the west and build an alternate global order....in terms of trade, financial market, new currency, new financial institution. China is the only BRICS nation that has the capacity to sustain it.

Unfortunately, China isn't ready to take up such responsibility. To China, BRICS is all about creating more exports market for their products...nothing more.
China wants more countries to join BRICS so they can open up their borders for more Chinese goods. Whether China would reciprocate in kind is another topic altogether.
Italy just announced they will pull out of BRI because they got nothing out of it.
While Chinese export to Italy doubled with BRI, Italian export to China barely had any increase at all.

That's to show u what will eventually happen with BRICS.

FRANCISTOWN:
You are welcome, okay!
Let's deal with the contradictions on this thread first of all...

Your fellow brethrens have tried to reconcile the inconsistencies of the Holy Trinity.

You may look thru my block on this thread, I don't want to re-type to re-ask again, let's avoid redundancy and repetitions.

Simply put, what's your stance about the Holy Trinity and the God person(s)?

I already answered the op.
Since u advocate for no unnecessary repetition, go thru my mentions on this thread.
I do hope your bible exegesis is strong. Trinity debate is not people with shallow knowledge of biblical doctrine.
As u can see, even antiChristian gassed out when I mentioned God enters his creation.

Isaiah 42.13 talks about LORD matching out like a champion....
The Lord will march out like a champion,
like a warrior he will stir up his zeal;
with a shout he will raise the battle cry
and will triumph over his enemies.

Who is the LORD described here who will engage in seemingly physical battle.
The answer is in the book of revelation

11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.”[a] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:

king of kings and lord of lords.

22jumpstreet1:
can you show me Jesus in the old testament?
and where the jews believed he would be divine?

Isaiah 45:5 says 'I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God: I will strengthen you although you have not known Me'


Did you miss that part?

Since u quote from the book of Isaiah, I will be using the book of Isaiah to prove Trinity.

Isaiah 48.
12 “Listen to me, Jacob,
Israel, whom I have called:
I am he;
I am the first and I am the last.
13 My own hand laid the foundations of the earth,
and my right hand spread out the heavens;
when I summon them,
they all stand up together.

14 “Come together, all of you, and listen:
Which of the idols has foretold these things?
The Lord’s chosen ally
will carry out his purpose against Babylon;
his arm will be against the Babylonians.[a]
15 I, even I, have spoken;
yes, I have called him.
I will bring him,
and he will succeed in his mission.

16 “Come near me and listen to this:

“From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret;
at the time it happens, I am there.”

And now the Sovereign Lord has sent me,
endowed with his Spirit.

17 This is what the Lord says—
your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel:
“I am the Lord your God,
who teaches you what is best for you,
who directs you in the way you should go

This is God speaking in this passage but in v16 we noticed God speaking about LORD Almighty sending him.
If God is speaking, then who are “the Lord Gᴏᴅ” and “His Spirit” and “Me”? More confusing still is the fact the Lord God and the Holy Spirit sent the One who is called the First and the Last—the One who laid the foundation of the earth.

Clearly, all three of these entities are God. Isaiah unveiled all three Persons of the Godhead: “the Lord Gᴏᴅ,” referring to the Father; “His Spirit,” referring to the Holy Spirit; and “Me,” referring to the speaker, who later identifies Himself as the “Redeemer” (v. 17). Thus the speaker is the Messiah.

Let's look at another passage in Isaiah chapter 42

22jumpstreet1:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olumba_Olumba

nah so Jesus matter take start? Them kill many people to force them to believe the scam...

Messianic or divinity claim didn't start with Jesus and wouldn't end with him.
People will always believe what they want to believe.

The answer to your response is in the book of acts 5 and Deuteronomy 13.

33 When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you:[b] Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; [/b]you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”



Deuteronomy 13
If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him

22jumpstreet1:
can you show me Jesus in the old testament?
and where the jews believed he would be divine?

Isaiah 45:5 says 'I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God: I will strengthen you although you have not known Me'


Did you miss that part?

If u ready to learn and understand what we Christian believe, I will teach u because I've noticed u very ignorant of Christian doctrine and Christology....but if I noticed any unsound sarcasm from u, I will end it.
Now, I will start with 2 points u raised.

AntiChristian:
Abeg i don even tire with your first comment!

Why does God need to enter his creation?

Abeg make i rest!

U asking why does God need to enter his creation. Well maybe this would help.

Exodus 19


9 The Lord said to Moses, “I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, so that the people will hear me speaking with you and will always put their trust in you.” [/b]Then Moses told the Lord what the people had said.


On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled. 17 Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain. 18[b] Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the Lord descended on it in fire. [/b]The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, and the whole mountain[b] trembled violently. 19 As the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke and the voice of God answered him.

20 [b]The Lord descended to the top of Mount Sinai and called Moses to the top of the mountain. So Moses went up 21 and the Lord said to him, “Go down and warn the people so they do not force their way through to see the Lord and many of them perish. 22 Even the priests, who approach the Lord, must consecrate themselves, or the Lord will break out against them.”

This is old testament not NT. So according to this passage, did God enter his creation Yes or No.

Let me ask u a question, have u actually read the bible. I mean not just picking on verses but done a study on the bible as an apologetic.
From your response here, I don't think so.

What I've noticed about u Muslims apologetics is that your knowledge of the bible is very shallow. Lacking in depth enough to engage in Christian theology.
All u find in the bible is Jesus is God, trinity or Muhammed is in the bible.
Outside of those 3, u people become lost when challenged and become incoherent.

Though I admit there are some exception. I've met a Muslim apologetic who admitted if the gospel of John is true then Jesus must be God. His argument was then hinged on the gospel of John isn't true.

I've also meant some who admitted Jesus is indeed divine but not at the same level as the father.
These are Muslims apologetics who have actually studied the bible and fully understand the content and message.

Unlike most nairaland Muslim and atheist apologetics who can't even explain basic Christian theology from the bible.

AntiChristian:
Abeg i don even tire with your first comment!

Why does God need to enter his creation?

Abeg make i rest!

Start attending a bible class and learn about the bible.
U have a long way to go.
Imagine saying God doesn't enter his creation. Extrapolating confusing koranic messages to Christianity.

What was God doing inside garden of Eden of he doesn't enter his creation, how did adam and eve see him.
Have u ever heard of the tabernacle and the holy of holy. What's is it about.

All u Muslims know is shouting is Jesus God up and down or how can God be three....as if any Christian ever told u he believes in 3 gods.
When we challenge u on such erroneous believe, u gas out fast.

AntiChristian:
Where was God incarnate in the Old testament?

Anywhere God is seen in bodily form in the old testament. Abraham saw God, Jacob saw God, Moses and Israelites leaders saw God.

AntiChristian:
Why do God need to have incarnate to copy pagans and paganism?
If Jesus has human nature and human soul doesn't that make Jesus greater than the father who has no human nature and human soul?
All these are theories which can never be proven from the direct words of Jesus even in your New Testament!

Numerous verses described incarnation of God in the New testament.
I already quoted some, check previous mentions.
Read more here...

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Matthew 1:23
"Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us."

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

John 8:58
Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

AntiChristian:
O, can you show me how God created Adam from earth and blow Spirit and Soul in to him?
Do show me the separation of Soul and Spirit in man from the Bible!

“My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (Luke 1:46-47).

“For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12)

THESSALONIANS 5:23
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole SPIRIT and SOUL and BODY be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.


God made man in his image, gave him a soul in a body to become a living being.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

AntiChristian:
God is one yet has three person[b]s[/b] that can act separately yet Human body and soul/Spirit can't act likewise!

Human being is one entity who is expected to be one person.
However go and read about multiple personality disorder and we will revisit the topic.
If u also believe in witchcraft, then u have no leg to stand on.

AntiChristian:
Where does God have a soul?

I will make my dwelling among you, and my soul shall not abhor you. Lev 26.11

And they put away the strange gods from among them, and served the Lord: and his soul was grieved for the misery of Israel. Judges 10.16

AntiChristian:
So we can finally agree that the Godhead was on the throne while there was no one on the right side of your Godhead??

Of course it is the Godhead on the throne, who else would be on the throne. He has no right side or left side my friend.
Na u no Sabi wetin be Godhead.

Thank me for the bible enlightenment. At least uve learnt a lot today.

Now let me educate u further.
Is the sunlight, sun heat and the image of the sun we see in the sky different. Do u think they are separate?
Are they 3 different entity i.e not of the same substance.

AntiChristian:
Common Mr. man, people saw God face to face in the Bible!

When God enters his creation he becomes visible. In his essence or real nature, he's invisible. Bible makes that clear.
When people see God in vision, they describe him in anthropomorphism, their vision has to make meaning to convey the right message.

AntiChristian:
It's the Bible that describes God poorly! How does three persons exist as father, Son and Spirit yet they are one!

Go and read about multiple personality disorder, then we wil come back to this topic.

AntiChristian:
The above Daniel verse still mentions one person on the throne and the other standing coming to him! The one on the throne gave authority to the one standing as he does not have authority before!

The Jewish people Stephen was talking to understood the message clearly. Daniel was describing the Messiah.
Only God should be worshipped, only him has an everlasting kingdom. They knew Messiah who was to come has the same divine essence as God...He's the son of God.
That's why anybody who doesn't fit this description to them but claimed such is put to death for blasphemy.

AntiChristian:
Why don't you see so many contradictions?

God is not man!
God became man!
Jesus is God!

There's no contradictions my friend.
God is not a man, but God can enter his creation to become man. THAT DOESNT MAKE HIM A MAN.
Jesus is GOD INCARNATE. We already thrashed that.

FRANCISTOWN:
We already know that the bible is full of gaffes and contradictions but I'm not bothered about that.

I'm really happy to educate u on this so called contradictions.
But on one condition, we take it one at a time.
I've engaged atheist on this in the past and always end up jumping from one point to another without any conclusive ending.
Take one contradiction, thrash it out and then move to the next.

AntiChristian:
The father is fully God and 0% man!

Jesus is fully God and fully man!

Who is greater?

Already answered. Check my previous mentions to u.