@olabowale, samba123, holythug (and any others who have been celebrating Deedat),

When you are done belly-dnacing, could you please refrain from entertaining us with your frantic jokes? Abeg, make una answer this question as asked before - so we can move on from that spot and go on with more intelligent discussions on the same John 1:1? Afterall, Deedat attacked John 1:1 on the same GREEK that I am now discussing here, focusing particularly on his allegations against LOGOS and THEOS. So in this thread, we are examining those allegations. Don't baulk out too earlier - that would be cowardice!

Here is the assignment again:

---

The second set of queries I offered earlier is quoted below:

stimulus:

Do you care to demonstrate the true meaning of the following Greek terms:

[list]Θεός,

Θεού,

θεον,

Θεώ,

Θεέ,

θεοίς,

θεοί,

Θεών ?!?[/list]

Do you care to please show me what they mean, and point out the verses in the New Testament where they have been used?

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113535.0.html#msg1969896

This is another assignment which I’d left as a challenge earlier for you guys to demonstrate your scholarship in the Greek terms for ‘God’ before applauding your muslim propagandists on their allegations againt the Gospel of John.

Several of you have complained that you do not see the purpose in this. All well and good. You never made that same complaint against Deedat when you celebrated his attack on the Gospel of John; nor did you consider the “purpose” of your recyling the same argument on this forum to push your own allegations against the Greek terms for God in the NT. Since you are convinced that Deedat might have done a splendid job confusing you all the more, it was no big deal for me to directly challenge you guys by throwing open an invitation to examine the Greek in either the Bible or the translation of the Qurân in that language. You have forever ducked and evaded that invitation.

By the time you fail to attend this second set of assignment, you would clearly demonstrated that fallacy of your own arguments and the fact that none of you had a clue of what you were celebrating in Deedat’s rants before seeking to recycle the same material to mesmerize readers in this forum.

Do you care to look into that small assignment once again and attend to it? And please, no long or irrelevant stories and excuses to circumvent this subject – just either deal with the topic of this thread, or save your harrumph and pass silently.

---

There!

Please attend to that asignment and don't reharsh the same cowardice of making excuses every time!

Enjoy!

@holythug,

I salute O! You sef come bail yourpikins comot for here? Relax. . . they are in safer hands than in Deedat's!

holythug:

bware of d greeks & dia gifts language

That is why we need to beware of the translation of the Qur'an into Greek!

holythug:

dnt b deceived. . .

That is why I'm taking down Deedat's deception!

holythug:

i hope there ll b a conclusion on this issue

If you hang with us long enough, you go see a beautiful finish!

@samba123,

Oga samba, you sef dey here? No wahala. A big welcome dey wait for you here!

samba123:

Now STIMULUS is taking us on the Subject about the Theos and theon which he only know the Greek Language by his philosophy to fool people not to argue to him because he can speak and write those language of the Greek.

Na my fault say you and olabowale + Deedat no sabi Greek? Or why is this weasling cough the excuses tyhat you guys are now using as cover-up for your celebrated embarrassment of the illiterate argument of Deedat on John 1:1?

samba123:

Like you’re talking to a stranger without knowing his/her foreign language of what he/she really explaining because he is only talking by himself.

Gbam! That is exactly what Ahmed Deedat did to cheat you guys! And that is why after you all celebrated his redundant trash-talk, I decided to sit you all in this cubicle and upgrade your IQ.

samba123:

Did everybody in this Site know how to Write and speak Greek so that we can understand what he is trying to explain.?

Nobody needs to be a Greek literate, before they understand what I am posting. That is why I post both in Greek and English. If that proves a challenge for you, shebi you talk say you get Greek friend before - oay call am come translate for you now! Why you dey whimper like say you chop red-hot-chili with ogoro to top it?

samba123:

Raise you RIGHT FOOT!!!

Haaawww-haaawww! I no fit laugh! I don talk before - I go repeat am: una go see pepper for this thread!

samba123:

How can we discuss in a proper way if you’re talking in French and you’re listeners is a German or Spanish?

Go and ask Deedat in his grave that same question! How could you be celebrating his attack on the Greek on John 1:1, when you neither had a clue on Greek, Aramaic . . . or even Hebrew?!? I never even start wey olabowale dey "jabo" say make I no threaten am with Hebrew - wetin happen?

samba123:

That illogical approach nobody will listen to you of what are you saying.

Yeye pikin!   Those who came here have seen the rubbish that Deedat made of himself - and that is why you guys, after wandering endlessly on the net and not finding any article to plagiarize, now come back crawling so miserly to weasle your cough here!

Bobo, do me one favour. . . just silently fold yourself away from here, or remain and help your adulators who are stuck on the small assignment I left them! Next time, una go softly thread on areas that are too intellectual for your galivanting holidays!

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Stimulus: Demostrate your knowledge, first in your language: Yoruba and then English.

Another perfect excuse to derail this thread? Baba olabs, I don tell you - as for this particular argument on the Greek, you, holythug, samba123, and babs787: all of una go see pepper! I have dicussed the Yoruba terms of 'God/deity' with YOU olabowale in another thread; so what is this lullaby that you're crying here? Yeye man!

olabowale:

You and me only go to the Website to learn Greek.

You alone and the rest of your camp may go to websites to learn otiose 'Greek', the type of "Greek" that cheats like Deedat becomes your headmaster! As for me, I go straight to the source and read the Greek! That is why I asked you to come along and let's examine the Greek translation of the Qur'an! You have forever ducked that invitation!

olabowale:

Yet you have never seen a Greek with your own eyes, except on TV.

Why you dey lie on top of your injury? I don't boast like a wussy the way you do - but I have lived among the Greeks in several countries. Do you know that there are Greeks (or native Greek-speakers) in South Africa, Turkey, Romania, Italy, and France? At least, I've been to all these countries, mingled with the Greeks in those countries (their babes too fine ). . . and I've actually lived with these Greeks in two of those countries! You can see why I would trash you and Deedat any day and any time!

olabowale:

I have many friends who are Greeks. There are many Mus'lims who are Greeks. I bet they know their language better than you and me.

Put all of them together, and top the list with your best scholars - when you all arrive, I go still trash una well-well on the same Greek!! Please bring your friends and let's examine the Greek translation of the Qur'an! By the time we even go a quarter of the way, you go abandon ship altogether! Yeye man!

olabowale:

You avoided the Trinity dialogue and you are sending me on a wild goose chase.

I still dey on the Trinity subject kampe - that is why I sent you on a small assignment on the same Gospel of John that Deedat sought to attack with his functionally illiterate arguments!

olabowale:

My man, I no dey fall for that kind of trick. Thats 419 in my book.

Good for you! Did you not realize that Deedat was a professional 419 cut-and-run artist when you plagizrized his articles and reposted on Nairaland? Did you complain and whimper this way when the whole lot of you (babs787, olabowale, holythug) reharshed that material to mesmerise readers on this forum? Una never start!

olabowale:

face reality and thats the only way I will attend to you.

You are on the reality hot seat, ma guy! Smart up and let me know when you wake up from your slumber!

@olabowale,

The second set of queries I offered earlier is quoted below:

stimulus:

Do you care to demonstrate the true meaning of the following Greek terms:

[list]Θεός,

Θεού,

θεον,

Θεώ,

Θεέ,

θεοίς,

θεοί,

Θεών ?!?[/list]

Do you care to please show me what they mean, and point out the verses in the New Testament where they have been used?

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113535.0.html#msg1969896

This is another assignment which I’d left as a challenge earlier for you guys to demonstrate your scholarship in the Greek terms for ‘God’ before applauding your muslim propagandists on their allegations againt the Gospel of John.

Several of you have complained that you do not see the purpose in this. All well and good. You never made that same complaint against Deedat when you celebrated his attack on the Gospel of John; nor did you consider the “purpose” of your recyling the same argument on this forum to push your own allegations against the Greek terms for God in the NT. Since you are convinced that Deedat might have done a splendid job confusing you all the more, it was no big deal for me to directly challenge you guys by throwing open an invitation to examine the Greek in either the Bible or the translation of the Qurân in that language. You have forever ducked and evaded that invitation.

By the time you fail to attend this second set of assignment, you would clearly demonstrated that fallacy of your own arguments and the fact that none of you had a clue of what you were celebrating in Deedat’s rants before seeking to recycle the same material to mesmerize readers in this forum.

Do you care to look into that small assignment once again and attend to it? And please, no long or irrelevant stories and excuses to circumvent this subject – just either deal with the topic of this thread, or save your harrumph and pass silently.

lafile:

Abi na Pinky from Pinky and the Brain.

Na di manifestation of their scholarship!

@olabowale,

olabowale:

I jokingly ask 4Him if he believed that the virginity odf mary would have lasted the night if they married just few hours before, putting into considerations the Sematic sexual obligations and even 4Him's personal statement that he will 'eat the yam, the moment he actually have the right to it), through the pregnancy brought about by "the holy spirit,' yet they called "God the father," his father and failed to call him son of holy spirit.

You're hoping that the Biblical prophets would have to wait until olabowale was born before they could call Jesus whatever you're hoping to read! For sure, the Bible clearly referred to Jesus as the "child of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 1:18) in context of how Mary became pregnant with Jesus (see Luke 1:35 which describes what happened).

Your thinking confirms that you have never read the Bible, and you have a typically prejudicial mindset to argue childishly about issues you have no clues about! Instead of making noise endlessly, throw your kettle away, roll your mat to one corner, stop knocking your head several times on the ground shouting Lai-la-la-yada-yada. . . and READ the Bible before assuming anything!

If you think that Muhammad's tales in the Qur'an are worth the dust in Medina, you're joking with your destiny - and the rubors is what we often read in your arguments!

olabowale:

In all we will see that each idea negates the other in a way that there is doubt through it all.

In all, we see that what the Bible teaches as a coherent whole strengthens the faith of those who take the time to examine it. The prophecies of the Biblical prophets are not to be mistaken for the Qur'an whic clearly says that Muhammad's teachings are certain to increase contunmacy and disbelief (Qur. 5 v 68).

olabowale:

How can jesus be his own father, getting his own mother pregnant?

WHERE does the Bible teach that Jesus is His own Father, olabowale?

This kind of remarks is quite illiterate, because you are forcing yourself to whip up every excuse that you cannot defend from either the Bible, Qur'an or your sahih hadiths! It is so embarrassing that the only thing I've come to see about Muslim thinking are lies and illiteracy! Every time you guys open your mouth, na LIE and illiteracy go "jabo" automatically! You no dey shame at all?

olabowale:

I remember as a child the song in Yoruba: Oyun oko ko rara, oyun ale ko rara, emi mimo to mi wa, edumare to mi wa, lagbara oga ogo, OSIJI BOMI LORI O,  (I think you Christians from Yorubaland know the truth and the whole story. Tell your non Yoruba Christian friends). OSIJI BOMI LORI O; means he came over me and cover me( I bet if that is not mounting or Sire (intercourse, I do not know what that is), yet we see our Christian friends trying to convince us that there is not sex involved here!

I'd advise you get your dirty mind out of the gutter so you can reason clearly! The incarnation of Christ did not involve any sexual intercourse - and I've posted the verses (Matt. 1:18 and Luke 1:35) where the Bible declares how the birth of Christ came about.

Did The Great Prophet with his sex-drive teach you olabowale that the birth of Jesus Christ involve any "mounting or sire" to involve sexual intercourse? Can you get your filthy mindset off your arabian gutter for a moment? You just can't contain yourself when it comes to lewd thinking, and it is no wonder that with all your Lai-la-ila-yada-yada, you still are slaving your conscience to prove your moral looseness.

olabowale:

But we all forget that God Created Adam and his wife eve, without any example, and brought them to life by just a simple command process "Be, and it is!" Yet he allowed then to bring forth children by the way we accept most children are brought about. But that is not the only way: We have seen surrogate motherhood, and others process, yet knowledge is not complete.

It is because you're so confused in Islam that is why you keep remarking that "knowledge is not complete" after you've argued senselessly! Why do you force yourself to make assertions that you never read either in the Bible or Qur'an? Is duplicity and mendacity the chief qualities you celebrate in your religion?

@olabowale,

olabowale:

If I respond to the analysis of Trinity by M_Nwankwo, I would have to say that one of those three persons (even though they always want us to believe that it is One person, yet they write Three always), will have the same nature as the other two: eg, eating, drinking, defeacating, tiredness, sleep and slumber, being weak and powerless at the point of death, bleeding, etc and death.

You would only come to that inference because you have failed to understand the NATURE and ESSENCE of 'GOD'. This is why you need to refrain from your otiose noise and read the Bible instead, so that you can better understand what it teaches.

The Bible teaches that Jesus is the LOGOS, and as such He is God (John 1:1). That same chapter records that He became Man (John 1:14) - which would no doubt mean that He would live on the earth as a Man, both eating and drinking (Matt. 11:19), experiencing sleep (Matt. 8:24), bleeding from wounds inflicted upon Him (John 19:34), and experiencing death in the flesh (John 19:30).

However, all this did not affect His divinity nor negate the fact that He is God. For He demonstrated His Deity in healing the sick and casting out demons by His word (Matt. 8:16), declared the authority of His divinity in stating that all men should honour Him even as  they honour the Father (John 5:23), and His resurrection ultimately proved His divine Sonship (John 21:14).

Your problem here is to assume that death finalizes everything, and therefore points to weakness and powerlessness. How wrong and assuming you can be, olabowale. Death did not negate the divine power of the Son of God; for even in death, He went and preached unto the spirits in prison (in the underworld - 1 Peter 3:19), and the Bible declares that it was impossible for death to hold him bound (Acts 2:24).

What you have done and have been doing is to reduce the Divinity of Jesus to mere humanity - just the same way you assume about Muhammad who denied the divine Sonship of Christ. What you don't realize is that you're slaving yourself on a huge lie that sounds plausible; but that lie collapses in the face of enormous revelations of the Biblical prophets who pointed out that the Messiah is God. You cannot ask us to look at the tales of the Quraish prophet and jettison the weighty evidence of the Biblical prophets who came earlier!

Against all your arguments of cherry-picking verses from the Bible, there are both OT prophecies and NT fulfillment that point to the divine Sonship of Christ. Since the Qur'an demands that Muslims must believe in the revelations of ALL the Biblical prophets, I would like to see what your reaction would be by the time I post those verses and ask you to discuss or DENY them based on Muhammad's tales.

Do you care to discuss those prophecies, olabowale?

olabowale:

But we also know that God Almighty Creator never died, never tired, never warried, absolutely created and not just through Him, like the Christians associated with Jesus, has controls over all things including Angels and Jesus (remember the prayer of Jesus at the garden?), can forgive independently of anybody and all forgiveness is absolutely His alone, not a son of any body, so Mary was not His mother, but mother of Jesus (Surprisingly the angel appeared to Joseph to tell him that his wife is already pregnant;

You are sounding even more childish and incoherent. What do you mean by "Mary was not His mother, but mother of Jesus"? Is this how beggarly you have reduced your argument - just ranting and making no sense?

olabowale:

And i remember asking 4Him that was Mary already Joseph's wife in the household at that time or just that it was a future wife and husband project, while mary was still under the authority and guardianship of Zacharia, a male relative?

Now, let me ask you - was Mary ever under the "authority and guardianship" of Zacharia? Please don't evade that question, because if you do, I would have no alternative than to expose your hypocrisy in this wishy-washy ideas even more.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

How could you have missex my mentioning of mark 12 Verse 29, which you did not even try to bring to focus in your entry? Afterall, this is from the Bible, and more importantly, from the mouth of the master himself, Jesus son of Mary (according to the Bible). I know that jesus did not lie.

I did not miss Mark 12:29, and if truth be told, I have personally invited you to a discussion of that verse several times! Why this hypocrisy, olabowale? Are you not the same fella who begged that I should not consult the original languages of the Bible when discussing that very verse and John 1:1 as regards the Trinity? You cannot be disingenuously making such remarks when you are the same person who refused to enter a discussion of that verse!

olabowale:

How do you then explain the Trinity in light of this single Verse; Mark 12;29?

Rather than remain on just one verse of the Bible, the whole needs to be considered before making any inference. The Bible itself teaches that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20), and one has to look at any particular verse contextually in relation to other verses in order to get the full meaning of what is being taught. To ignore this principle, olabowale, is to read your own fancies into the Bible (a principle known as "eisegesis" - and this is what Muslims have been doing all along!

When you break the very principle of reading and interpretting the Bible, your own assumptions then become a waste; and you will be hard pressed convincing anybody that you have arrived at the meaning of a verse in the Bible.

olabowale:

Afterall where there are disagreements, we must take the word of a more trusted individual: Bewteen the Bible writers on one hand and jesus on the other, I will side with Jesus, any day and any time.

Good. If you're going to be honest and side with Jesus any day and any time, please understand that the same Jesus clearly said that He is the Son of God!

In the same Mark's Gospel, the high priest questioned Him directly with these words: "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And from Jesus' lips came the answer: "I am" - Mark 14:61-62.

Will you still be the hypocrite "any day and any time" who refuses to side with Jesus when He declared that He is the Son of the Blessed?

olabowale:

In Is'lam, all the Imams said in their individual disclaimer: If you find anywhere where I have an opinion that is different from my prophet Sayiddina The Great Prophet bin Abdallah, disregard my opinion and take that of the Prophet (as), because if I had known his opinion before offering mine, it would have been his opinion that i would offer. This is classic deferrence of knowledge to the one who have more ad pure knowledge.

Such a disclaimer demonstrates the rigid hypocrisy of your Imams, mullahs and ulema who slave themselves on the classic denials of Muhammed.

The revelations of the Biblical prophets are not the "opinions" of men; for "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). So, if your Imams are fond of making such classic disclaimers as you stated in deference of the classic denials of Muhammad, they all the more confirm that his "opinions" do not count in the face of Biblical revelations given to the Prophets!

olabowale:

Afterall, it is Jesus who would know bettr about his own mission between he and the Bible writers (yet they could have been so many in number).

The writers were His disciples (except Luke) - and they recorded Jesus' ministry as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). They should know better than Muhammad who confused issues several centuries later and never saw Jesus at any one time; and often making things up as he went along - to the extent he was both denying and fabricating events which he claimed were "revelations" from 'Allah'.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

Stimulus, I advise you to take a cue from this man, M_nwankwo. This is how to argue. You plung into it, directly, not have stepping with rage and anger that you have displayed, so far.

I do not argue aimlessly; and if you mind your incessant ridiculing of the Trinity and subjects you do not understand, you won't need to be complaining about my responses. I haven't seen you argue directly in any subject without recourse to dishonest remarks and sly innuendos. Cut out the patronizing hypocrisies and let's read some honest debates in yours.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

Stimulus, i am hoping you will be honest. But that is a very difficult thing for you.

Can you show me where I have been dishonest - anywhere you can point out the same mendacity you celebrated in Deedat's illiterate arguements? Do you care to show fault my debate by correctly interpreting the Greek terms for all to see?

This kind of weasling cough you often make as a cover-up for the fallacies in your arguements are graciously wearing out with age.

olabowale:

I simple responded to your first Biblical verse, both in Greek and its translation in English.

You rather simply plagiarized Deedat's supercillious and functionally illiterate arguments which you posted on the forum.

If you had any confidence of the Greek language (let alone English), why did it take you forever to respond to the single small assignment I left you and repeated in posts #4, #8, #12, #15, #18, #20, #21, #22, and #30? Your repeated evasion and tergiversation did not demonstrate your honesty or scholarship in this thread; and coming back to lay claim that you responded both in Greek and English is frontpage headlines best suited for the "international association of blatant liars". Please don't patronize me with this cowardice.

olabowale:

In it we find that it claimed that God is God of the living alone.

It did not make any such claim. If you ever tried to follow my reposte, in quoting Mark 12:27, I clearly stated that: "When Jesus proclaimed the veracity of the resurrection to the Jews in Mark 12, He mentioned the Greek term 'theos' twice in verse 27" (post #33). That verse never said that "God is God of the living alone" - as it is not an argument of what type of "God" He is!

The verse was a response to the Sadducees who deny that there is any "resurrection" (see from Mark 12:18 onwards and compare with Luke 20:27) - and Jesus made that statement to demonstrate the veracity of the "resurrection" by reminding them that Moses' calling Him the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a clear indication that the patriarchs will be resurrected! Infact, Luke 20:38 makes it clear with these words: "For He is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for ALL live unto him".

olabowale:

When I challenged you that you have not given full measure to the Creator, you resulted to your usual tactics: Please fish or cut bait. If your Bible make this kind of incomplete opinion about God, don't blame me, if simply point it out, which you blindly presented it in the first place.

Your attempt to make this an arguement of what kind of "God" He is, does not arise at all. The thread is not even an argument about whether God is the "Creator", or whether the living and dead were "created" by Him. In both the Gospel of Mark and other verses, we find that He created everyone, whether they be male or female (see Mark 10:6). But because you're looking for every excuse to deflect the topic of this thread, you have tried to gravitate from the discussion of the Greek texts in John's Gospel to an otiose and wasted argument of whether God is the "Creator"! Dear olabowale, that argument is illiterate and irrelevant to this thread!

olabowale:

In all indication, you can not even impress me about your essays defending Trinity, God or god or gods and John 1;1, yet you contin ue to pile up verses!

You refuse to be impressed - and understandably because you are so ashamed of Deedat's illiterate rants! Was he not "piling up verses" in his argument to re-configure the Greek texts of John's Gospel to bend them to say what they never taught? Did you miss the fact that his denial of "logos" (λογος) meaning "word" in ancient Greek has been soundly refuted (post #2)? And his confusion between "theos" and "theon" (post #1)?

Why do you Muslims play this hypocritic games of mewling like kids after your plagiarized arguments have been wasted?

olabowale:

Whats the purpose of that?

Go back to my original post - I stated it there! You should be asking what "purpose" Deedat had in mind when he ventured to attack John 1:1.

olabowale:

Afterall, I am not greek and to tell me go dig up the root word of words in Greek is completely absurd.

Your absurdity is what you're complaining about here! I warned you guys to zip up on arguments that you cannot sustain - and the next we knew, you and holythug had hurriedly reposted the same plagiarized argument from Deedat as your bastion to hold your spine. It makes me wonder that if you guys are that spineless, why then even venture into subjects that you had no clues about in the first place - only to whinge like kids after your celebration of Deedat has been wasted?

olabowale:

Considering that your greek Bible verse, when translated to English cuts out God from being the God of the dead. Again, I ask you, who is the God of the dead, apart from God?

Scroll up and see how otiose your arguments are!

olabowale:

So according to your Bible verse above, please tell us, because enquiring mind want to know?

I have done so.

Now do you mind returning to the Greek terms for 'God' in the NT which Ahmed Deedat demonstrated himself as a functionally illiterate "scholar"?

Wordsmith:

Dude, you are beginning to sound like IR Baboon on "IM Weasel". . .

I tire for the guy!

@olabowale,

olabowale:
If you and the whole of Christendom believe that God is only the God of the living (physically or spiritually dead people) you would have short changed Him. For before those who are dead became dead, they were alive, once. And for those who were spiritually dead became spiritually dead, they must have been at one time not spiritually dead. For one can not be dead unless being alive at a point, in time before the death occured. B

And what sense have you made now with this boring incomprehensible garboil? How does that relate to your defence of Deedat's rants of the Greek on John 1v1?!?

I cautioned you before - no deflections can help atone for the fact that you guys have been celebrating an illiterate argument from one of your propagandists who thought his duplicity would easily pass unnoticed for eons!

olabowale:
But it is this same God who will judge everyone, those were spiritually dead and those who were spiritually alive. But judgement can not occur unless all are physically dead. But that is another issue that i am sure that you and me can disagree upon. But thats not my reason here.

You sound even more confused by the minute! If that was not your reason here, then why do you make so much effort to be so garrulous about nothing?

olabowale:
My reason here is to ask you, if your understanding is that God is not the God of those who are dead, but those who are living, who then is the God of those who are dead (Spiritually dead means in one form or the other denial of God or propper worship of Him; And only He can give the precepts of how to worship Him)?

You can take that question to the relevant thread, because I will not be teased and patronized to be distracted from the subject of this thread - LOGOS and THEOS! I knew you'd always make every effort to divert this thread; but sorry, it won't avail here - it never does with me.

olabowale:
If that verse above is your bringing about God into trinity, then you have eliminated the dead people from under Trinity authority! You will now realise that all of these verses and incomplete arguments from you, are somehow and glearingly at that just do not do it for you.

You're arguing incoherently now, for sure! I posted those verses as examples of the assignment I left you - to demonstrate that there are several Greek terms for 'God' in John's Gospel; and those which appear without the definite articles (ο, η, του, τον) are all the same referring to 'God' (contrary to what Ahmed Deedat had argued).

Now, olabowale, can you tell me why it took you forever to answer that small assignment (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113535.0.html#msg1976559) - only to barge in here with the unintelligible noise above? If you were confident you had answers, why have you deliberately ducked that assignment forever, only to show up wasting your brains on issues you clearly have demonstrated you just have no clues about?

olabowale:
Almighty Creator says in His Book that I am your Creator and all that you create.Afterall we need the elements which god created without example to creat whatever we create.

How does that answer Deedat's argument of the Greek in John 1:1?!?

olabowale:
So when Jesus brought about the dead person, the person was already created, lived and died, and jesus only repeated a part of the existence of that persons total life. Yet and finally, the oerson died off again. I am sure that if raising people from death was part of the fukll control of jesus, all those whose people died prior to and after he performed that raising of the dead miracle, would have asked him to raise their people. Thats on one hand and they would have asked him to refuse dead from all of them, if not all mankind.

How does that answer Deedat's argument of the Greek in John 1:1?!?

olabowale:
You see we would have had those people and all their descendants still alive today. What i am saying here and if you can attempt to argue against me on this is that, the way you continue to define God, from the Biblical pronouncement, using Greek or other language, does not do justice to the Majesty of the Most Majestic.

It is not "my" definition. I had only one assignment here - and that is to zip your noise on Deedat's otiose arguments and mae sense out of the nonsense he has argued against John 1:1. I've answered the basic questions you guys ferreted from his illiterate arguments; and I went on to challenge you guys to demonstrate your own scholarship on the same John's Gospel by offering a few selected verses. Did you ever attempt to answer those few questions? WHERE? And now you have the temerity to allege that it is "my" definition of 'God'.

What did you say about Deedat's remark by way of his own definition when he stated that "o theos or ton theon" are proper ways of saying "God"?!? Did YOU not repost the same otiose argument in the Trinity thread - here: (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-103159.128.html#msg1966684)?!?

If Deedat was arguing that "o theos or ton theon" properly define "God", then why make that my own definition when as a matter of fact my premise in this thread is to waste his redundant arguments?

olabowale:
To say the dead do es not belong to Him, is to plainly say that He did not creat them.

Did I ever say that the dead did not belong to Him? Or are you beginning to fail badly in your English skills?

olabowale:
Afterall, He created Bamowolo, Therationa, KAG, Horus and their likes on nairaland, even though they may not accept that premise.

I don't see where those discussants have been plagiarizing Ahmed Deedat on the Greek of John 1:1 and celebrating his otiose arguments such as you guys have.

olabowale:
God is also the Creator of those who are physically dead, though they may have been spiritually alive or dead before.

How does that answer Deedat's argument of the Greek in John 1:1?!?

@SysUser,

SysUser:

Nevertheless, my suggestion is that we Christians should find a way to vote on nairaland so that after the voting has been closed (after a week of voting) we can then send the voting result to Seun, petitioning him about our need to have him stop replacing the word AL.LAH with GOD.

Please let me know your suggestion and kindly pass this one to either Pilgrim.1, 4Him, Davidylan etc, so that we can quickly be able to get it done,

Will do - and I'm sure as the others visit this message, they'll follow up on it.

Many blessings.

@samba123,

samba123:

STIMULUS you’re diverting the subject to a Greek discussion simply to get some attention that you can convince other to believe in your opinion. You cannot foul people by your philosophy presenting the idea of those two word Ton Theo and Theos in Greek language. Even I am not convince of what you’re presenting. Dictionary cannot help to configure what exactly the meaning of the word, if we like to find the true meaning we should have the fact in the scripture of the prehistoric time, presented, and construe in their original form. We all know that the Greek Religion are idolatry, any name of the Gods you mention in their different names can be translated by their own language. If you just defining word and come out with the Trinitarian is doesn’t make any sense at all.
Still may question Define your God Ton Theon and Theos? We all know that the Bible are mostly altered by the FAKE author and contradiction among them. Maybe it just one of the verses of John 1v1 are not alter because they mystified to defined the word. And now you come to the idea that this secret of the secret can probe be the truth. Ohh come on is that an idiotic ideas.

You will find my response in this thread: John 1:1 - LOGOS and THEOS

@samba123,

Since your misgivings were related to the issues dicussed here, I’d had to bring them from the other thread so we could all discuss in a neat place. I wonder why you guys continue to scoot off from this thread and go elsewhere to litter the discussions on other topics.

samba123:
STIMULUS you’re diverting the subject to a Greek discussion simply to get some attention that you can convince other to believe in your opinion.

Wrong. Wrong. . . wrong! I'm not seeking attention, nor is my discussion on the Greek text of the NT Gospels a matter of seeking to diverting any subject. I'm not the sort of person who makes so much noise into a calabash like you guys often do, and then grovel and whinge when the huge gaps in your noise are shown up.

When your adulators posted their plagiarized materials from Deedat, none of your said anything - rather, some of you were busy praising and celebrating the otiose adventures and recycling the same materials to litter this forum with! Someone has to stand up some day and take you guys to task on that - and if stimulus had not done it, someone who's far more intelligent than me would have done a better job and zipped up your friends in a neat handbag and thrown the whole lot of you guys outa the forum!

samba123:
You cannot foul people by your philosophy presenting the idea of those two word Ton Theo and Theos in Greek language. Even I am not convince of what you’re presenting.

I wasn't trying to "foul" or fool anyone by my philosophy - and if you care to present yours, I'd be too glad to waste them and show how empty they are! You cannot mangle someone else's language and the celebrate the unfortunate episode like that is what should displace truth. You may not be convinced about my arguments (because you refuse to open your eyes andd see); but at least, have the decency to present your own argument and point out the gaps in mine instead of whinging about what you have no clues on!

samba123:
Dictionary cannot help to configure what exactly the meaning of the word, if we like to find the true meaning we should have the fact in the scripture of the prehistoric time, presented, and construe in their original form.

Can you tell me why Deedat did not wait for your otiose advice before arguing long and hard on how we should read the Greek texts of John 1:1?!? Where were you when your brethren were stealing his materials and re-fabricating them as their own to mesmerize people on this forum?

samba123:
We all know that the Greek Religion are idolatry, any name of the Gods you mention in their different names can be translated by their own language.

Sorry, but Christianity is not to be confused for "the Greek religion" - and by making such a blooper, you have just demonstrated yet again that you truly have no clues about your own assumptions! You see, samba123, it's an absolute waste of your time and resources trying to lie about a case in order to justify Islam is not going to give you a settled conscience. It's alright to believe whatever harrumph you've been spoonfed by your mullahs; but such idiosyncrasies will not survive in a public forum where you're bound to find people discussing intellectually.

samba123:
If you just defining word and come out with the Trinitarian is doesn’t make any sense at all.

That is what Deedat and others have tried to do - and that is why you guys are so embarrassed that someone stood up to waste his arguments by presenting a detailed analysis of his comical showmanship.

samba123:
Still may question Define your God Ton Theon and Theos?

Is that a question at all? Does "ton theon" or "theos" define any 'God/deity'? If you assume that these words define 'God' at all, you should have been asking Deedat who said that 'o theos or ton theon' are "proper ways of saying God" - have you forgotten that?

Sometimes, you guys give me so much to laugh about! Even the Greeks do not define anybody's 'God' by the Greek terms - and your question is like the incoherent lullaby of a suckling child.

samba123:
We all know that the Bible are mostly altered by the FAKE author and contradiction among them.

Yada-yada. . we've heard this excuse so many times that it has grown out of style to cover-up why you cannot defend the Qur'an in the light of your noise from the mullahs/ulema. For all the accusations that you can trump up, the Bible has always declared the very essential message that we have been discussing about the revelation of the Biblical God - He is known as FATHER; and when Muhammad denied that revelation, he automatically qualified himself as a false prophet.

samba123:
Maybe it just one of the verses of John 1v1 are not alter because they mystified to defined the word.

Are you making any sense at all? John 1v1 is only one verse - so what is this harrumph about "one of the verses of John 1v1" - as if there are several verses in John 1v1?!? Are you guys engaging your thinking faculties at all - or is this type of undergraded IQ the ingredients for holythug's celebrations after you?

samba123:
And now you come to the idea that this secret of the secret can probe be the truth. Ohh come on is that an idiotic ideas.

Haaww-haww! Your verbosity is ginger-ale for the mentally challenged!

@olabowale,

olabowale:

Stimulus: I wonder if you know more than "do you care for that?" I care for truth and let the chip or timber call where it may! For example something is lost when the pure quality is reduced in Quanity. Thake for example; 1 Metric ton of already hallmarked Gold boullion. If you take to a refinery or a warehouse and after a long time you return for your property and you are given a partial gold amount, what you now have if a lost product. Afterall part of it is lost. This is what we have in the Bible today. If Moses, Daud and jesus, for example were to be here today, and see what you call their "Books," in the Bible, even in the Hebrew or Aramaic texts, they will definitely declare that some verses are missing, in each of their concerned books.

As to referring to the Bible as corrupt, I will use the same gold to illustrate my point: If when you return you are given a smaller quanity, meaning that some parts are already gone and not returned to you and they greedily and corningly claim that this is exactly what you brought to them, but when you take what you have now, the smaller quantity to a refinery to resmelt it so that it can be assayed afresh and hallmarked, but what the refiner is telling you is that each melted bar now contains some silver, platinum, uranium (even though the last two are more expensive), what you find is that there is corruption in each bar, because of these added materials, which were done by the wherehouse custodians without your knowledge.

The Qur'an is the Refinery which by weighting your bag of Gold tells you that you have less than 1 Metric ton. And when it is put under a smelting process to qualify its purity, it is the one also that tells you that your product contains impurity: Eg Pauls statement and even the acts, epistles and other mundane verses.

Finally, even though am not an expert in Yoruba language, but i doubt if anyone can cheat me in the essence of its speech. If I do not know it, i ask any Yoruba in my vicinity, my family, my friends or better yet go to the indigenous speakers and experts, in the villages and universities: afterall, a ji sebi Yoruba lan ri Yoruba ko nji se mi eni kon.

You will find my response in this thread: Where Is The Torah And Injil?

@olabowale,

olabowale:
As to referring to the Bible as corrupt, I will use the same gold to illustrate my point: If when you return you are given a smaller quanity, meaning that some parts are already gone and not returned to you and they greedily and corningly claim that this is exactly what you brought to them, but when you take what you have now, the smaller quantity to a refinery to resmelt it so that it can be assayed afresh and hallmarked, but what the refiner is telling you is that each melted bar now contains some silver, platinum, uranium (even though the last two are more expensive), what you find is that there is corruption in each bar, because of these added materials, which were done by the wherehouse custodians without your knowledge.

Many thanks for that analogy – but its best place of consignment is the garbage bin! If you’re going to keep up this argument with all sorts of excuses to dupe the gullible that the Bible is “corrupt”, you’d be rubbishing the claims of the Qur'an that it came to “confirm” the same Biblical scriptures! To that effect, neither you nor babs787 who touted this idea of a lost and corrupt Torah and Injil were able to defend your false assertions where pilgrim.1 took you to task on that same issue in her thread: Babs787, Where Did The Qur'an Say So?. I was tempted to enter that same thread and elaborate on what you guys were making noise about; but I was quite impressed with how she deflated, or rather “bleached” you guys until there was no colour left in either of you!

olabowale:
The Qur'an is the Refinery which by weighting your bag of Gold tells you that you have less than 1 Metric ton. And when it is put under a smelting process to qualify its purity, it is the one also that tells you that your product contains impurity: Eg Pauls statement and even the acts, epistles and other mundane verses.

The Qur'an actually is the candlewax that melts under the searing heat of the Bible. In every case that we have been examining (at least, in every case you and I have discussed), isn’t it funny that you have not been able to sustain your own assumptions and rather made excuses to plaster the wax until it has gone from white to ‘Agege’ brown?

Haawwww. . . olabowale, cool down! There’s nothing that Muhammed’s Qur'an can improve upon in the Bible – from the first to the last, as soon as he denied that God was known as ‘FATHER’, he qualified himself completely outside the ranks of the Biblical prophets.

olabowale:
Finally, even though am not an expert in Yoruba language, but i doubt if anyone can cheat me in the essence of its speech. If I do not know it, i ask any Yoruba in my vicinity, my family, my friends or better yet go to the indigenous speakers and experts, in the villages and universities:

I’m surprised you’re saying that, because even though I’m a Yoruba myself, you write better than I could attempt with fluency – which is not to say that I don’t have a good grasp of the lingo though.

olabowale:
afterall, a ji sebi Yoruba lan ri Yoruba ko nji se mi eni kon.

Abi O!

@olabowale,

Okay, I brought your rejoinder here to address them from the other thread so we don’t derail its purpose.

olabowale:
I wonder if you know more than "do you care for that?"

You need not wonder about anything - if you notice, that is my way of inviting a discussion on a proposed subject so that I'm not seen as forcing anyone to argue into a basket. If the discussant declines, I do not beat them into submission or waste my time chasing shadows about talks that lead nowhere.

olabowale:
I care for truth and let the chip or timber call where it may!

I don't see how you have demonstrated your love for "truth" other than celebrating the lies of people like Ahmed Deedat and co. If you really cared for truth, we would not be reading your long winding story-telling that assert a premise and yet be unable to logically defend that premise to a fine finish.

olabowale:
For example something is lost when the pure quality is reduced in Quanity. Thake for example; 1 Metric ton of already hallmarked Gold boullion. If you take to a refinery or a warehouse and after a long time you return for your property and you are given a partial gold amount, what you now have if a lost product. Afterall part of it is lost. This is what we have in the Bible today. If Moses, Daud and jesus, for example were to be here today, and see what you call their "Books," in the Bible, even in the Hebrew or Aramaic texts, they will definitely declare that some verses are missing, in each of their concerned books.

If this is the way you argue the idea of a "lost" document such as the Torah, Zabur and Injil, then I'm sorry to say that you have done a greater disservice to the Qur'an than you had imagined! WHY? For the simple reason that all the translations of the  Qur'an would be reducing the quality of the Arabic  Qur'an - and what is more, such an idea would absolutely rubbish the teachings of the same  Qur'an, since it asks you Muslims to believe in those Biblical documents!

Now tell me: how could your 'allah' be asking you to believe in something which you claim today has been lost? Is it logical that 'Allah' would be asking you to believe in the "former scriptures" when he knew that the same "scriptures" are lost?

Now, let me elaborate further:

We read categorical statements in the Qur'an that confirm that while Muhammed was going round his career, the "scriptures" which 'Allah' was referring to were said to be in the possession of Jews and Christians. A few examples:

In Sura 2 v 40-41, 'Allah' claims that the Qur'an came to confirm what was in the possession of the Jews, and this is how the various translations render that verse 41:

[list]Pickthall
And believe in that which I reveal,
confirming that which ye possess already (of the Scripture),

Yusuf Ali
And believe in what I reveal,
confirming the revelation which IS with you,

Hilali-Khan
And believe in what I have sent down (this Qur'an),
confirming that which IS with you,
[the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)],

Shakir
And believe in what I have revealed,
verifying that which IS with you

Sher Ali
And believe in what I have sent
which fulfill which IS with you

Khalifa
You shall believe in what I have revealed herein,
confirming what ye HAVE [/list]

You can see that all these translations are unanimous in declaring that when The Great Prophet made that statement in Sura 2 v 40-41, the Torah and the Injil were still with the ‘children of Israel’ – it was a present tense indicative that the translators used in that verse:

(a) that “which IS with you”
(instead of ‘that which was with you’);  and

(b) “what ye HAVE ”
(instead of ‘what ye HAD’)

These verse clearly indicate that both the Torah and the Injil were in the possession of the children of Israel when The Great Prophet came with the Qur'an!

My question now is: WHEN did Muslims discover that the Torah and Injil got lost after that verse?

The remarkable thing is that the Qur'an did not at any one time indicate that the Torah, Injil or Zabur had become lost – not at any time! If it says so, please post us the verse to read for oursleves! It is just because you guys are too embarrassed to admit the fallacy of the claims in the Qur'an that is why you propound all sorts of theories to make assertive claims that you cannot defend!

Again, in Sura 5 v 68, the Qur'an makes this bold statement:

Say O People of the Scripture! Ye have naught (of guidance)
till ye observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which was
revealed unto you from your Lord.
That which is revealed unto thee (The Great Prophet) from thy Lord
is certain to increase the contumacy and disbelief of many of them.
But grieve not for the disbelieving folk. [Pickthall tr.]

It is really funny that your ‘Allah’ could be asking Jews and Christians (‘People of the Scripture’) to observe ‘the Torah and the Gospel’ if they were lost – that would be absolute and unquantifiable confusion, to ask people to observe what is lost!

The second part of that verse is even more remarkable, in that it points to the Qur'an as a book that is “certain to increase the contumacy and disbelief of many”!!

Now, why would anyone want to believe in what is certain to increase “disbelief”?!? Whereas the same Qur'an admonishes Jews and Christians to observe “the Torah and the Gospel” and that which was revealed unto [us] from the Lord? Is it not confusion beyond measure to suggest that ‘Allah’ would be asking people to believe in what is lost while the one he claims to have revealed is actually bound to increase “disbelief”?

You see, olabowale, your assertions are simply not patronizing enough – and although you may sing that song about a “lost” Torah and Injil, you’d be doing more damage to the teaching of the Qur'an by forcing yourself to make claims that neither The Great Prophet nor ‘Allah’ ever made anywhere!

@SysUser,

SysUser:

So please once again let us meet/discuss either on this thread or any other thread on how and when we would petition Seun to ask him to stop swapping the name alla'h for God since they mean different things to different people.

I agree with you, brother. I think that even some Muslims themselves have expressed that desire to see things return to normal, so that one knows which term (God, Allah, Muhammed, Islam, etc).

That was the the same thing I'd tried to bring about in this thread: M'uhammad The 'great Pro-t'?; and I trust that by and by it is up to Muslims themselves to see this desire bringing about the change to normalcy.

@SysUser,

SysUser:

@stimulus, @4Him, @david, Let us just try and ignore olabowale and co.

That Olabowale and co utter the kind of responses they are uttering should be of little suprise to anyone who understands the spirit behind the great religion, let's just ignore them. (Though I no its hard to ignore the rantings of the unwise )

Well, it is true that it's tough job in itself ignoring the assertions that we do not agree with - especially when there are answers. But I'll take your advise - and thank you for helping to call me back to sanity.


- - - -

@olabowale,

Here's an offer I'd like to make you: I'm willing to dialogue and discuss with you on some of the queries you may have about Christian convictions, including (but not limited to) --

[list][li]the Trinity[/li]
[li]the meaning of God being "FATHER"[/li]
[li]the Greek terms for God (especially as how these are just terms and not actully the NAME of God![/li]
[li]the veracity of the Biblical prophets and the revelations God gave them[/li][/list]

. . . and any other. But I'd be willing to do so on condition that you don't slur the Trinity or our conviction. It is that type of attitude that invites the unpleasant things you read about Muhammad and 'allah'.

What do you say?

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Stimulus: You really do not have to take permission from them to contribute to the thread. Ithink this response of yours is very shurdy. You should contribute greatly, because I think you at least can defend the belief system, yours for an example, in a very esoterical way, neither leaning this way or that. But trying to define belief as a faith rather that rationality of Science, without its obvious fusion with faith.

Well, I did not want to barge in here uninvited, as therationa has opined earlier that "stimulus, 4Him and imhotep" were welcome to NOT post replies to his thread. I really do not have any worries with making contributions on any subject; but I'd agree with the substance in imhotep's initial response.

In anycase, as when necessary, I'd be making inputs for our mutual benefits as the discussion progresses.

Enjoy.

However, it is argued by Deedat that when 'theos' is written solely on its own, then it presents a problem as it may be referring to just about any deity (again citing babs787's plagiarized quote):

babs787:

The problem with that verse in Greek is that we see theos being written as just theos (god/diety) and not as o theos or ton theon, which are proper ways of saying God (or the god). . .

So the part which is written solely on its own as "theos", could be implying just any random diety, of course with ton theon written before in the sentence we automatically assume that we're still talking about the same God.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113535.0.html#msg1966760

In other words, what Deedat expected to have found all through the NT is for 'theos' to bear a definite article 'ho' (o) preceding the word before it could “properly” be read as "the God/god". Again, it's amazing that what Deedat was playing at was a huge laugh to confuse his audience and capitalize on their gullibility to believe his rants over the well-established rules of Greek grammar.

When Jesus proclaimed the veracity of the resurrection to the Jews in Mark 12, He mentioned the Greek term 'theos' twice in verse 27 - the first instance with the definite article 'ho', and the second time without the article:


[table]
[tr][td]Greek[/td][td]English - (LITV)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]ουκ εστιν ο θεος νεκρων αλλα θεος ζωντων υμεις ουν πολυ πλανασθε[/td][td]He is not the God of the dead, but God of the living. Therefore, you greatly err.[/td][/tr][/table]

Now, since it is clear that "theos" (θεος) appears in the second instance in that verse without the definite article 'ho', was Jesus referring to "just any random deity" when He referred to "God of the living"? Certainly not! But Deedat would rather have us read "just any random deity of the living" in Mark 12:27! How absurd!

Further, other Greek terms (such as θεου) also appear without the definite article in John’s Gospel; but no one in their right minds would argue long and hard to make such Greek terms translate as "just any random deity" (according to Deedat), for these terms without the definite article actually point to the same God who revealed Himself to the Biblical prophets! A few examples in the same Gospel of John will suffice to show this:

[list]John 1:6
[table]
[tr][td]Greek[/td][td]English[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]εγενετο ανθρωπος απεσταλμενος παρα θεου ονομα αυτω ιωαννης[/td][td]There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.[/td][/tr][/table]


John 1:12
[table]
[tr][td]Greek[/td][td]English[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]οσοι δε ελαβον αυτον εδωκεν αυτοις εξουσιαν τεκνα θεου γενεσθαι τοις πιστευουσιν εις το ονομα αυτου[/td][td]But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name[/td][/tr][/table]


John 1:18
[table]
[tr][td]Greek[/td][td]English[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε ο μονογενης υιος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο[/td][td]No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.[/td][/tr][/table]


John 5:44
[table]
[tr][td]Greek[/td][td]English[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]πως δυνασθε υμεις πιστευσαι δοξαν παρα αλληλων λαμβανοντες και την δοξαν την παρα του μονου θεου ου ζητειτε[/td][td]How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?[/td][/tr][/table]


John 6:45
[table]
[tr][td]Greek[/td][td]English[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]εστιν γεγραμμενον εν τοις προφηταις και εσονται παντες διδακτοι θεου πας ουν ο ακουων παρα του πατρος και μαθων ερχεται προς με[/td][td]It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.[/td][/tr][/table]


John 9:33
[table]
[tr][td]Greek[/td][td]English[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]ει μη ην ουτος παρα θεου ουκ ηδυνατο ποιειν ουδεν[/td][td]If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.[/td][/tr][/table][/list]


There are so many such examples running through the NT (besides John's Gospel) that I could go on and list; but the examples above are to help us understand that those Greek terms could be written on their own without the definite articles (ο, η, του, τον) and still correctly be pointing to the very same God who revealed Himself to the Biblical prophets!

Dear therationa and imhotep,

I would like to enter this discussion and make contributions where necessary; but since I'd not like to be seen as barging into this thread, I thought it wise to first seek therationa's invitation to join the discussion. What sayest thou (therationa)?

Well gentlemen, after waiting for you guys to attempt that little assignment and instead seen the excuses and endless stories you've used as cover-ups, let me oblige you some answers.

stimulus:

Which of these Greek terms between theos (θεος) and theon (θεον) were used in the following texts:

[list] John 3:16 John 8:41
John 14:1 John 3:17
John 21:19 John 3:21[/list]

These verses will help us see the huge gaps in Deedat's arguements!

The verses which use theon (θεον) in that list are:
John 8:41
John 14:1
John 21:19

while the verses which use theos (θεος) in that list are:
John 3:16
John 3:17

But what about John 3:21? Actually, there is another Greek term used for 'God' in that verse - Θεώ - and I have also used it earlier in the example of the statement: 'δόξα εν υψίστοις Θεώ ' ['glory be to God '].

John 3:21 reads as -

[table]
[tr][td]Greek[/td][td]English[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]ο δε ποιων την αληθειαν ερχεται προς το φως ινα φανερωθη αυτου τα εργα οτι εν θεω εστιν ειργασμενα[/td][td]But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.[/td][/tr][/table]

. . . and you can see the word 'θεω' in that verse is translated 'God' in English.

Now, it is remarkable that Deedat argues that  'theos' (θεος) could be implying "just any random diety" - which, of course, demonstrates that he never considered any other verse to see what the Greek term "theos" actually means. If 'theos' (θεος) implies just any random deity, then which of those 'random deities' was Jesus speaking about in John 3:16 when He said:

[table]
[tr][td]Greek[/td][td]English[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]ουτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ο θεος τον κοσμον ωστε τον υιον αυτου τον μονογενη εδωκεν ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται αλλ εχη ζωην αιωνιον[/td][td]For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.[/td][/tr][/table]

Was Jesus referring to "just any random deity" when He declared that "God [θεòς - theos] so loved the world"? Notice that in John 3:16, the Greek term for God is 'θεòς' (theos), and we can see that Jesus was not referring to 'just any random deity' in that verse!

@olabowale,

What happened to your scholarship on the Greek language that you’ve noised all along on the Forum? How could you be celebrating the illiterate noise of folks like Deedat without first checking out his assumptions before applauding him as a “scholar”? I didn’t bring you guys here to trip you up; but rather to afford you the opportunity to examine your own assumptions and assertions before drawing your conclusions to make others uneducated in their own language and culture because you happened to have slaved yourself on Deedat’s argument.

I'll take time to see how to help you guys understand these issues in my subsequent posts. If we aim for honest investigation of the assertions of others, we shall find it easy enough to drop the fallacies and amend our thinking accordingly where truth should prevail.

Cheers.

therationa:

DISCLAIMER: The following article you are about to read is NOT my work. It is the work of Kenneth E. Nahigian taken from the site http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/2virgi93.html. I am giving the article and the source in good old-fashion SCHOLARLY TRADITION.

Good for you - and for us! At least, it is good to know that Nairaland will sanitize itself from any confusion and become a place for mature inputs! _{I don tire to read people plagiarizing other people's material and pretending them as their own!}

Now, dear oga olabs, wetin do you now? WHY you dey diddle about and act like a slowbelly on the assignment wey I leave you? Your scholarship done finish on Greek?

stimulus:

Which of these Greek terms between theos (θεος) and theon (θεον) were used in the following texts:

[list] John 3:16 John 8:41
John 14:1 John 3:17
John 21:19 John 3:21[/list]

These verses will help us see the huge gaps in Deedat's arguements!

I'm still waiting, olabowale.

@lafile,

lafile:

Applause to Stimulus.
I am always so happy to see someone stand up to this[s] international association of blatant liars[/s] a great one ummah when they make claims they cannot substantiate. someone needs to remind them that not everyone is as gullible as they are.

Bo, my broda I don sidon dey look at the sorry adventures so tay I no fit keep quite again. How could these apprentices of the IABL ([s]international association of blatant liars[/s]) be making noise about what they have no clues, and think that such gimcrack codswallop is is the best that should be celebrated for the tastelessly showy skits they put up here?

lafile:

i can bet my bottom naira that nobody, repeat nobody, will answer your question.

Well, the answers are so simple to decode - but so far, you're absolutely right that none of them could even attempt it! Shame!

lafile:

If na me sha, shame for don catch me say i steal somebody article, pretend say na my own, only for some smart punk to completely floor my borrowed argument and prove that my scholarly mentor doesn't know zilch about what he wrote about.

No mind olabowale. . . Of all the sense you made, na only "punk" catch im attention! Yeye man!

Bo, na true you talk o jare! If na me sef, I for don change my username patapata and sneak in through the backdoor! The reason why I floated this thread is because I am so confident of taking them to task on this language - dem no go escape lai-lai!

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Lafile: "PUNK," is not a term of endearment. I hope you and Stimulus who you referred as "PUNK," here know that!

I perfectly understand lafile and have no quarrels with the term he used idiomatically. So don't even try to patronise us with your weasle cough. I can play with people as long as they make good sense; but I definitely object to your attitude to continue deriding the convictions of others simply because you do not agree with them. That is why I stopped entertaining your slurs and face you squarely on your own assumptions.

olabowale:

The reason am not wasting my time with stimulus is that we started with Trinity, he is taking me to John.

I brought the discussion from the thread on Trinity down here so that you guys will not be galivanting from thread to thread and littering the forum with your illiterate plagiarized articles! If you guys never wanted to discuss John's Gospel, then please tell me: WHY did you, and babs787, and holythug recycle that redundant argument from Deedat and bring it here? It is only when your arguments have been wasted that we see you abandoning ship and weasling at John's Gospel!

olabowale:

I am not going to go from thread to thread with him.

All the more reason why you should settle in one thread - this one - and prove your mettle!

olabowale:

If he is so sure of Trinity, then lets dig into it on it at its thread.

I have always met you anywhere; and the reason I brought this thread is to take it step by step and bring you to a logical end where you see Muhammad as naked as can be seen for the false prophet that he was! You guys have stayed on this redundant argument for long against the Trinity with blasphemous interjections and refused to heed the call to grow up - and that is why I'll be asking you guys to meet me on this very thread HERE and pour out your brains and consciences so we see where it will lead you!

olabowale:

@Holythug: May God make your way easy. Amiin. You see these people just say Jihad as if it is just fighting people. Jihad is stopping yourself from doing evil.

And stopping yourself from evil includes deriding the Trinity with reckless abandon, yes?

olabowale:

And that is the biggest form of it. But I am sure it does not ring a bell on them, because they are always about id (the animal instinct).

I won't humour you with deflective discourses, as I know that all this mewling is simply because you have wasted your intelligence and scooted away from the simple assignment I left you guys! Do you care to attend it now?

Hi again @holythug,

holythug:

yes u can say that again i dnt need a site or someone to tell me ow to defend my religion

Oh, but you went to 'em sites to harvest those weak "defences" for your religion, aint it? Or, can you deny that you had inevitably harvested it from one of 'em sites that has been celebrating Deedat without the discipline to check out his rants prior to recycling them?

holythug:

the only info i got frm d sites where d meanin aboout d greek words since it is not my mother tongue,

And for all that, Deedat was wrong! Dead wrong - and false as false can be! This is why you guys should have calmed down and not pretend that plagiarizing Deedat and others to present on Nairaland as your own would have made you a scholar overnight!

At least, you're being honest that Greek is not your mothertongue (nor is it mine); but for your brethren to argue blindly without first having a basic knowledge of the language is only going to make them sound even more otiose! This is why I kept saying that I was never disappointed that you guys would duck my invitation to examine the Greek translation of the Qur'an! If we are going to be honest, by the time we examine the garboil in that translation, your mullah will either recall it from the press, or have it banned altogether! That translation is an absolute falderal and trumpery!

holythug:

being truthful to yourself , tell me u got all those stuff frm your cloudy brain @ word smith,

I have never claimed to be a polyglot or expert of any language (including the English language); but if you can be true to yourself, why don't you simply post the link where I might have plagiarized them from?

You see why I decided to take this approach of debating this subject on my own? It is because I'm confident enough to speak and understand the language even if it is not my mothertongue - and when I read the texts, I can confidently agree with scholars in the language on some issues, or otherwise disagree with them and then point out why I think they are incorrect!

The problem with you gentlemen is that you often have to rely on people pretending to be "scholars", and as long as their fallacies make you happy, then you applaud and celebrate them by recycling their illiterate arguements!

holythug:

bt what am really concerned bout the great religion is that it doesnt force any man to worship him,

I don't want to derail the topic of this thread - LOGOS and THEOS - otherwise I would have taken you to task on that same false assertion! Please oblige me anyday and anytime to a relevant thread and let's see if indeed The Great Religion is not a violent religion designed to force people to bend to Muhammad!

holythug:

so i don't see any reason for this

The reason for this is to zip the redundant noise of your propagandist and let everybody rest from their lies! You cannot keep celebrating Deedat's lies against John 1:1 and noise it even in this Forum to ridicule Christianity. Somebody has to stand up against that rubbish and put the case to rest!

Psalm 28:7

The LORD is my strength and my shield;
my heart trusted in him, and I am helped:
therefore my heart greatly rejoiceth;
and with my song will I praise him.


Abba Father, I will praise You with every part of my very being
Thank You for creating, redeeming and setting glory upon me
More than that, thank You for making me a blessing to others
Let me see the glory of your grace upon everyone who joins in praising You
Forever and ever, You are worthy to be praised!