₦airaland Forum

sage:
@Stimulus if you didnt know you are in for a suprise

How you read Scripture to suggest that it is the devil that gives rulership to people - now, that would be a surprise treat indeed!

@babs787,

babs787:
It will never make sense to those that are inclined to falsehood and are not ready to verify what they have been carrying and preaching all these while. I don't want your case to be like that of Hosea 4 v 6.

I couldn't help laughing out loud on reading that line, because it seemed so naturally applicable to you. Most of the verses you tried to twist will never make sense to you that are inclined to falsehood and are not ready to verify what you have been carrying and preaching all these while. Indeed, we don't want your case to be like that of Hosea 4 v 6.

babs787:
Bring out a verse that has been wrongly interpreted.

All the verses you quoted above, particularly Isaiah 9:6.

babs787:
The person is really inquisitive having read the bible and still reading the bible, comes up with some astonishing bible stories, disturbing stories in the bible, pornography in the bible, killing spree in the bible, contradictions, plagiarism, paganism in christianity etc.

Please keep reading the Bible, and then you will see that all your accusations and vexations are quite suited to the Qur'an itself.

babs787:
So am still reading the bible and will continue reading. Thank God I have not been using the Quran for the topic 'was jesus crucified" but your own bible. If I have been using it, you people would have been saying lots of things.

Even if you use the Qur'an, your argument will run into a brick wall; because the Qur'an does not tell you what it does not know - and to that point excatly, neither Muhammad nor the Qur'an knew anything about the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

babs787:
I have just started and only got to the issue of anointing. I am looking forward to what you will say when we get to other verses in your same bible. A christian even said that I have been lifting from websites, that is his own belief. I don't argue in debate that lacks proof, evidence and facts. We shall see if babs has been reading the bible, lifting from sites or turning verses upside down.

Na today? Several times I have supplied the weblink from which you lift your "questions". The only difference is that you dressed them up a little and called them your own.

@sage,

sage:
I need to tune down my tone, but it beats me how something that is so clear is so hard for some people to see.

No worries - we're used to it.

However, you've skewed off the gist of my enquiry and rather launched into other arguments that pepper your default position. If only you calmed down to read Scripture for what it says, you won't be confusing issues and then accusing others of the same thing that weighs heavily against you.

sage:
good point guy. I expected somebody to raise that point.

Different bible passages that clearly show that the devil is the ruler of the world do not contradict Romans 13:1. Paul simply acknowledged the fact that human rulership would not be here without God's permission of it.
For example Jer 12 :1 and 2 says that God planted the wicked and has let them grow and that the works of the wicked are flourishing. Jeremiah spoke of it as if God had planted the wicked and then let them flourish but he was not implying that God was literarily planting wickedness. Jeremiah simply acknowledged the fact that the wicked were existing and flourishing simply because of God's permission. If he did not allow it, there would be no wicked one. So God allows wicked ones and wickedness to thrive until his own due time to take care of those.

In the same vein God allows and permits human rulership to continue till his own due time.

Note that permission and approval are two different things. There are a lot of things that God permits and allows to happen even though he disproves of them. But that in no way alters his plans about dealing with those things at his due time.

The early christians, for example Paul, used the provisions that Caesar made to spread the word. Paul used his Roman citizenship to seek justice in times of trials and spread the word with it. He enjoyed the benefits of Roman citizenship but was not going to do anything to help Rome in a political way or engage in their politics. Same for the early Christians in Judea.
Caesar is God's servant in that sense.

Christians are to be obedient to the Govts, pay their taxes and abide by law. They should not try any subversive moves on Govt. Where the Govt commands conflicts with their God given responsibilities though, God's commands takes precedent.

An example can be taken from Jesus and the early apostles. The nations that they lived in needed strong political will and leadership. But the truth is now as it was back then that they realised that no human rulership would solve mankinds problems nor achieve God's purpose. Only one could, and that is the rulership under Christ and that was the only kingdom that Christians were to lend their whole support to.
The early christians did not support any human ruler nor did they take part in the political realms of their times.

The great apostacy changed everything.

God in the meantime allows and permits several things including suffering, wickedness, imperfection, rulership under the influence of the devil etc to continue. He has already stated what his plans regarding these are and he intends to remove them all when his time is due.

This treatise is simply a roundabout exercise to excuse your earlier statement. The point is, you were clearly wrong to have stated that the devil gives human rulership to whomever he wishes. The Bible does not teach that at all. He may influence evil in governance; but it is rather God who sets up or "gives" rulership to anyone.

It is not a question of God's permission of human rulership (or governance/government); rather, it is a question of His setting up (or giving) those rulership to anyone in the first place. The devil does not give rulership to anyone, because it is not in his jurisdiction to do that. It is God, and God alone, that gives rulership to anyone. Let me remind you of several verses to the point:

Psa. 62:11
'God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongeth unto God.'

Jer.27:4-6
'And command them to say unto their masters, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Thus shall ye say unto your masters; I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me. And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him.

Dan. 4:32
And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will.

Dan. 5:18
'O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour.'

John 19:11
'Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.'

1 Pet. 2:13-14
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by Him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

In all these instances, it is clear that God is the One who gives rulership to anyone He wishes; and not as you stated earlier that it was the devil who gives rulership to men. That is why Romans 13:1-4 expressly teaches that there is no human government set up except it were given by God (and not by the devil).

@abdkabir,

abdkabir:
Here , i meant the awaiting of a Saviour (Messiah) by the Jew and not the Muslim.

Nonetheless, Muslims today speak of expecting a 'Saviour' or 'Messiah' figure, yes or no?

abdkabir:
Your position suggests some kind of bias against Islam, Muhammed didn't hate the Jews He did indeed accuse them of killing of the prophets and messenger after the word of God had reached them but he didnt hate nor promote the hate of Jews. He praised the followers of Truth among them just as he accused the hipocrites.

Another fatally wrong inference. Muhammad indeed hated the Jews. Quranic texts as well the Hadiths show no discretion between one Jew or another; and as far as Muhammad was concerned, every Jew came under his seething hatred. That sad legacy is no longer secret today; and a true Muslim who follows the spirit and faith of Muhammad will gladly kill a Jew for no other reason than the beliefs of Islam's prophet.

abdkabir:
History has proven that of the Three recent powers which reigned over the affairs of the Jews, the Muslims were the most tolerant. The issue of Xenophobia towards Jews in recent years has it origin in the Forceful establishment of the state of Isreal by colonilist in the 20th century and the wars that occurred subsequently, Much before then, Muslims and Christians co-existed in Palestine.

If you're referring to the revisionist history that is now being popularized to fog the reality of Muslim intolerance of the Jews, then it shouldn't be surprise us. In reality, Muslim xenophobia towards the Jews traces its origin far back to Muhammad. The establishment of the State of Israel was a huge embarrassment to Muslims who would rather see them annihilated as Muhammad intoned.

Even the issue of Muslim-Christian co-existence is yet another dressed up or revisionist history. The Quran places Jews and Christians in the same cubicle of Muhammad's hatred.

abdkabir:
You canot make judgment of what the Jews believe of God using the christian interpretation of the the Old testament. It would be fairer u consult a Jewish resource(website etc) to understand how the verses the christians assume affirm the divinity of Jesus are seen.

It was for that same reason as you requested that I referred you to the other thread - read it and follow the the weblink offered by KAG to see that Jewish understanding of the Messiah being God is not a 'Christian interpretation'. If you're unclear afterwards, then I could take you up and expound on the issue.

abdkabir:
I have touched in various occasionS the issue of Revelations with particular emphasis on the fact that many a times, the memories of men were the repositories of such revelation. This also applies to the Torah(What islam understand as revelation to moses) and Psalms (of David) mentioned. IN this case, we are not necesarily talking about the documentation we have today but the information as it was revealed. The truth of which many knew during the time of the Prophet.

If revelations of any sort were not document, on what basis would you be inclined to argue for the idea otherwise about "the information as it was revealed"? Or, in other words, in what respects does the "documentation" differ from the "revelation" itself, which many knew during the time of the Prophet?

abdkabir:
It is important to note that the Old testament as we have it today is also a compilation of account of happenings by Jewish elders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament

It does not appear that the arguments have centered on 'compilation' of the holy writs. It is rather on their content and claims, especially with regards to the allegations made in the qur'an against the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. Whatever mode of compilation the Qur'an is purported to have assumed, does it make its claims and allegations against the Bible any more established?

abdkabir:
Kind Regards.

We are closer than it appears.

God Bless

In what respects do you suppose the closeness?

Anyway, do have a blessed weekend.

@sage,

sage:
1 The devil is the ruler of the world, human rulership is under his influence and it is to whom he wishes that he gives rulership

That being the case, could you please tell us what you make of Romans 13:1?

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God."

@abdkabir,

abdkabir:
That Christianity predates Islam does not necesarily mean it's a copy of christianity.

I didn't say so. Here again -

abdkabir:
It appears to me that for many years , many members of the early christians, much earlier to the canonization of sacred texts, had positions similar to islams.

[quote author=stimulus link=topic=682.msg1034337#msg1034337 date=1176422872]In so far as Christianity predates Islam, Muslims copyrighted such positions from Christians, and not the other way round

[/quote]

abdkabir:
That the Quran recognises the messengership and messiahship of Jesus does not necesarily infer he is one of a Trinity.

The Qur'an recognizes nothing that it cannot accept - and that includes both the Deity, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That being so, it does not strengthen the claims of Muhammad that the Qur'an was from God.

abdkabir:
That you are messiah doesnt necesarily mean you are the Son of God or God.

That would only make your argument conveniently selective in favour of whatever Islam teaches; and not because Muslims are willing enough to investigate the allegations of the Qur'an against the Bible. In so far as the Qur'an ascribes the authorship of the Jewish Scriptures (including the Torah and the Psalms) to the Allah of Islam, then there are no grounds for currying an argument of convenience denying what the Jewish Scriptures state in reference to the Deity of the Messiah.

abdkabir:
If that were true then it would be that the messiah the Jew were and are expecting is part of a divinity and that would be far from the truth.

Incidentally, not too long ago a very interesting discourse was held in another thread where the case was made for the Jewish understanding of the Messiah being God Himself. You can access it here: Jesus: The Son of God, Or God?, and follow on to see the weblink offered on that page. If you are not satisfied, then I could oblige you further reference to the point that the Jewish Scriptures declare the Deity of the Messiah.

abdkabir:
The Jews are Simply monotheist as the muslim who believe in a Saviour who would come save from from the clutches of oppresion of the world.

There is something fatally wrong in your inference. First, who is the "Saviour" that Muslims are expecting to come save from the clutches of the oppression of the world? Whoever that figure is, it is obvious that Jewish and Muslim understanding of the Messiah are worlds apart.

Second, Muslims are not monotheists as the Jews; otherwise, one would wonder why Muhammad so hated the same Jews and accused them of a corrupt religion. Although Muslims love to think of Islam as a monotheistic religion per excellence, a closer look reveals that it is actually nothing short of disguised polytheism (no offences meant; but perhaps by following the outline by another Nairalander in the "Israel Malik Esthers" thread, it may become obvious why I'm persuaded so - please see post message # 32,  post # 36 and post # 37).

abdkabir:
As always, issues of this type end in a deadlock. We are both adamant to our positions.

My position is informed by the indefensible allegations the Qura'n made against the Bible, but which no honest Muslim has been willing to investigate.

abdkabir:
I would conclude that God, History , Science, whatever people believe in will shed more light and judge in this affair.

I'm persuaded the light is there already waiting for whoever is willing to receive it.

abdkabir:
In truth, there have be submitters to one God much before Christianity. As usual i guess it's time a definately rest my case on this issue.

If by "submitters" you mean "Muslims" (or anything about Islam), then please rest your heart: there were absolutely NONE before Christianity.

abdkabir:
Many thanks for the conversation.

Peace

Much enjoyed, my regards.

Q. Is Doctrine Important In Your Faith?

Yes, ke! Abi you neva read wetin the Psalmist talk? "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psa. 11:3).

topefisayo:
i am a xtian guy and in love with a muslim lady who is from Ahmadiya.I want to get married to her because i really love her please help me out

What do you mean by Ahmadiya - the Muslim sect by that name or something else?

@abdkabir,

abdkabir:
Christianity and Islam has got a lot in common.I should note that Muhammed's position about Jesus is no different from that of the Quran. Islam recognises the messengersship of Jesus but refuses to declare the divinity.

That statement in and of itself should make you wonder about the claim in the Qur'an about the Messiahship of Jesus - they're just superficial. To what purpose does the Qur'an recognize that Jesus is the Messiah without the consequence of seeing the deep meaning attached to thereto?

abdkabir:
I should note that this position wasn't necesarily novel with Muhammad. It appears to me that for many years , many members of the early christians, much earlier to the canonization of sacred texts, had positions similar to islams.

In so far as Christianity predates Islam, Muslims copyrighted such positions from Christians, and not the other way round. Not to even mention that many borrowed elements from Christianity are held by Muslims today without the slightest idea what they mean.

abdkabir:
Also there are among the Christian denominations of today who do not believe in the Divinty of Jesus.

Which is sadly to their lose, and does not therefore establish your argument against the deity of Jesus Christ. Such denominations rejecting Jesus' deity can as well reject the OT prophecies attesting to the deity of the Messiah, such as Isaiah 9:6 and Zech. 12:10.

This appeal to denominations denying the deity of Jesus is a well known but weak device employed by Muslims in desperate bid to give credence to the larger denials in the Qur'an. In just about the same way, I could employ the such a device and argue by fringe denominations in Islam holding that Allah is a man called Elijah Muhammad. Would that indeed pass off as a core tenet of othodox Islam? You could just see how such an argument you devised is untenable.

abdkabir:
@ the end of the day, the question of which bible the quran refers to is worth asking. From the information i have consulted i guess it would be approriate to say the Injil the Quran talked about is the "Revealed Knowledge" passed from prophets to disciples and followers. It would then mean tha the Memories of men, served as the repository for the sacred information. This wouldn't be strange as the sunnah of the Prophet was preserved similarly.

That ideology is not even defended in the Qur'an, in as much as it is only your opinion. At the end of the day, the Qur'an cannot stand in defence of the denials and accusations it makes against the Bible. If the Injil referenced in the Qur'an were as you claimed, what was the reason for Allah's allowing the same 'Revealed Knowledge' to suffer corruption and not have applied the same rule to the Qur'an itself? Were they both not said to have been sourced from the same Allah? Secondly, I haven't read any learned Muslim make the claim that the Sunnah was inspired or holds the same authority as does the Qur'an. So, to have relegated the Bible to the same pedestal of preservation as the Sunnah is simply political dishonesty.

abdkabir:
It's noteworthy that , as time passes, such information if not well preserved are subject to intentional and non-intentional corruption. It might as well be that such discrepancies was the basis for the various councils organised to establish a common ground duing the catholic reign. That still would not be out of the world as Uthman had embarked upon a similar activity. How far away this activities are from the (original knowledge revealed ) in both Islam and Christianity,God alone Knows best.

The one problem your summation hatches is that Muslims do not defend the preservation and collation of the Qur'an as you intoned here. Indeed, not many Muslims are willing to accept that fact that there are huge questions that cast doubts on the present Qur'an being used by Muslims after having passed through the political redaction of Uthman.

abdkabir:
I based by judgment on what i consider a rational comparism of the time it took for the Standard, State accepted version of the scriptures (Bible, Quran) to be made. In that Case, the Quran would appear to be nearer to it's date of initial revelation (thus better preserved) than the (New Testament) Bible. And Still, God Knows Best.

Peace

My argument is that time is only a passive element in the question of preservation and originality of the holy writs. What is more to the point is that: (a) Islam and Christianity are two very different religions; and (b) the present Qur'an is not closer to the 'original' being argued in its favour by many Muslims today who wish it so.

Cheers.

Hi donnie,

donnie:
You know, looking from the story of Miriam, leprousy is used to refer to corruption and decay. There is decay eating up certain men of God and churches in Nigeria that i know. We only hear that these men of God used to be this and used to be that.

Corruption is only one of the connotations of leprosy in the Bible. In its simple form it points to being unclean. Now if you apply it to your persuasion, how does it answer the question I offered earlier?

donnie:
They may even move around the place hoping that they still carry that grace and presence but a short stay with them will reveal to you the level of decay. They are broke of power, that grace and annointing they once knew is dried up because of the misuse of their tongues. They now seek positional or even political authority to make up for this loss. It is not too late to join the queue of [i]use to be[/i]s.

It's interesting that the same man who said "tell it not in Gath" is the same one that wants us to know how bad things are with "certain men of God and churches in Nigeria" that he knows of. How do we understand your offer to muzzle others from speaking of these issues; but it doesn't really apply to you making mention of the situation of some of those MOGs known to you - to the extent that you specify the illness of seeking "positional or even political authority to make up for this loss"?

donnie:
The tongue the bible says can set a whole house on fire. It can destroy all what you've built for years. Be careful how you use it. That same tongue can bring blessings and increased grace your way when you use it right.

That's true. And there are questions still left unanswered needing your redress. Cheers.

Most of these countries which are regarded as dominantly Muslim run types of governments that may not be described as strictly Islamic. Bangladesh is a Parliamentary Republic, for example, and her political struggles could be understood in this context.

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/country_profiles/1160598.stm#leaders for the political divide between two female opponents, Begum Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina.

The guy is smart _{I always suspected there was something under that white hat he wears.}

Prison for where? Jail who - Odili?

In the first instance, who controls the so-called 'cuffers' of the Rivers State Govt. to which the loot was returned? No be the same Odili? And on whom did he spend that alleged loot? No be the same PDP clique?

Relax, naija government no dey ever jail im pikin!

Topic: Muslims Reject New Naira Notes!
Why? - No Arabic Inscription!

Solution: They should have their own cowries and print Quraish on them!
_{If that fails to be legal tender in the 21st century, they should use cowhides instead!}

When hunger starts, they won't look for Arabic inscriptions. Hypocrites.

@ricadelide,

ricadelide:
so you have a lot of people tearing down true servants, because they do not understand the restorational move of God. now, that does a lot of harm, and i'm all against it. If you've read Rick Joyner's books, you'd understand what i'm saying.

I'm both humbled and blessed by your calm submission in your post. However, at the risk of anyonbe thinking me to be pedantically driving this issue, let me remark that: (a) such books as Rick Joyner's do not help to address the seriousness of the problem being addressed presently - the problem of deception under the guise of the Gospel of Christ; (b) those who peddle these deceptions should never be mistaken for "true servants" supposedly in the "restorational move of God."

There is no grounds for compromise on this serious issue - and if we are also in the move of God presently, we would know that rather than celebrating a compromise, we need to speak out against the serious problems.

ricadelide:
and stimulus,
u really didn't need all this. BTW, u don't know me and i can always lay claim to not mentioning you in my post. and there's no talking behind anyone's back, i don't know anyone on here. it seems you take things rather personally, just my observation. i probably am wrong.

Many people often read me as taking issues personally, and one more mention will not offend me. It was really of no use making blank statements in a public Forum and refer to your readers as speaking behind anyone's back. I say things as I find them, and will readily learn where correction is offered. Just one thing in this small request - people should be clear in their premises.

ricadelide:
humorous fallacy as you may think it is, i will restate it that there are offices for these kinds of things, especially when it regards men of God who are His children but stumble in some way (as we all do). anyway i'd leave you guys to continue this thread, am out.

There are no such "offices" - it is quite a humourous fallacy nowhere taught in God's Word.

God bless.

@TayoD,

TayoD:
While I will not want us to drag this issue to death, I just have to mention that an institution that has existed for 19 centuries without getting its basic core principles clarified is not in good shape. 
Your point is noted even though i disagree with you.

We may both disagree amicably on any issue; but your mention of a 19 centuries old "institution" not getting its basic core principles clarified simply misses the point. Perhaps you may want to clarify further?

TayoD:
That is where we greatly differ. When Paul asked the question "unto what then were ye baptised"?  he wasn't thinking of water baptism, he was thinking of them being baptised into the Body of Christ!

Even the context of his response in Acts 19:4 does not remotely support that idea. Not one time does Scripture seek to raise the question of what BODY anyone is baptized unto - for that is the prerogative of the Lord Himself. The whole context of Paul's question to the disciples points to Christian baptism.

TayoD:
Water baptism is not a pre-requisite to receing the gift of the Holy Spirit, but baptism with the Holy Spirit is.

Which would simple be an ambiguous statement. If I should spell out your remark above: ". . . but baptism with the Holy Spirit is a prerequsite to receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit." What did you mean?

TayoD:
Baptism with the Holy Spirit takes place at the point of being born again. It is obvious that Paul initially thought these disciples were Christians but on hearing what they had to say, he concluded they were not.  Think about it, how can they be following John's doctrine solely after they must have heard of Jesus' death and resurrection and became christians? Paul taught them that Jesus is the one whom John preached about and they essentially need not be John's desciples any more.

Seems you've come round refuting your earlier statement in which you supposed that the disciples had "never heard of the Holy Ghost". If you go back and read about John's preaching (John 1:30-33), you'll find that the disciples were not oblivious that John pointed to Jesus Christ - which is what the apostle Paul pointed out to them in Acts 19:4 by way of reminding them of the same. he was not presenting something new to them as if they heard it for the first time.

TayoD:
They said this themselves - Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
Your ascertion is even more problematic. How can you be a disciple of Jesus in that day and age and never heard of Pentecost? It is impossible. Those certain disciples were not Jesus' disciples up to the point Paul met them, rather they were John's disciples and weren't Christians.

I've explained earlier that Acts 19:2 is not to be stretched to mean that they had never heard of any mention of the Holy Ghost! The simple meaning is that they had not heard that the promise of Pentecost had been fulfilled.

TayoD:
Whether we try to administer the baptism with the Holy Spirit as mentioned in 1 Cor 12:13 or not, it takes place when we preach the Gospel and it is received by the recipient. Jesus is the one who carries out the baptism, though we do the preaching in His name.

Which again throws out your assumption earlier that Paul was trying to minister the baptism of 1 Cor. 12:13 - an utter impossibility which otherwise would contradict John 1:33.

TayoD:
My understanding of Acts 19:1-6 indicates two types of baptism - 1. The baptism in water - which is same as the baptism of John  2. the baptism with the Holy Spirit - which took place when they believed.

Please, carefully read it again - you will find that there are 3 baptisms specifically mentioned there. Think of it this way:

(a) Acts 19:3 - "And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism." - does this confirm that they had already been baptized by water before, or not?

(b) Acts 19:5 - "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" - does this speak of another water baptism given to them apart from that in verse 2, or not?

(c) Acts 19:5 - "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied" - does this not speak of the baptism in the Holy Ghost?

Now, the difficulty is between (a) and (b) - and if you take the time to study it, you will find there are two water baptisms spoken of there between vs. 3 and vs. 5.

TayoD:
One other thing, the baptism with the Holy spirit is different from beignt filled with the Holy Spirit.

Agreed.

TayoD:
You cannot be born again without being baptised in the Holy Ghost.  It is through that baptism that you are made a part of the Body of Christ.

It is rather the other way round - one cannot be baptized into the Body of Christ unless he or she is born again. Both happen at the same instant, but do not mean the same thing.

TayoD:
That is what 1 Cor 12:13 and Luke 3:16 - 17 teach.  The Disciples were filled with the Holy Ghost when hands were laid on them. Beign filled is not the same as being baptised with the Holy Spirit.  And every time in the book of Acts where people are filled with the Holy Ghost, it is evidenced by speaking in tongues.

I would agree with you on the distinctions between being "baptized with" and being "filled with" the Holy Ghost. However, it is not in every single case in the book of Acts that speaking in tongues followed as evidence of being filled with the Holy Ghost. See Acts 4:31 and 13:9. People can be filled severally (not just once) - as Eph. 5:18 literally teaches: "but keep on being filled with the Spirit" (ISV), or "continue being filled with the Spirit" (ALT). For example, in Acts 2:4, Peter was among those who were filled with the Holy Ghost; but in ch. 4:8 it was recorded that he was filled with the Holy Ghost. The same thing is taught in Acts 4:31 where those who were first filled with the Holy Ghost in ch. 2;4 were said to have been filled again! And no doubt, Peter was in that event as well.

TayoD:
Whether intentional or not, you left out a very valuable part of the statement in 1 Cor. 1:14-17 ,  I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: So while he may have refered to the corinthians initially, he used the opportunity to maeke a general statement of his ministry.

Even if I should have quoted the text in full, it still does not take away from the context I shared earlier - which is precisely the point. It is unthinkable that Paul meant to play down baptism in his general ministry. How then would he have taught severally about the deep importance of the same baptism in other epistles (Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:12).

Even so, when you carefully read Acts 18, you find that many of the Corinthians were baptized while Paul was at Corinth (vss. 1 & 8 ). Paul's statement that he was sent to preach the Gospel should not be taken by rote to mean that baptism was absent in his ministry; otherwise one would seriously have to question that idea in the face of the fact that the same apostle taught the deep significance of baptism in his other epistles.

TayoD:
Like I mentioned earlier, I do not believe the baptism you referenced in Acts 19:5 is what you claim it is.

I've left you something to think through, and then draw your inference after carefully examining verses 3 and 5 again.

TayoD:
Tha does not conclude tha the immersion was done in the name of Jesus as against in the name of the Father, Son or the Holy Ghost as commanded by Jesus.

You would have to re-write Scripture to in order to prove your point. Just kidding .  But seriously, text after text bear out openly that baptism was in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

TayoD:
Having said all that, I need to make something clear. My belief is that it makes no difference whether you are baptised in the name of Jesus, or in the name of the Father, Son or the Holy Spirit.  The most important baptism is the one done by Jesus Himself with the Holy Spirit. An unbaptised Christian is still a Christian since he/she is a member of that body.

The first part was made in my earlier post in agreeing with donnie that neither the two schools of thought are wrong.

However, your second statement cannot be defended against Mark 16:16 - "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." I am persuaded from Acts 10:44-48 that both baptisms are equally important, and neither should be less stressed at the expense of the other.

Cheers.

@babs787,

babs787:
@stimulus


Thanks for the post too. Re-posting ke, where did u see that? I have not asked you before and that is the more reason I told you that I have shifted partially from the questions I have been asking you.

That being the case, let me offer you one piece of advice: please spend more time reading the Bible for yourself, and less time plagiarizing the misconceptions of other Muslim websites against Christianity, particularly those of answering-christianity.com. The reason why people love-vendor, plagiarize and propagate abstractions from others is because they cannot think for themselves. Besides, it really does not tell well of your person to recycle such impetuosity and pass them off as your own, unless you're trying to convince readers on the Forum that you really can't think through issues by yourself.

babs787:
The motive for my questions is just to bring it you that Jesus was never killed.

Oh yes, He was. Not only so, He rose from the dead before ascending to heaven. It is irrelevant that the Qur'an denies this; but then, the Qur'an is unable to substantiate its denials.

Cheers.

Now, I have the premonition that a lot of reaction will follow that article. However, these are the issues I find really disturbing:

Some argue that this purity or cleanliness is of the heart, i.e. that only Muslim believers should handle the Qur'an. However, the majority of Islamic scholars interpret these verses to also refer to a physical cleanliness or purity, which is attained by making formal ablutions (wudu).

Therefore, most Muslims believe that only those who are physically clean through formal ablutions should touch the pages of the Qur'an.
- - -
3) A non-Muslim should not handle the sacred text, but may listen to tapes of the Qur'an or handle a translation or exegesis.
4) Those who are unable to handle the Qur'an based on these reasons should either avoid handling the Qur'an completely, or in necessity hold it while using some sort of barrier covering the hand, such as a cloth or a glove.

#1. In the first place, there is a general concensus that "only Muslim believers should handle the Qur'an." There are questions flying in all directions as to what this foreshadows. If non-Muslims are not to handle the Quran, then how does one find out for himself or herself what is actually written on its pages? Besides, doesn't the Quran itself invite people to read it? Quran 14 vs.52 says: "This is a clear message for mankind in order that they may be warned thereby" - but how can people be warned when they so-called message cannot be handled by those to who it was sent? Again, Q. 4 vs.82 states: "Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy." Big question: how are we as non-Muslims ever going to "consider" a Quran that no one can handle, let alone be allowed to surely find the many discrepancies therein?

#2. It is also claimed that the Quran should never be placed on the floor. Abeg una, years back I saw Muslim local book hawkers on the dirty streets of Kaduna, Kano and Abuja (Julius Berger junction before the bridge was built) who spread copies of the Quran on the floor, most of which gathered dust like no man's business! Did the imams of those places suddenly wake up to change the rules recently by pretending to look the other way?

#3. Now, what happens if a Muslim desecrates the untouchable Quran? You guessed right - the rules are altered! Qur'an 2:286 comes to the rescue: "Our Lord! Punish us not if we forget or fall into error!" How many Muslims have been beaten to death, stripped naked and burnt alive for desecrating the Qur'an one way or another? I read a gentleman by the username belloti offering to defend the indefensible, by stating the following:

belloti:
The kids were wrong, she doesnt deserve to die but there are tendencies for things like that to happen when mistakes are made.

"Tendencies," you call it? And what mistakes are you referring to, that Quran 2:286 applies to Muslims who get away with the same "mistakes"; whereas, others must suffer such hideous "tendencies" for the same "errors"?

Well, one thing that keeps baffling me is that, with all the hot air around the untouchable Quran, it is no more than a meaningless book, especially as Muslims themselves claim that the Qur'an is no longer that word of Allah as soon as it is translated into another language!

The following is largely an online article that may have relevance on the present topic. Thereafter will follow my concerns as to the disturbing nature of the meaninglessness of a book that is untouchable, let alone understood.


Q. Are there special rules that one must follow when handling the Quran?

Muslims regard the Qur'an as the literal word of God, as revealed by the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad. The revelation was made in the Arabic language, and the recorded text in Arabic has not changed since the time of its revelation 1400+ years ago. Although modern printing presses are used to distribute the Qur'an worldwide, the printed Arabic text of the Qur'an is still regarded as holy.

A. The Arabic text of the holy Quran, when printed in a book, is known as the mus-haf (literally, "the pages". There are special rules that Muslims follow when handling, touching, or reading from the mus-haf.

The Qur'an itself states that only those who are clean and pure should touch the sacred text: "This is indeed a Holy Qur'an, in a book well-guarded, which none shall touch but those who are clean, " (56:77-79). The Arabic word translated here as "clean" is mutahiroon, a word that is also sometimes translated as "purified".

Some argue that this purity or cleanliness is of the heart, i.e. that only Muslim believers should handle the Qur'an. However, the majority of Islamic scholars interpret these verses to also refer to a physical cleanliness or purity, which is attained by making formal ablutions (wudu).

Therefore, most Muslims believe that only those who are physically clean through formal ablutions should touch the pages of the Qur'an.

As a result of this general understanding, the following "rules" are usually followed when handling the Qur'an:

1) One should make formal ablutions before handling the Qur'an or reading from its text.
2) One who is in need of a formal bath (after intercourse or menstrual bleeding) should not touch the Qur'an until after bathing.
3) A non-Muslim should not handle the sacred text, but may listen to tapes of the Qur'an or handle a translation or exegesis.
4) Those who are unable to handle the Qur'an based on these reasons should either avoid handling the Qur'an completely, or in necessity hold it while using some sort of barrier covering the hand, such as a cloth or a glove.

In addition, when one is not reading or reciting from the Qur'an, it should be closed and stored a clean, respectable place. Nothing should be placed on top of it, nor should it ever be placed on the floor or in a bathroom. To further show respect for the sacred text, those who are writing it should use clear, elegant handwriting, and those who are reading from it should use clear, beautiful voices.

In summary, Muslims believe that the Holy Qur’an should be handled with the deepest respect. However, God is All-Merciful and we cannot be held responsible for what we do in ignorance or by mistake. The Qur'an itself says: "Our Lord! Punish us not if we forget or fall into error" (2:286). Therefore, there is no sin in Islam on the person who mishandles the Qur'an by accident or without the realization of wrongdoing.

(article found on this weblink about Properly Handling the Quran).

Hi babs787,

Many thanks for your latest rejoinder. Your calmness is appreciated as well.

However, just one question: As I'm not usually in the business of engaging in protracted debates, what exactly is your motive in reposting these questions?

Doris B:
hum,what a topic,well for me they are the same but it depends on your faith because the two faiths that are concern here have different beliefs so it depends on your understanding.

How could two faiths that have different beliefs at the same time become the same?

nossycheek:
That question should be passed to Muslims " If you do not read a book, how will you know what it contains". And we are waiting for your response.

Truth is that Muslims are told the Qur'an can never be translated into any other language. And the moment you take them up on that, they begin to make reference to a book no one is allowed to touch, let alone read!

If the Qur'an cannot be translated into another language so all can read and know what it says, then it is the same thing as saying that the Qur'an is meaningless. That is why some Muslim scholars will tell you that there is no "translation" of the Qur'an; rather, what they have are translations of the MEANING of the Qur'an!! Which again scores another rubbish; because in so far as the Quran is meaningless in the first place, there can be no translation of meaninglessness!!

Does it then surprise anyone that people will muder for a book whose meaning is lost, because it happens to have been translated from Quraish to English?

nossycheek:
As for the Holiness of our Bible, it is not in doubt. The clear difference is that Christians are matured and literate enough to differentiate their left from their right and not some bigots who doesn't even know that they have brains let alone use them but resort to violence for touching a bag containing a book; and not even doing what is in the book

Islam is not a religion to be questioned. Try questioning any issue in Islam, and answers will retrun by the sword!

Hi @TV01,

TV01:
Stimulus, Lafile, truth is most people who are decieved actually want to be. Deep down they'd rather offload the burden of cultivating intimacy with God on to someone else. They are happy with a "facsimile faith" and "comfortable religious endevour".

You never cease to amaze me with your apt assessment of the current development being applauded today in many quarters. may God have mercy on us all.


@lafile,

lafile:
I remember clearly when Peter erred concerning fellowship and eating with gentiles and uncircumsised christians, Paul OPENLY rebuked Peter.

That is true.

However, there's something that I'm constantly trying to call attention to - "balance" in our inputs (and I trust you share the same persuasion). There's a great divide between an erring minister who is humble enough to receive correction; and another minister who is set in his ways to pursue a career of deception.

The case of Gal. 2:11 where Paul withstood erring Peter to his face is well appreciated as an apostle addressing another apostle (2 Cor. 11:5). Thankfully, because Peter was a true servant of the Lord Jesus, he repented of his dissimulation, and continued to be tremendously used of the Lord.

Now, let us suppose for argument sake that Peter had not repented. What would we suppose would have been the reaction of the apostles? That's food for thought to us all.

Nonetheless, since we no longer have Paul and the twelve apostles with us, what are we to do in our day when the warnings in Acts 20:29-30 and 2 Pet. 2:1-3 are being literally fulfilled before our eyes? Men have emerged with perverse teachings; what then? We pray, warn, and speak to these emerging 'ministers' - although some would rather advocate only the first and nothing else. But where these have failed to bring them round to the integrity of the Gospel, what then? This is where I challenge the passive and otiose remarks that we should just leave them alone!

Even as an apostle, Paul wasn't afraid to be checked out by new converts at Berea after having preached to them (Acts 17:10-11). When his apostleship and ministry were being challenged by the Corinthians, he did not rain curses on anyone; but rather rose in defence of his deportment, service, doctrine and hope (I Cor. 9; 2 Cor. 10:7; 12:17-19).

When one asks questions these days, very often answers are not forthcoming. Rather, more than anything else, one is most certain to receive insults, curses, and other 'holier-than-thou' quips from these emerging 'ministers' - to the applause of their gullible supporters. Which is hardly surprising, because the Bible actually says many will follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the truth will be evil spoken of (2 Pet. 2:2).

Beyond praying, believers are called to contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 3). That is not something left to 'specially' selected MOGs who are "placed in a position to correct other men of God if indeed they need to be corrected". To passively leave deception unchallenged is to directly congratulate and celebrate the same.

ricadelide:
i think the best thing to do after saying all what you've said is just let these guys be. some people would never change and no amount of correction or rebuke would change them. it amazes me that these same people cannot see that the same thing they are accusing people of, they manifest; headiness and unwillingness to be corrected. i hope you add them to your list of prayerpoints.

Just to reiterate, while i am an advocate of exposing falsehood, i believe there is a place for everything. when a brother is sinning or doing something wrong, you confront him with it, rather than talk behind his back. there are people that have been placed in a position to correct other men of
God if indeed they need to be corrected. if you have not been placed in that position what you can do is pray.

Let me help you think through what public exposure does. When these men and women started sliding down the slopes, many voices tried to caution them privately. Only very few gave heed; most of them did not. Public exposure creates public awareness that others may learn and take heed (1 Tim. 5:20); and it forces the erring ministers to either repent (2 Cor. 7:9-11), or to continue with their deception if they count truly as such (Tit. 3:10-11). This is exactly what has happened in countless cases, and if you want a few examples of such cases, it won't be a bother obliging anyone thereto.

My questions to donnie are still open to anyone who feels I'm one of those who manifests "headiness and unwillingness to be corrected". Gone are the days when ministers were thought of as untouchables, usually with the appeal to "touch not mine anointed!" That is why I often leave textual references from Scripture in most of my posts, so that we all may reason together. There's just no need to pretend the misnomer of 'advocate of exposing falsehood' if these issues prove too sanctimonious to be discussed sensibly and maturely. Exposing falsehood and deception within Christendom requires much more than praying.

Some are of the view that one must be 'called' or ordained in a special way in order expose deception. Aside this humourous fallacy, I hope that such people will remember to apply the same rules to themselves when they try to talk behind other people's backs in a public Forum under the guise of responding to posts.

Hi again @TayoD,

Enjoyed your riposte; and here's what I'd like you to consider:

TayoD:
I never said these issues should not be discussed. Rather, it is a shame that after 19 centuries, we are still unable to come to the unity of the faith with regards to what amounts to the basic principles of our faith. Can you imagine repaeting a class for 19 centuries? Doesn't that tell you something is wrong somehwere?

No, my brother. I would have agreed with you if you and I have lived all through the 19th centuries and still dealing with these issues. However, that isn't the case; and I don't suppose that believers (especially those who were recently saved) are expected to know everything about the Christian faith even after a few years. However, I trust the Bible helps us to acknowledge that at every point in history, we all have different levels of maturity in our walk with Christ.

TayoD:
Thanks for bringing my attention to what you term the 'baptism of trial'. My persuasion is that Jesus was refering to Himself exclusively with the use of the personal pronoune "I".

Even so, it does not negate the fact that it is yet another type of baptism. And I believe that a careful study of John 21:18-19 is exactly to the point as an illusration of what is meant by that type of baptism.

TayoD:
Acts 19:1-5 does not teach the dinstinction between the baptism of John (water baptism) and Christian baptism in water.

As to the mode of being baptized (immersion/water baptism), I agreed to their similarity by the statement: "Both are by immersion in water" (please read it again). Also, two elements - repentance and remission of sins - are present in both (Mark 1:4 and Luke 24:46-47). Yet, there is a huge difference between either type of baptism as far as the epistles expound them to us in their real meaning and significance.

However, here are a few questions and hints to help you think through why Paul had to re-baptize the dozen believers in Acts 19:

#1. We are not told in what Name John baptized people; other than the scriptures simply saying that his was a baptism 'unto repenance' (vs. 4; see Matt. 3:11), and unto the remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77 & 3:3).

#2. Now, as far as Paul's question was concerned, we can understand that both baptism were not the same: 'Unto WHAT then were ye baptized?' Their answer was: 'Unto John's baptism' (Acts 19:3).

#3. Now, based on the above, would you say that the apostle treated "John's baptism" as exactly the same as Christian baptism? If he thought they were the same, why then did he re-baptized those men who were called 'disciples' when Paul met them (vs. 1)?? It is clear from Paul's question, response and reaction of re-baptizing them, that John's baptism was not viewed as Christian baptism. It would be hideously unthinkable to repeat what one considers to be exactly the same thing in substance.

TayoD:
I am fully persuaded that the Disciples Paul met were not even christians until Paul showed them the way of Christ and they were baptised into the Body. How can you be born again and never heard of the Holy Ghost?

It is not by happenstance that they were called "disciples" when Paul met them in Acts 19:1. You would agree with me that they obviously would have heard of Jesus Christ from John's preaching (Acts 19:2 & 4 and John 1:30-31). The same John had categorically spoken about the Holy Ghost previsouly in the same instance that he mentioned Christ (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; and Luke 3:16). So, it is highly improbable to arrive at an inferenece that those disciples had "never heard of the Holy Ghost" - they already had.

However, what we are to understand by Acts 19:2 is that they had not heard that the Holy Ghost was given already! ( compare John 7:37-39). The Holy Ghost had been mentioned already, and no one acquainted with the things of God could have been oblivious of the promise made concerning Him. This is confirmed in Acts 2:16-17 when Peter reminded his audience that the Holy Spirit had been promised in Joel 's prophecy. The problem with the disciples in Acts 19:2 was not that they never heard any mention of the Holy Ghost; but that they had not heard the promise of His outpouring being fulfilled.

TayoD:
Besides, all they knew was water baptism and not the baptism of Jesus into the Body as Paul outlined in 1 Corinthians 12:13 - For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Paul did not try to administer the baptism of 1 Cor. 12:13 to those disciples - indeed, no man can effect that, for that is the prerogative of the Lord Himself (Acts 2:47b). Please carefully note again the events of Acts 19:1-6. At least three baptisms were spoken of there: (a) John's baptism - by water, vs.3; (b) Christian baptism - by water, vs. 5; and (c) Spirit baptism - sovereignly by the Lord Himself, vs. 6.

You can see that there were two water baptisms in Acts 19: 3 & 5; and neither of them can be interpreted to mean the same thing as the Spirit baptism found in 1 Cor. 12:13.

TayoD:
Paul only laid His hands on them to receive the Holy ghost after he was sure they were born again. Baptism in water does not make you born again, it is baptism with the Holy Ghost that makes you born again.

Paul did lay his hands on the disciples AFTER he had re-baptized them in the Name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 19:5). You can't miss vs. 5 before going on to vs. 6. Being born again is not the same thing as 'baptism in the Holy Ghost'. People are born again by simply believing on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31 and 1 John 5:13). The baptism in the Holy Ghost is a distinct experience that may or may not be attended by special signs - such as speaking with tongues (Acts 2:4) or prophesying (Acts 19:6).

However, 1 Cor. 12:13 states that by one Spirit we have been baptized into the Body; and yet again, that is quite a distinct issue from the experience of Acts 2:4 where the disciples were filled with the Holy Ghost.

TayoD:
Also remember that Paul said he never baptised (refering to water baptism) anyone other than Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas - 1 Corinthains 1:14 to 16!!! That tells me that Acts 19 couldn't be refering to water baptism.

Yes, I remember Paul's bold statement in 1 Cor. 1:14-16. But hey, look at it again: "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; . . .also the household of Stephanas." Paul was clear in his statement that he did not baptize any of the Corinthians other than those he mentioned. And no, he certainly was not categorically denying that he baptized those dozen Ephesian disciples in Acts 19:1&6 (Apollos was at Corinth at the time). Whatever the case, Acts 19:5 tells me that water baptism was administered by the statement: 'they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus'.

TayoD:
While some may think it's unimportant, I still believe a dinstinction should be made as to what type of baptism is referred to in the context we are discussing. Most references are to baptism with the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ and not of water. Peter was clear when he refered to the baptism of water in Acts 10, and the same with Phillip when he baptised the Eunuch in Acts 8.

I coulnd't agree with you more.

TayoD:
Peter never said they should be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Please read that passage again.

Acts 10:48 - "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."

@babyosisi,

babyosisi:
Stimulus,I'm sure you understand exactly what I mean,just because I choose not to quote scriptures and turn my posting into a Bible study does not diminish my point in any way.

I don't think you were put on hot seat for not quoting the Bible or turning your remarks into a Bible study of sorts.

babyosisi:
Every Christian knows the doctrine of baptism is a major one,I can understand if your argument was on sprinkling and immersion but this makes no sense.

As you now admit, if it was a 'major one' you should have said so; more so as you can read that no one was arguing 'sprinkling and immersion'.

babyosisi:
I know the Apostolic church preaches that if you were baptised in the name of the father son and Holy Ghost,you ought to be rebaptised in Jesus' name which I think is ridiculous.

Your opinion.

babyosisi:
Whether the baptiser says I baptise you in the name of Jesus or in the name of the father son and Holy Spirit should not be cause for a baseless argument.

It is not, and hasn't been a 'baseless argument.'

babyosisi:
Are those baptised in the name of the father son and Holy Spirit baptised unto a different baptism?

I didn't insinuate that. Do you suppose it?

babyosisi:
And your mention of Paul and Moses beats me,did I mention Paul anywhere?

Relax. I didn't have to narrow my rejoinders to your 'little-little things' - and that's why I mentioned them to clarify issues. If you don't like my mentioning anything else, too bad it's my rejoinder, not yours.

babyosisi:
I do not engage in useless Biblical arguments that profit me nothing,so knock yourself out brother!!

Thanks. I can see you have gained much profit from knocking yourself out first, yes?

Although I never tried them, would the following help? Here:

#1. Pass The Word - Missionaries to America.

#2. Free Bibles dot Net - for those who have no Bibles at all.

#3. The Gideons International - check on the FAQ link.

#4. Free KJV Bibles and USA Bibles Free - probably for individual requests as well.

Many blessings in your labours.

software:
Trousers from origin, was designed for the use of men,

Where did you get that info from?

The 'original sin' has nothing to do with sex, and has been discussed previously. Follow the same topic on:

The True Sin In The Garden Of Eden: Eve Slept With Satan.

@edochie,

Thanks for your response. I'll have to slice through your rejoinder and make my response accordingly so as to minimize lumping issues.

However, as regards my first question on who in the First Council penned Matthew 28:19, you circumvented it and gave no answers before launching into your thesis. The point is, that verse about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit was long written BEFORE the Council convened; and that is a direct pointer that makes your earlier claim untenable - because you had stated that:

edochie:
There was no record of water baptism in three titles of the father,son and holy spirit until after the time of First Nicea council(meeting of catholic Bishops).

That said, now your latest assumptions:

edochie:
Throughout the bible there is no place God was referred to as a person.

Throughout the Bible, God's personality as a divine Person has always been maintained, in just the same way that man is also a spirit being (Num. 27:16; Eccl. 12:7 and Heb. 12:23). If man is a 'person' because he is also a spirit being, then what is the grounds for denying that God is also a Person simply because He is a Spirit? The difference is that man in his 'person' is human; while God is a divine Person.

When you can grasp a good definition of 'person', then it no longer becomes difficult to understand that God is a divine Person. For anyone to deny that He is a Person, would be the same as ignoring and rejecting the divine revelation He has given of Himself.

edochie:
So, first,tell us where you have those semblances of Trinity in the Bible.

There are actually many references to the Trinity in both the OT and the NT. The earliest allusion is found in Gen. 1:26 where God said: 'Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness'. Many people argue that God was speaking to the angels when He said 'Let us'. My question is: where in ANY verse of the Bible are angels said to be co-creators with God?

Then again, in the NT there are such verses as Matt. 3:16-17 where the voice of ¹Father is heard, following the descent of the ²Holy Spirit upon the ³Son of God who was being baptized in the Jordan river.

Another text in the Bible that point out the Trinity to us is 2 Cor. 13:14 - 'The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.'

edochie:
Ephesians 2:19-22 (New International Version) Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. If we are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets as it is written and Jesus Christ is the chief corner stone and John 10:35 stands that the word of God cannot be broken (no addition/subtraction),I still stand that trinity is a doctrine of men in line with it’s originators that has no biblical origin

Merely standing by your statement does not expound on what the Bible teaches on the Trinity. Indeed, Eph. 2:19-22 teaches that Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone upon which believers are built; but that is no proof-text for a denial of the Trinity, nor is it a text that supports the view that Jesus Christ is God in three OFFICES.

edochie:
Mathew 28:19 was made by our lord Jesus Christ himself

Since you admit that Matthew 28:19 was a statement made by our Lord Himself, would that not be lucid evidence that simply throws out the argument against the Trinity? Otherwise, why then would the Lord Jesus Christ have made reference to the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, if God was never to be referred to as such?

edochie:
I believe totally in the Bible that God is a spirit not a person. So, anything that contradicts the bible you can qualify it better

Some words as 'rapture' and 'substitution' do not appear in the Bible; but they are not doctrines merely taught by men, unless you're ready to deny the foundations of the Christian faith as well. Even so, the word 'BIBLE' does not appear in Scipture - are we therefore to assume also that your reference to God's Word as the Bible is a false doctrine as well?

In the same way, the word 'Trinity', even when not appearing in the Bible itself, yet both qualifies and teaches the truth of Matthew 28:19 and other texts.

edochie:
Take a look at this John 14:7 -10 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Recall, John 14;26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Here the name of the Holy ghost is referred to as Jesus.

Which verse in that passage categorically says that 'the Holy Ghost is referred to as Jesus'??

edochie:
By the above bible quotation you should be able to understand what I mean by one God manifesting in three offices.God is eternal and created the world by his word.He manisfested his attribute of creation in God the father.To redeem mankind he came to world and the word was made flesh and dwelt among us(God the son).when the work of redemption was over he sent the holyspirit in his name as he promised to be with us till the end of the earth.

What we should understand is that God has ever been the Trinity; and both the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were involved in creation, redemption, and Pentecost (Gen. 1:1; Psa. 104:30; John 1:3; Eph. 3:9). We should never make the mistake of seeing 'the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost' as OFFICES - for the simple reason that it is NOT an 'office' that dwells in the believer, but rather God Himself (I Cor. 3:16; 1 John 4:12).

Again, our fellowship is not with a manifestation of an "office". Rather, the Bible teaches that 'our fellowship is with the Father, and with HIS Son Jesus Christ (1 John 1:3). This is why people who reduce the teaching of Scripture about God to fancy ideas like offices, titles, roles, etc. are deeply flawed in their thinking and unwittingly denying the Personality of God Himself.

edochie:
Stimulus, I sincerely stand to be corrected with facts based on the scripture

Me, too. Cheers.

@edochie,

edochie:
The term trinity was used by Theophilus of Antioch in AD 180.There was no record of water baptism in three titles of the father,son and holy spirit until after the time of First Nicea council(meeting of catholic Bishops).Thus, you will find out from Genesis to Revelation that there is nothing like Trinity in the Bible

That being your persuasion, I have three questions for you:

#1. If there were no mention of any semblance of the Trinity until the first Nicean Council, who among those in that meeting wrote Matthew 28:19?

#2. Since the word 'Trinity' does not appear in the Bible, does that necessarily make it a false doctrine?

#3. Is Jesus both the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit at the same time?

edochie:
I quite agree with the 'Post' that says the father, son and holy spirit bears the name Jesus christ."Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is one God manifesting in three offices.In Baptism that name Jesus Christ must be mentioned.It carries authority(phillipians 2:7-10)

Again, I'd like for you to offer us the verse that says 'the Father, son and Holy Spirit bears the name Jesus Christ' - just one verse will do.

Secondly, where in the Bible did you read that "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" is one God manifesting in three OFFICES? What do you mean by OFFICES?

I'm still trying to figure out from you guys: Did the Bible mention trousers? Where?

Hi @babyosisi,

babyosisi:
Who cares if it were said father son and Holy spirit or just Jesus.
Why must Christians come up with all these little little things just to cause confusions.

The Bible does not treat baptism as "little little things". It is part of the principles of the doctrine of Christ, and believers should note well what God's Word teaches on every point.

Among the foundational tenets of our faith, Hebrews 6:1-2 lists at least 6 elements:

'¹[/b]Therefore leaving [b]the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again -

(a) the foundation of repentance from dead works,

(b) and of faith toward God,

(c) ²[/b]Of the doctrine of baptisms,

(d) and of laying on of hands,

(e) and of resurrection of the dead,

(f) and of eternal judgment.'

It is only when we have a firm grasp of the foundational principles that believers can begin to move on 'unto perfection' (vs. 1); that's why we read in verse 3: 'And this will we do, [b]if God permit.' At least people discuss and even debate some of these principles, like (b) - faith toward God; (e) - the resurrection of the dead; and (f) eternal judgement. And nobody has come up to class them as "little little things". Why then should baptism be such?

It matters what Name we are baptized

babyosisi:
Unless if someone is telling me that there is a difference between the names.
What does it matter?
Biko let's stop all this kind talk and move unto better things.

It matters what Name is referenced in baptism. The Bible mentions it several times and makes it clear that people called on the name of the Lord at baptism (Acts 22:16). Christians are not baptized unto Moses (1 Cor. 10:2); nor are we baptized in the name of Paul or any of the apostles (1 Cor. 1:13, 15). It really does matter that the Bible makes clear in what Name we are baptized, and we should not treat it like 'what does it matter?'