₦airaland Forum

@Olabs,

@May Kelly; Answer my question, directly with either yes or no: Did God ever called Jesus God, at anytime in the Bible?

The answer is absolutely YES. Are you blind or just basically ignoring Psalm 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. 7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

And further more, the Psalmist declares God calling Jesus his Son: Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. 8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. 9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel

@Olabs,

You have carried your dishonest slef to this thread again to repeat the same-ol', same-ol' crap about God not refering to Jesus as God even after I have refered you to Psalm 45 at least twice on this board. When are you going to grow tired of this al'taqiya.

Psalm 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. 7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows

And by the way, are you not told to learn from Christains because they know better than you? Where did your Moohammed ever instructred you to teach Christians? Why are you such a stiff-necked mooslim? You must consider yourself wiser than your lord or are you now selectively obeying your kuran?Surah 10:94 - If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.

@olabowale,

@Olaadegbu: If you post a verse, then watch me skew it, with or without the opague glasses. I simply ask you to post it. Again, I ask you did God Almighty called Jesus, God, at anytime, at any place in your Bible?

While you have suddenly dissaperaed from this topic when I answered your previous entry, you suddenly re-appeared with another statment whose answer is staring you in the face as revelaed in psalm 45 already quoted above. Psalm 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. 7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

@poetikalz,

For me ,i don't think i would ever condition my hair to look beautiful!why would i want to do that?

I hope you will comb it sha and keep it tidy

@topic,

Here's a conversation between the Father and the Son that David captured and penned in the Psalms

Psalm 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. 7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

@landis,

There is no truth to it. It is only a wishful thinking.

Can you tell us why there was such a hurry to move to Abuja after the coup? Please don't regurgitate the Murtala idea again as that is well known by all.

Yep. Abuja became legal seat of power in 1977 when it was created.
IBB only physical moved in 1990.

Was there any decree promulgated in 1977 saying Abuja was now the legal seat of power from that year? That plans were made to make it the seat of power doesn't confer that status until the move was finalized. Up until the move, Lagos was considered the Capital of Naija, and only became the commercial Capital after the move.

@landis,

Just that we should erase the notion IBB moved seat of Power to Abuja because of Coup or Power consolidation is idle talk

Did you read the following statement that I made in my first post: "While this reason may not be tenable for academic purposes, I kind of believe there is some truth to the story."

The fact on ground was Abuja was created in 1977 and it became seat of power from that moment.

Abuja became the seat of power in 1977?

@landis,

That's circumstancial. It does not hold. Abuja was created in 1977 legally.

Are circumstancial evidences ignored in a court of law?

@May Kelly: If you believe in One God (Who you call father/Jehovah/Yahweh), then the son can not be God then. If the Father never called the son God, then your believing in Trinity, flies in the face of One God! Then i your Bible, did we not see a character named Melchezdek, having the same quality of God, yet Melchezdek was here on earth long time before Jesus?

There you go again, arrogating importance to yourself as if you are a Bible scholar - you are absolutely not one. Have you not read in the Psalms, David's account of the conversation between the Godhead, and therefore penned the following: Psalm 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. 7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. Doesn't that fly in the face of what you just wrote.

As much as I think that Mu'hammed is a fraud, there is one statement he made that I agree with him 100%. He said when you as a mu'slim don't know a thing, you should ask the Christians to explain to you: Surah 10:94 - If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.

Please know that I am a Mus.li.m. I put these out to you so that you can make a better decision, in the long run.

If you are indeed a mooslim, then follow the advice of your prophet in Surah 10:94 above.

@landis,

Absolute rubbish.

Abuja was created by Murtala through its committee which include Aguda + Tai Solarin.

Is anybody contesting this with you? At least no one has said here that it was not his brain child. However, why the rush by IBB which happens to have been accelerated after the coup? What role did the coup and possibly his desire to hold on to power have play with respect to the move? That is what we need to consider.

@doyin13,

Anyways. . . . .I kind of understand the whole IBB angle concerning the move to Abuja.

It might not have been his 'baby' but he sure hastened the move after the Orkar coup
even with the unpreparedness of Abuja for such a migration.

Absolutely. The way the move was carried out gives credence to the theory. That it is an angle worth investigating is not in doubt. The one crying Abuja being IBB's baby has no clue what he is saying.

Some of us had the priviledge of working with some of the Master Planners for Abuja, so we know what we are talking about.

@Afam,

This is the type of reasoning you get from misinformed Nigerians who think they know anything about Nigeria and will gladly fight over nonsense.

You have started with your juvenile tantrums again abi? What part of "conspiracy theory" don't you understand? You think I am like you to make references to non-existent data in writing a bull-shit article? When I refer to facts, I back up the facts. When something is no other than hear-say or conspiracy theories, I will surely refer to it as such.

So, Abuja has now been twisted to be IBB's baby? This is a shame, huge one.

No one ever said Abuja was IBB's baby. You need to understand what you read before you start to foam your shame on the www.

I know it is paining you that I revealed your infantile reasoning when you came on nairaland to declare that the way to bring about uninterrrupted power supply in naija is by taking our industries off the power grid while providing just 2 or 3 light bulbs for each household and possibly enough power to for one TV per home. Trying to twist my words to make your self look good is not the way to redeem yourself.

And by the way, you are yet to tell us what qualifies you to speak on Naija's power industry other than the fact that you peddle inverters.

@olabowale,

@Olaadegbu: Isiah 61.1 was a speech from Prophet Isiah. The One who was the Original speaker was Isiah.
Jesus simple read it in Luke 4:18. Hardly can you or anyone make him the speaker of verses of the Old testament. You can only do that if you can provide evidence that Jesus was Isiah all the while.

You have come again with your uni-directional interpretation of the Bible that is devoid of any scintilla of revelation. Let me respond to your statement with a like statement.

David wrote the following in the Psalms using the same personal pronoun "I" like Isaiah did - Psalm 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. 17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. 18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.   So tell us, was David talking about Himself or someone else? So who do you think he was refering to?

@MyTempID,

What matters is that is had an effect on society. Whether economic, or existential, gays in America could care less about that. As I opined earlier, whites might have believed at the time, that it would have an existential impact on society.
American society for the most part is highly civilized. In fact, they're not so concerned that slavery only had an economic impact on society.

It will take a sophisticated level of delusion to assume that lack of slavery will have an existensial impact on a society. You are assuming too much by assuming what the Whites believed then. However, all indications and proofs suggest slavery was adopted in America for one purpose - economic prosperity. Slavery, or lack of it has no existensial impact on the society.

As a result it should be banned? Ask yourself then why oh why do so many people engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of self-gratification?

I have no problem with people having sex whenever and with whomever they feel like. However, when they want to involve the society by entering into a binding contract through the State, then I have a problem. Of what use is that association to the society? What has the society got to gain for the union? Adopting a child becomes even a greater tragedy for the society as far as I am concerned.

Again, that's your common sense and your belief leading you to that conclusion. Not all pepole believe in the notion that sex is only beneficial, or should only be had when it allows for propagation. When, or where, were you taught that the sole purpose of sex is to preserve the human race? In that case, some might argue that why does it feel so good? Would people care that it feels good? Or why would they enjoy the pleasures of sex without being in a marriage?

I never claimed that sex is only meant for procreation. What I said is that Gay marriage by itself will lead to the death of the society since there will not be any children born into that society. I never said others should not have sex.

Sexual intercourse can also be seen as an expression of your love for your spouse. Why do you think most women prefer to 'make love' and not 'Bleep or have sex'.
The idea that sex should be had for procreation is a bible-thumper, and I must say it is something I agree with. But hey, I can't change, or control what people do.

While the society can't control people's sexual preference, it can at least control those it issues a marriage license.

Change will always/usually occur at the expense of society, and society as a whole must adapt to change and learn do deal with it. Society has been doing that and there's no reason to think it can't do it now.

Changes hsouldn't be taking place at the expense of the society. When bad changes are allowed to happen, it costs the society while good changes is a blesing to the society. Gay sex, I don't care, but gay marriage is a curse to a society becuase it will cause that society to implode.

Armed robbery is not a consequence of change and one can especially argue that it's been in existence since the beginning of time. You should not disqualify gay marriage as being a bad change without being able to support your dismissal of it using a wholistic perspective.

I have provided you with a wholistic perspective. A society will cease to exist in a hundred years if nothing but gay sex and marriages are permitted. A society with heterosexual marriages on the other hand will forever remain in existence.

MyTempID,

Darn gays get their way yet again!

How does it?  Is this an opinion or a statement of fact?  Couldn't it also have been argued by the whites that liberation of black slaves would depress the American economy?  It's not about what society prefers, it's about doing right.  Or, as someone mentioned earlier, allowing freedom in the land of the free. Righteousness has a way of preventing marginalization.  As much as you and I may disagree with the, in my opnion, barbarism that is faggotry, we should still be open-minded to the established laws of America.

How could you compare the two. The argument about slavery has only economic impact on the society. Gay marriage on the other hand has an existensial impact on that society. Why have you avoided the scenario I creates?

That's because you've been told, or taught, that marriage should only be between man and woman.  What if gays were told that marriage between a man and his Bleep buddy, who happens to be another dude, is acceptable? Or as most gays are led to be believe, that homosexuality is sometimes a natural biological phenomenon.

It's not what I've been told, it's common sense. What's the end product of gay sex? Only self-gratification. Sex between a man and a woman on the other hand provides a means for the society to preserve itself in the next genreation.  Don't be deceived by all this biological nonsense they are talking about. Let's consider Darwin's postulation for instance. Why would a biological being develop a trait that will cause it to cease to exist? Isn't the weak supposed to displace the strong? Why would the strong now mutate to weakness?

In a civilized and continually changing nation like America, people will continue to change, and civility allows for this change and welcomes it.

Of course change is welcome, but not at the expense of the society at large. Armed Robbery was and will continually be a crime in any society. Are we to accept it as a product of change? Not all changes are good, and gay marriage is one of those.

@Danmansani,

I think gays should be allowed to marry, adopt, do whatever it is they do or want to do provided it does not infringe on the rights of others.

A society must always watch out for its self-interests. Actions that jeopardises the continued existence of a society must be jettisoned at all costs. Gay marriage falls in the category of such actions.

Why don't you let's do an experiment. Take Nigeria for example. Let us legislate against union between a man and a woman. From now on, let's make it alaw that only gays and lesbians can marry and no two individuals of the different sex must be allowed to have sex. I can guarantee that in 100 years, Nigerians will only be refered to as we do the ten lost tribes of Isreal.

My point? marriage is the building block of the society. Gay marriage builds nothing. It is a self-serving arrangement designed to cater for the sexual lifestyle of a few.

Don't get me wrong, they can have sex with themselves as much as they want. heck, they can even have with animals, but when it comes to marriage, it must only be between a man and a woman.

@topic,

Let me add some conspiracy type reason why the Capital was moved to Abuja. from what i gathered in those days, it was part of IBB's grand scheme to hold unto power at all costs. if you remember, the Gideon Orkar coup almost toppled him. His ADC was killed defending him during the coup D'etat. IBB felt he had no control over Lagos and that it will be ungovernable in the event of civil unrest. The best place he could go without feeling much of the heat was Abuja.

While this reason may not be tenable for academic purposes, I kind of believe there is some truth to the story.

@syrup,

There are numerous verses to add to that. What's important is whether the Biblical documents came before or after the Nicean Council.

Absolutely. I was just meditating on that verse today and came acros this topic.

In any case syrup, you are holding down the forte very well here. Keep it up. You and pilgrim-1 are such a blessing, even though the hordes of you-know-who have managed to keep pilgrim-1 away from the forum.

I need to stand clear now and keep taking notes while you continue with your exegesis.

@topic,

Was the Council of Nicea pre or post the following Bible verse? Colosians 2:9 because in him doth tabernacle all the fulness of the Godhead bodily

@Dr Kitaun,

is everyone gifted with writing skills

Absolutely not. Do you think President Bush and most of the world leaders write their speeches? If they are unable to write, all they could do is share the info with those who would write and they can edit to ensure accuracy. We are losing the most valuable asset of nation-building: THE BENEFIT OF HIND SIGNT.

ACTION MAN ACTION !!! thats what we need . . .

Whic would you prefer? Action ased on zeal or action based on the benefit of hindsight? One is based on only idealism while the other is based on both idealism and wisdom built from experience (both personal and otherwise).

@Pataki,

This is why Nigerian politics suck. . . . . people that could never in their entire life open their gutters to address one, once they see you are no more, begin to run their dysentery mouth here and there.

That's the major problem I have with naija. None of these people consider it wise to write books so the next generation can fully understand what has gone by and plan for the future. All that Adesanya knows just died with him in the grave. Why no books that we can all reference? Check the US, nearly every Tom, Dick and Harry writes. Even with that, some still try to re-write history. I tire for this kain wahala.

@topic,

I am not a supporter of either candidate i.e. Obama and Clinton. However, I think Clinton has ben taken out of context. She was in no way advocating the asassination of Obama, rather she was talking about the democratic nomination process going all the way to June. Its just in bad taste to remotely imply she wants Obama dead. You guys need to be truthful sometimes.

@babs787,

I'll respond to some of your questions due to limited time. I got to get some things done at the office before heading out.

It seems you still believe in this trinity of a thing when I provided rebuttal to a thread raised by Olaadegbu but never mind, I have few questions for you on duality of Jesus.

Why shouldn't I. Jesus believed it too: John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Did God need to punish himself before he could sav man?

The principle is clear in scripture: Hebrews 9:22 - And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.If you care, study hebrews to understand why it had to be Jesus.

If your Jesus is God, who did he pray to when he learnt that they wanted to kill him?

He prayed to God. He is both Deity and humanity. That was His humanity crying out to the Father. His Deity is the one that declares in John 8:58 - Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Who did he tell that, 'my God, why has thou forsaken me?

This was in fulfilment of prophecy and is in no way an indication that He isn't Deity. His humanity again being emphasised at this point.

If Jesus is God, spirit is God etc, why does blasphemy against son of man has forgiveness but that of holy has none?

Because without accepting the testimony of the Spirit regarding the Son of Man, you are doomed. No one can receive the Jesus except through the work of the Holy Spirit.

Apart from the questions above, below are verses from your book showing that God is different from Jesus, infact higher than him.

I am equal with my wife even though I am in authority over her. That the Son and the Holy Spirit are subject to the Father only indicates the phenomenon of headship that we see in scriptures. of course I do not expect you to understand all these things.

@babs787,

You response above reminds of a question on duality of Jesus which goes thus:
If God is a spirit and those to worship Him must do so in spirit, how come he is man when Hebrew bible said that God cannot be a man but a Spirit?

I presume you are refering to Jesus Christ. Jesus the Christ is 100% God and 100% Man. God has no beginning but prepared a body for Himself which He took upon Himself in humility. Phillipians 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

God in His deity could not die but the man Jesus died and rose again. We see evidence of His humanity and deity throughout His lifetime. The man Jesus decalred "I thirst", but the Deity declares "Come unto me all ye that labour and I will give you rest." The man declares "thou will not leave my soul in hell", but the Deity declares "I am the resurrection and the life."

Like Paul declares in 1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

@olabowale,

Your god died. You know he flipped flooped, right?

It takes a level of dishonesty to declare that Christians believe that God in His deity died. Times over on this forum, people have declared to you the dual nature of the persona we call Jesus Christ. Indeed he died in His humanity, but never died in his deity.

As Jesus said Himself, He gave up His life, and He took it up again Himself. There is the humanity and the deity aspect which will have to be identified and distinguished if you truly intend to understand God's greatness and humility as exemplified in Jesus who is called the Christ.

@olabowale,

Oh you gullible souls! You think a common sign had anything to do with this? I wonder why the thief that was hanged with "Jesus," died and "Jesus" did not save him? At least he should have done a last one for the road miracle with the thief that believed him, right? You people are almost behaving like cultists. And those Christians who died were allowed to die by Jesus, uh?

When you were reading your Bible, did you miss the part where Jesus told the thief: "today, you will be with me in paradise?" Not even your Prophet or your a-llah could make such a promise to anyone. If anything, your Prophet was not sure if he would wound up in hell or not. Infact, is it not an irrevocable decree by your lord that you will pass through hell? 

And according to your Bible, Jesus could not even save his own soul, even as he begged in his prayer for this "Cup" to be removed from his head. Think people! Don't go about the places blind.

Did you miss the portion where Jesus aslo said the following in John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. Your prophet on the other hand was killed by a Jewess. No wonder you guys hate their guts.

@Ghaffaru,

It has a lot of facts in it, try reading it with a Holy Bible in your hand, so you can verify the verses.

I initially wanted to ignore the rantings by your so-called muslim brother, until I read the bits I highlighted above. Don't be deceived by the notion that everyone who refernces the Bible actually interpretes the Bible for what it says. I'll show you how your so-called brother embellished the truth from the first few paragraphs he wrote.

The word Christian was first mentioned by a pagan to describe those who followed Jesus. It is mentioned one of three times in the New Testament by a pagan and Jew in Antioch about 43 AD, (Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16) long after Jesus left this earth. To accept the words of pagans as having any value or association with divinity, Jesus or God is contrary to the teachings of all Prophets.

Abeg, can you pick up a copy of the Bible as you have advised someone else here and point out how a pagan was responsible for the name Christianity as first mentionsed in Acts 11:26? Infact, no one was a pagan amongst the major characters mentioned in that entire chapter. So how did your brother in lies arrive at that conclusion?

That Agrippa refers to believers as Christians in Acts 26 does not means he came up with that name. So are you the author of the name Christians just because you refer to us as such? Can you guys just be sincere for once? How can you hope to lead people to the truth based on lies? It was Peter, a foremost Disciple of Jesus who used the term Chirstian in 1 Peter. So what is your guy's point?

Jesus prophesied that people would worship him uselessly and believe in doctrines made by men (Matthew 15:9).

You need to read the entire chapter to understand what Jesus was talking about here. Infact, it is a direct repudiation of the practices of Islam where you have rules upon rules that are made by men. Chirstianity is not about how you wash your hands and carry out rituals that your brother is talking about. Rather as Jesus said in John 4:25 - God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." . Does this sound like anything Islam offers? Absolutely NOT.

@4Him,

I know you are passionate about this issue but try to bring your tone down a little bit.

@RichyBlack,

Israel must change it's evil policies for peace to exist in the Middle-East.

What evil policies? Of defending itself whenm under attack? I have asked you guys to define what you consider as proportionate response from Isreal since every thing they do is disproportionate in your views.

Furthermore, the era of depending on idiots like George W. Bush is coming to an end. Unless McCain wins the next election, Israel should kiss goodbye to the era of random massacre of Palestinians with US support/backing.

My guy, Isreal only targets the militants unlike your Arab friends who aim for civilians. It seems you prefer the later tactics to the former. What Bush policies are you against? The one that insists on democratisation?