₦airaland Forum

Truthseeker10:
I posted a screenshot that clearly define an Almighty God. Don't you agree with the screenshot?

I did not see it, but let me help you using the dictionary.
Almighty means having complete power; omnipotent.
Do you agree with this definition? If no, tell us why.

seunmsg:
At the end of the day, you couldn’t come up with the names of the new people you want us to put in power simply because there are no new people among the serious contenders. Deed down, you know there is no better option among the people you’re supporting. You just want the person you hate out of power and nothing else.

I don't owe you that; in fact, it would have been dumb for me to start mentioning names to you unless you are not a Nigerian. But you are right about something, though. I want the evil men that have destroyed the country out of power, but you want them to remain thats the difference between you and me. And yes, I hate them for destroying this country.

seunmsg:
I responded to you simply because you said we should give new people a chance. Instead of mentioning the new people you have in mind, you started spewing gibberish.

Amaechi was minister for 8 years under the 10 years of APC you are angry about. Malami was the Attorney General for 8 years under same APC. Atiku was Vice President for 8 years and was also a founding member of APC. Tambuwal was APC governor for 4 years and PDP governor for another 4 years. Peter Obi was governor for 8 years and he moved poverty from 25% to 53.8% in Anambra State.

So I ask again, who are the new people you’re proposing? Leave the pep talk and mention just three of them.

Oga we know how you , you are only another tool of the people in power, no nigerian looking for solution can take your kind serious

seunmsg:
.

Can you mention just three new set of people among those hustling to become president from the opposition party?

This is a very APC-like defence. After failing Nigeria for 10 years, you argue that no one can do a better job than Tinubu and Buhari. The point here is that you (The APC) have failed. And instead of pretending that all the other politicians are the same, let us, as responsible people, remove the leaders failing us and give way to the next.

When your leaders know that they can be held accountable, they will take notice. But when people like you excuse and defend them by asking questions like the one you have above, they will be relaxed in their corruption and bad rule.

Responsible nigerians cant afford to excuse bad leadership. Let's flush them out, try the next set, and keep flushing until we get it right.

Truthseeker10:
Is a mighty God and an Almighty God equal?

Sir, you have not answered my question. What is your definition of Almighty? Answer this so we can understand eachother moving forward.

Now, to the question you asked here. An Almighty God is definitely a mighty God, but a mighty God may not be an Almighty God. We both agree that Jesus Christ is a mighty God, that is clearly revealed, but is He also an almighty God? Thats why we need to define the meaning of the word Almighty so that we can be sure we are both talking about the same thing.

So please define, and then we will discuss. Thanks.

Kemetian:
IS PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS GOD?

DO YOU KNOW THEY'VE BEEN WRONG MANY TIMES IN THEIR SO-CALLED PREDICTIONS??

And have been called out for their inaccuracies and even fraudulent auditing?

Oyinbo worshipper.

Any rubbish they say it's like God spoke it in your head.

That's one way of looking at it. At the other side of the coin, they could still be wrong in that much more than 142 million Nigerians will become poorer this year.
So instead of fighting your invisible enemies, you should be asking, how we as a nation can overcome poverty. That would be beter use of your energy.
My first suggestion would be to vote out the APC and give way to a new set of people. It is clear that the present people in charge will only make things worse.

8

Truthseeker10:
Lol...but you yourself claim that Jesus is not the Almighty God. Is that what the Trinity doctrine teaches?

Below is Hebrew 1:9

King James Bible
Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

According to the verse above, If Jesus was the Almighty God in Hebrews 1:8, who is the other God in the verse above that is anointing him with oil?

How can an Almighty God be anointed by another Almighty God?

What does it mean to be Almighty? If you know the meaning of the word, you would have answered your own question

Janosky:
.

Oga, ask your Grok, Gemini & Ai if Paul quoted Hebrew language Psalms 45:6-7 @ Hebrews 1:8-9.

Pls don't deceive yourself

I have answered your question in my earlier post, but again, I asked ChatGPT why the JW translation is not accurate. Let's learn below.

The Jehovah’s Witness (JW) translation, officially called the New World Translation (NWT), is often criticized as not accurate because it changes the meaning of key texts to fit JW theology, rather than letting the Greek and Hebrew determine doctrine.

Below is a clear, respectful, text-based explanation, with concrete examples—especially Hebrews 1:8, which you’ve been asking about.

The core issue: theology drives translation

All translations involve interpretation, but the NWT is different because:

It was produced by a small, anonymous committee

None of the translators were recognized experts in Koine Greek or Biblical Hebrew

The translation was designed to support JW doctrines, especially:

Jesus is not God

Jesus is a created being (Michael the archangel)

When translation decisions repeatedly align with one doctrine—even when grammar argues otherwise—that’s a red flag.

Hebrews 1:8 — the clearest example
Greek text (unchanged in all manuscripts)

Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ Θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος

All standard translations render it:

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever”

NWT renders it:

“God is your throne forever and ever”

Why this is inaccurate

Greek vocative address (“O God”) is normal here

The word order matches direct address, not a predicate

No Greek grammar rule supports “God is your throne”

No ancient Jewish or Christian source understood it that way

👉 The NWT translation exists only to avoid calling the Son “God”

This is especially serious because:

The verse begins: “But about the Son, he says…”

The speaker is God the Father

The Father addresses the Son as God

The NWT reverses the meaning to avoid this conclusion.

John 1:1 — adding theology, not translating
Greek

καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος

Standard translation

“and the Word was God”

NWT

“and the Word was a god”

Why this is inaccurate

Greek does not use an indefinite article (“a”)

The construction describes nature, not identity

No justification exists for inserting “a”

Early Greek-speaking Christians never read it this way

The NWT adds a word that is not in the text.

Colossians 1:16–17 — inserting words repeatedly
Greek

“by him all things were created…”

NWT

“by him all other things were created…”

The word “other”:

Appears 4 times

Appears 0 times in Greek manuscripts

This changes the meaning from:

Christ created everything
to
Christ created everything except himself

That’s theology, not translation.

Colossians 1:16–17 — inserting words repeatedly
Greek

“by him all things were created…”

NWT

“by him all other things were created…”

The word “other”:

Appears 4 times

Appears 0 times in Greek manuscripts

This changes the meaning from:

Christ created everything
to
Christ created everything except himself

That’s theology, not translation.

Luke 23:43 — moving punctuation to change doctrine
Greek (no punctuation)

“Truly I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise”

Standard understanding

“Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise”

NWT

“Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise”

Why?

JW theology denies conscious life after death

Moving the comma supports that belief

No grammatical necessity exists for the change

Again, doctrine determines translation.
Why this matters

Translation should answer:

“What does the text say?”

The NWT often answers:

“What must the text say for our doctrine to work?”

That reverses the proper order of interpretation.

One-sentence conclusion

The JW New World Translation is not considered accurate because it repeatedly alters grammar, adds words, or changes meaning in key passages—especially about Jesus—to fit Watchtower theology rather than faithfully translating the original Greek and Hebrew.

Janosky:
.

Oga, ask your Grok, Gemini & Ai if Paul quoted Hebrew language Psalms 45:6-7 @ Hebrews 1:8-9.

Pls don't deceive yourself

Here is the research from Grok. I hope you agree that AI is much better than you at translation.

Chatgpt

📜 Original Greek (NA28)

πρὸς δὲ τὸν Υἱόν·
Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ Θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος,
καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου.

🇬🇧 Standard English Translation (literal)

“But concerning the Son he says:
‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
and the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.’”

🧠 Why Hebrews 1:8 is so important

The speaker is the Father
The phrase “But concerning the Son he says” makes it explicit that God the Father is speaking.

The Son is directly addressed as “God”
The Greek ὁ Θεός (ho Theos) functions as a vocative—a direct address:
👉 “Your throne, O God …”

This is not poetic exaggeration in Hebrews
While Psalm 45:6–7 used exalted royal language, Hebrews removes ambiguity by:

Identifying the subject as the Son

Using the verse to prove the Son is greater than angels

Treating the title “God” as literal and theological

Eternal rule is attributed to the Son
“Forever and ever” is language used of Yahweh’s eternal reign in the Old Testament.

🔑 One-sentence summary

In Hebrews 1:8, God the Father directly addresses the Son as “God,” affirming His eternal throne and divine kingship, and making explicit what was only hinted at in Psalm 45.

Gemini

In Hebrews 1:8, the author is quoting Psalm 45:6 to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus Christ (the Son) over angels. The translation of this verse is a subject of significant theological discussion because it directly addresses the divinity of Christ.

The Original Greek Text
The text from the Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28):

πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν· Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου.

The Most Accurate English Translation
"Accuracy" in this verse depends on how one interprets the Greek grammar (specifically the nominative case used for "God". However, the overwhelming consensus among Greek scholars and major translations is that "God" is being used as a vocative (addressing the Son directly as God).

The Standard Scholarly Translation (e.g., ESV, NASB, NIV):

"But of the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.'"

The Translation Debate: Why it Matters
There are two primary ways to translate the phrase Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς:

The Vocative (Most Accepted): "Your throne, O God, is forever..."

Reasoning: This is the most natural reading of the Greek and matches the context of Hebrews 1, which aims to show that the Son is higher than angels because He shares God's nature and status.

The Predicative (Alternative): "God is your throne forever..."

Reasoning: Grammatically possible, but rare. This version is used by groups (such as Jehovah's Witnesses in the New World Translation) who argue that Jesus is not God, but rather that God is the source or foundation of Jesus' power.

Conclusion for Your Study
If you are looking for the translation that best captures the intent of the author of Hebrews, it is the one that addresses the Son as God. The author is meticulously building a case that while angels are "servants" (v. 7), the Son is the "King" who sits on a divine throne.

Grok

Here is the original Greek text of Hebrews 1:8 from the standard critical editions (Nestle-Aland 28th/UBS 5th, which are identical for this verse):
πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν· Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου.


Transliteration (approximate phonetic reading)
Pros de ton huion: Ho thronos sou ho theos eis ton aiōna tou aiōnos, kai hē rhabdos tēs euthytētos rhabdos tēs basileias sou.
Word-for-word literal translation
But toward the Son: The throne of-you the God into the age of-the age, and the rod of-the uprightness rod of-the kingdom of-you.

Why the vocative ("Your throne, O God…" is preferred

The verse is a direct quotation of the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) of Psalm 45:6, where the vocative is the standard reading.
The structure "ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς" uses the nominative form "ὁ θεὸς" as a vocative of address (common in Koine Greek, even though the pure vocative would be "θεέ".
Context in Hebrews 1 emphasizes the Son's divine status and superiority (vv. 3, 4, 6, 8–12).
Most major scholarly commentaries (e.g., Bruce, Lane, O'Brien, Koester) and modern critical translations support the vocative reading.

You are welcome, my child

Janosky:

Tctrills,stop deceiving yourself.
Paul copied/quoted every word of Psalms 45:6-8 @ Hebrew 1:8-9.
Psalms 45:7-8 Hebrew Masoretic text.


ז כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים, עוֹלָם וָעֶד; שֵׁבֶט מִישֹׁר, שֵׁבֶט מַלְכוּתֶךָ. 7 Thy throne given of God is for ever and ever; a sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
ח אָהַבְתָּ צֶּדֶק, וַתִּשְׂנָא-רֶשַׁע:
עַל-כֵּן מְשָׁחֲךָ אֱלֹהִים אֱלֹהֶיךָ, שֶׁמֶן שָׂשׂוֹן-- מֵחֲבֵרֶךָ. 8 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness; {N}
therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows"

Why whould you translate from Hebrew language to Greek & give a different rendition in your Greek text?
Hebrew language Psalm 45 " Your throne given of God is forever"
Greek translation " Your throne O God."
Oga,be reasonable & reason well.
Stop deceiving yourself.

Again, you are depending on guess work. Paul never claimed to copy any verse.
You are simply of the illusion that God can't add more revelation to His words.

Lastly, Hebrews 1.8 was originally written in Greek so I gave you the Original Greek translation.

I challenge you to translate Hebrew 1.8 using any AI. These days you don't need to ask anyone for ta ranslation. Grok, Chatgpt or Gemini would give you an accurate translation.

Lastly, if you have any evidence that Paul was directly quoting the words in psalms please show; we are ready to learn.

In fact, let me help you. I will get the translation of Hebrews 1.8 from ChatGPT, Grok, and Gemini so we can compare. AI is neutral; it has no religion.

I asked,
Please give me the original Greek translation of Hebrews 1.8 and its most accurate English translation

From Chatgpt

📜 Original Greek (NA28)

πρὸς δὲ τὸν Υἱόν·
Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ Θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος,
καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου.

🇬🇧 Standard English Translation (literal)

“But concerning the Son he says:
‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
and the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.’”

🧠 Why Hebrews 1:8 is so important

The speaker is the Father
The phrase “But concerning the Son he says” makes it explicit that God the Father is speaking.

The Son is directly addressed as “God”
The Greek ὁ Θεός (ho Theos) functions as a vocative—a direct address:
👉 “Your throne, O God …”

This is not poetic exaggeration in Hebrews
While Psalm 45:6–7 used exalted royal language, Hebrews removes ambiguity by:

Identifying the subject as the Son

Using the verse to prove the Son is greater than angels

Treating the title “God” as literal and theological

Eternal rule is attributed to the Son
“Forever and ever” is language used of Yahweh’s eternal reign in the Old Testament.

🔑 One-sentence summary

In Hebrews 1:8, God the Father directly addresses the Son as “God,” affirming His eternal throne and divine kingship, and making explicit what was only hinted at in Psalm 45.


From Gemini

The Original Greek TextThe text from the Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28):πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν· Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου.Transliteration and Word-for-Word BreakdownGreek WordTransliterationEnglish Meaningπρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόνpros de ton hyionBut unto/regarding the SonὉ θρόνος σουho thronos souThe throne of youὁ θεὸςho theos[the] Godεἰς τὸν αἰῶναeis ton aiōnaunto the ageτοῦ αἰῶνοςtou aiōnosof the age (forever)καὶ ἡ ῥάβδοςkai hē rhabdosand the scepterτῆς εὐθύτητοςtēs euthytētosof uprightness/righteousnessῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σουrhabdos tēs basileias sou[is the] scepter of your kingdom

The Most Accurate English Translation"Accuracy" in this verse depends on how one interprets the Greek grammar (specifically the nominative case used for "God". However, the overwhelming consensus among Greek scholars and major translations is that "God" is being used as a vocative (addressing the Son directly as God).The Standard Scholarly Translation (e.g., ESV, NASB, NIV):."

But of the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.'"The Translation Debate: Why it Matters

There are two primary ways to translate the phrase Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς:The Vocative (Most Accepted): "Your throne, O God, is forever..."Reasoning: This is the most natural reading of the Greek and matches the context of Hebrews 1, which aims to show that the Son is higher than angels because He shares God's nature and status.The Predicative (Alternative): "God is your throne forever..."Reasoning: Grammatically possible, but rare.

This version is used by groups (such as Jehovah's Witnesses in the New World Translation) who argue that Jesus is not God, but rather that God is the source or foundation of Jesus' power.

Conclusion for Your Study: If you are looking for the translation that best captures the intent of the author of Hebrews, it is the one that addresses the Son as God. The author is meticulously building a case that while angels are "servants" (v. 7), the Son is the "King" who sits on a divine throne.

From Grok

Here is the original Greek text of Hebrews 1:8 from the standard critical editions (Nestle-Aland 28th/UBS 5th, which are identical for this verse):
πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν· Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου.

Why the vocative ("Your throne, O God…" is preferred

The verse is a direct quotation of the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) of Psalm 45:6, where the vocative is the standard reading.
The structure "ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς" uses the nominative form "ὁ θεὸς" as a vocative of address (common in Koine Greek, even though the pure vocative would be "θεέ".
Context in Hebrews 1 emphasizes the Son's divine status and superiority (vv. 3, 4, 6, 8–12).
Most major scholarly commentaries (e.g., Bruce, Lane, O'Brien, Koester) and modern critical translations support the vocative reading.

If you'd like a comparison with the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation ("God is your throne…" or further discussion of the theological implications, let me know!

Janosky:
Jesus spoke the statement of John 10:34-36, he is the son of God.
God call his Son a god ..
Jesus told me so.

John the apostle heard it too.
John 1:1 must be (Jesus) " the Word" is a god."

[b]The Message Bible of Psalm 45:6
Bible Gateway
https://www.biblegateway.com
Psalm 45:6-7 MSG - “Your throne is God's throne, ever
6-7 “Your throne is God's throne, ever and always; The scepter of your royal rule measures right living. You love the right and hate the wrong

& Masoretic Hebrew language of Psalm 45:6-7 ,Oga,confirm the truth there .
Hebrews 1:8 was doctored with Trinitarian objectives. [/b]

I have already replied to you above, but your argument that Psalm 45:6-7 and Hebrews 1.8 must be word-for-word the same for Hebrews 1.8 to be correct is dead on arrival. We will see that God is able to add more truths to the revelations of the Old Testament.

Let's compare a few other Old Testament verses with similar verses in the New Testament

Psalm 40:6 → Hebrews 10:5
Psalm 40 40:6
“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but my ears you have opened.”
Hebrews 10:5
“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me.”

Psalm 68:18 → Ephesians 4:8
Psalm 68 68:18
“You received gifts among men…”
NT – Ephesians 4:8
“He gave gifts to men.”

Habakkuk 2:4 → Romans 1:17
Habakkuk 2:4
“The righteous shall live by his faithfulness.”

NT – Romans 1:17
“The righteous shall live by faith.”

Now the most remarkable will be
Psalm 102:25 → Hebrews 1:10
Who laid the foundations of the earth?

So you see that just because verses in the Old and New Testaments sound similar, they don't have to be teaching the same principles. God is able to add more truths to the revelations of the Old Testament

Janosky:
Jesus spoke the statement of John 10:34-36, he is the son of God.
God call his Son a god ..
Jesus told me so.

John the apostle heard it too.
John 1:1 must be (Jesus) " the Word" is a god."

[b]The Message Bible of Psalm 45:6
Bible Gateway
https://www.biblegateway.com
Psalm 45:6-7 MSG - “Your throne is God's throne, ever
6-7 “Your throne is God's throne, ever and always; The scepter of your royal rule measures right living. You love the right and hate the wrong

& Masoretic Hebrew language of Psalm 45:6-7 ,Oga,confirm the truth there .
Hebrew 1:8 was doctored with Trinitarian objectives. [/b]

So, about John 1.1, you are wrong. John called Jesus Christ God.

Yes, Psalm 45:6-7 and Hebrews 1:8 are quite similar, but Paul never claimed that He was quoting the Psalm. Both verses are 2 independent revelations. We still have the original Greek writings of Hebrews 1, so it is very easy to detect if Hebrews 1 was doctored, and from the below, you will see it was not doctored.

Now, here is Hebrews 1:8 in its original Greek, followed by a careful English translation.

Original Greek (NA28 / Majority Text)

πρὸς δὲ τὸν Υἱόν·
Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ Θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος,
καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου.

Literal English Translation (word-for-word)

But concerning the Son:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
and the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.”

Standard English Bible Translation (ESV-style)

“But of the Son he says,
‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.’”

Important Linguistic Note (why this verse matters)

ὁ Θεὸς (ho Theos) is in the vocative sense here

Grammatically, it is direct address

The Father is speaking to the Son and calling Him “God”

This is not:

“God is your throne” ❌ (grammatically forced)

“Your throne is divine” ❌

It is:

“Your throne, O God” (natural Greek)

This wording directly quotes Psalm 45:6–7 (LXX) and applies it explicitly to the Son, affirming His deity and eternal kingship.

One-sentence conclusion

In Hebrews 1:8, the Father directly addresses the Son as “God” in the original Greek, declaring His throne eternal and His rule righteous. do not say the same thing, and both are correct.

Janosky:
Some people no want ignorance to leave them.
But love to deceive themselves.

1.
14 Bible versions @ Jn 1:1 reads "the word was a god"
Did Jesus agree?
Yes.
John 10:34-36,Jesus( the word ) quoted Psalm 82:6 saying,the sons of God are gods.
Jesus is a god, son of God.
No argument.
2. Colossians 1:15, Jesus is Firstborn of every creature is a creature as firstborn of every child is a child.
No how you can twist this fact.
1 Cor 8:6,Jesus is not the Creator.
@ Luke 13:2, your Bible added (" Other" which is not in any Greek manuscript.
Remove it from Luke 13:2,otherwise stop the hypocrisy.
3. There is no record in your Bible that the thi.ef resurrected with Jesus.
The garden of Eden was the paradise (the earth) given to man .

4.
Psalm 45:6 was copied at Hebrew 1:8.
The Message Bible & Catholic New Jerusalem Bible reads:
"Your throne is from God"/ Your throne given of God".
NWT " God is your throne ". (Same meaning with The Message Bible,Catholic New Jerusalem Bible.)
In Isaiah " God is your Crown".
If your version of Psalms 45:6/Hebrew 1:8 is different ,just know that you have been deceived.
No capping.

5.
Johaneum comma in KJV ,textus Receptus Bibles of 1 John 5:7 is a man made contraption.
Use Biblehub 1 John 5:7 & note the KJV error.
Quit your ignorance,I dey beg you.

Jn 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Hebrews 1.8
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom

Mabuggi88:
no notes, no reports just pictures. Back your post up with notes

You don't need notes to be aware of the biggest international happenings. The story is all over the place

Truthseeker10:
Explain John 14:28.

Does the Bible or the Trinity doctrine teach that the father is the "leader of the Godhead" according to your teaching of trinity?

The above is not my teaching, it is the teaching of Jesus Christ. I only quoted a bible passage that clearly teaches that Jesus Christ is God. So let me ask, is there anything you disagree with in the above? If yes, tell me so we can discuss.

sonmvayina:
There is no evidence that Jesus actually lived, so what would a real historian write about him?

It would be like writing a “history” of King Arthur or Robin Hood, about whom nothing is known but their names and some far-fetched legends.

Was the magical sword in the stone historical, or the bible’s “virgin birth”?

A serious historian would know there is no real evidence that Jesus existed.

Just hearsay.

All that we have is a “big fish” story in which a minnow became a whale.

How did that happen?

It happened because the gospels are fairytale book with:

A virgin birth
walking on water
A ludicrous ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE
and so on…
As with other books of ancient mythology, we can’t assume actual events are being depicted.

Thus, we have to seek confirmation outside the bible.

But no one who lived at the time Jesus allegedly lived wrote a single word about him.

The earliest extra-biblical mention we have of Jesus is an implausible blurb in the histories of Josephus, written long after the fact, if there are any facts.

Furthermore, 92.4% of scholars who expressed opinions deemed the blurb a christian forgery, either largely or entirely.

The next mention was by the Roman historian Tacitus, a century after the fact, and he got Pilate’s job title wrong, strongly suggesting that he was quoting what he had heard Roman christians say.

And hearsay is not evidence.

Thus there is no actual evidence that Jesus existed, or any of his apostles.

An honest historian would conclude that he couldn’t write a history of Jesus, only conjecture.

You are saying that the testimony of his apostles should not be regarded as historic records because they were not professional historians?
Who are you to decide whom's record qualify as historic works.
State your academy reasons why the testimony of Matthew, Mark Luke and John are not accepted as Historic records but the records on Alexander the great should be accepted?
Please give pure accepted academy/scholarstic reason not just your opinion.

Why do you think that John for example is not qualified to keep historical records about Jesus Christ?

So many Christian sects are still in confusion about the divine Godship of Jesus Christ, but all it takes to know the truth is one verse in the bible where the Father Himself called Jesus Christ God. Let's review it together.
Hebrews 1:8
But of the Son He says,
‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

Why is this important?
This sits at the center of the Christian faith. The Bible presents this knowledge as essential for salvation, worship, assurance, and understanding God Himself.
Salvation depends on who Jesus is

Isaiah 43:11

I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

John 1:29

Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Only God can save from sin against God.

Jesus is worshiped—and worship belongs only to God

Scripture is clear that worship of anyone but God is idolatry.

Matthew 4:10

“You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.”

Yet Jesus:

Accepts worship (Matthew 14:33)

Commands honor equal to the Father (John 5:23)

Is worshiped in heaven (Revelation 5:11–14)

If Jesus is not God, the New Testament promotes idolatry.
The Bible does not do that.

steadygo:
Lol if you cannot understand how what these articles are talking about point to threat to attain property; coercion and theft then let's leave it as it is. I'm not sure how to explain further than this.

I clearly understand that none of the articles you posted showed any evidence of theft.
So instead of claiming that you cant explain further, why dont you copy and paste from any of the articles showing any of the following

1. What the US has stolen so far
2. A specific resource the US is about stealing and how they are going about it. So you dont just say they are about stealing oil, you have to show how and who is involved.
3. Evidence that the Venezuelan people and government are against US investments.

Go ahead, quote from your articles i am waiting

steadygo:
Lol why are you pretending to not know the difference between hostile takeovers and using military or physical force to coerce business deals?

You see that the US kidnapped the President of a country and are now is saying they are "in charge" of that country and will "invest" in it and you are asking what is the proof of coercion? Or was Trump suddenly chosen by the Venezuela people as their sovereign between the brief period of time he kidnapped Maduro? Where is the US's legal rights to "run" Venezuela as Trump said? From the conversation we've been having, you should have seen all these and not need to be asking me these questions.

Nonetheless, here are some articles for the proof you requested.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgnxvp477eo

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2026/01/07/ndjb-j07.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/05/trump-more-us-troops-venezuela-00712023

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/07/venezuela-oil-trump-us-latest

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/venezuela-trump-maduro-rcna252177

If this is a court case, you have no evidence.
I was expecting you to show thst American companies are forcibly taking over Venezuela.
In fact, the crime you accuse them of hasn't been committed.

You are clearly unfair and biased.

I don't think you read any of thr links you send because in all the articles, not one incident of theft was mentioned.

To show you never read the articles you sent here is the title of one

Trump threatens second strike against Venezuela if interim president does not bow to US demands

Let me further explain to you.
One of the articles talks about the sanctioned oil anout 50 million barrels. Hope you know that by selling sanctioned or illegal oil, Venezuela could be forced to forfeit the oil but what is the US doing?
They are selling the oil at market price, hence more than it would cost on the black market and the business would benefit both nations.
This is money that Venezuela had lost the rights to by selling illegally. This actually prove the contrary to what you believe

steadygo:
I just saw this part. No I am saying if Venezuela does not want America's investment then it is undoubtedly wrong for America to use its military to coerce the rights to invest which is what Trump declared.

First, ddo you have any evidence that Venezuela does not want America's investment or that America is using its military to coerce the rights to invest? Trump never declared that America will use its military to coerce the rights to invest. Please quote where he made the declearation.
Lets start from here

steadygo:
There are legal processes allowed within the UN charter to address such a scenario, kidnapping was not the right move.

For the second point you addressed— Hence, threat of force. Hence, coercion. I am not conflating investment with stealing. You are the one who does not seem to understand that investments achieved using threat of force or coercion is indeed stealing. I think we are repeating our points. Let's leave things here.

Let's be honest, the UN has been completely powerless to this, just as they continue to remain powerless to almost all international conflicts. No one should take the UN seriously.

Can you prove that the US is threatening anyone in Venezuela? And coercion in business is done all the time, and it's very legal. We have aggresive take overs going on all the time. Business will always involve coercion, but if you can show me evidence of US forces confiscating legal Venezuelan businesses and investments under the barrel of the gun, you would have won me over. Until then, you have not been able to prove any of the allegations you keep making, and you are being very unfair to the US.

Please, in your next post, show me evidence.

steadygo:
Fair, you are right that Hong Kong slowed in relative to the rest of China after it was returned. However, Hong Kong having a slower growth relative to the rest of China is understandable given the rest of China is growing and catching up. It's also typical for mature, high income economies to not grow as fast. It does not prove colonialism is good, only that mainland China grew fast.

I'm not a lawyer either but I will explain what I know. The decisive laws were after WWII in the form of the United Nations Charter which is completely against using force to threaten another state's sovereignty. US economic dominance post WWII did not come through the outright use of military dominance to gain resources. There was no kidnapping of leaders and claiming control of resources as a result.

My premise was that investing in a country through the use of military coercion is a crime. You are free to disagree with this but it is not merely my opinion. It is not an uncommon belief that the use of physical force to obtain rights over someone's property is wrong. Any legal system would consider such a thing wrong. Even within the US using force or threat of force to obtain property is a crime.

Not everything is worthy of "wait and see". Any aggressor can say "wait and see things will get better". I do not need to see how the rest follows to call out theft when I see it. And this is beyond a measure of a doubt, theft.

I agree we are going in circles so we can leave it here unless there is any thing new to add. I would like to know your answer to a question before we leave things though. If you would answer— say China or Russia had the power and wanted to colonize Nigeria. If they promised to make things better, would you agree?

Let me address a little bit, according to the UN charter, you are telling me that a president can lead drug sales to another country and they can do nothing about it because he is protected by the UN? That is corruption.

To your second point , the US is not going to do business through the barrel og the gun.
But what would happen is that they would have far more influence in Venezuela thanks to the military action. This is exactly what happened after WW2.

They dont have to steal anything. There military influence will only translate business relationship. The new leafers of Venezuela will be friendly to US interest.

You keep conflicting investment with stealing

You seem to be saying that after a military action, you should leave the investing for other nations and not take advantage of the new relationship your military might had forged.
How does that evven make sense?

Dogalmighty17:
I don't understand. You want people to help you look for someone and you don't have their full names?

Pray for understanding. If she has their full name, she most likely would have found them herself

AngelahFlo:

It's not something to get worked up on Oga.

It is because you are wasting my time with some strange made up doctrine

steadygo:
Everything in your posts seems to me as a terrible attempt to justify the immoral decisions by Trump's administration. How someone can say that military coercion to attain natural resources is not a crime, simply because it happened historically, is amazing to me. There's really not much I can say if that is your view. I will only add a few things to what I've already put down before.
First, international law did change after WWII so your example is not valid even in that sense.
Second, the best deal for Venezuelans is the use of their sovereignty to utilize their own resources on what is best for them. That is not America claiming total control of their resources— how could that be best for Venezuelans? Are Venezuelans somehow lacking the natural potential to manage their own country and resources for their own good, why should they need to come under American colonial rule simply because past administrations failed? I struggle to see any sense here.
Lastly, Hong Kong is only one example not to mention a large reason for their growth wasn't due to the British but industrialization by Chinese. It's silly to use it as a general rule to support colonialism when most countries colonized did not even end up that way under colonial rule. It's false to say no one complained when there were many riots against colonial rule. It's also false to say no one complained when there were many riots in Hong Kong against colonial rule.

Let me begin by corecting you, before Hong Kong was returned back to main land China, it was already much more developed and with a much higher GDP per Capita than China. In fact, the opposite happened after the reunion.
Other Chinese cities have grown much faster while Hong Kong slowed in growth.
Hong Kong was already the Asian capital of finance before the reunion.

Also, a lot of the US economic and financial dominance came as a result of winning ww2. So claiming that laws written after ww1 made it impossible for your companies to reap the reward of military success is not true.

But then, I am no lawyer. Could you teach me or explain these new laws to me?

For the rest of your write-up, its clear that we are begining to go in circles and repeat talking points.

I disagree with your premise that investing in a country where you have military dominance is a crime. Just because you dont like it doesn't make it wrong.

Unlike you, I am going to wait and see how this plays out before making conclusions and I will only judge but the quality of life of the Venezuelans.

For now, I suggest we stopped going in circles. I am available if you have new inputs but lets not just keep rinsing and using the same talking points

AngelahFlo:

Happy New year to you Sir from my side of the world. Some things don't make sense to those who don't want it to make sense. I can't say more than that. One thing is you forget that Adam named the animals before they even had one. Supernatural intelligence is the ability to know a thing by inspiration and that is what Adam had. It'll only make sense to those who are open enough to allow it make sense.

What is the one even saying. You guys just wake up and begin to create your own false religion. Oga there are so many things much more difficult than a naming ceremony.
I am sure naming your kids was the hardest thing you ever did but don't think it was the same for everyone

steadygo:
Lol I think I have answered most of your questions here in my previous post so I will just say a few things. Chevron investing in Nigeria isn’t “theft” per se. That’s voluntary contracting with a sovereign state. Investment of someone else's natural resources without their permission is a crime. Investment attained by military coercion is a crime. It will never not be a crime. It is not a question of what I would want if I were President, it is about what is right. By that same logic you also sanction Nigerian politicians robbery of our country, because can very well say "anyone in office would want to enrich himself so why not steal from your people". It is either right makes right or might makes right.

Investment attained by military coercion is not a crime. The world has been this way since nations were formed. World War II gave the US so much economic and financial control over Western Europe. Germany paid the economic price for losing World War I.
So tell me, when did this all change?
If it will be a better deal for the people of Venezuela, I will be happy for them.
The British took Hong Kong by force and created the biggest financial powerhouse in Asia. I don't think anyone in Hong Kong is complaing so why should you? Its not a perfect world so we can only choose the better option.

steadygo:
Not doing the same thing over and over, does not amount to calling America to colonize you. Yes, the Nigerian government has failed us but that a select few have failed us does not mean that it is impossible for Nigerians to be successful leaders of their own country and need to be colonized. Yes, the Tinubu government is taking our resources and I fear America will do the same. Like I said colonialism doesn't end corruption, it just changes the beneficiaries. Is it not Venezuela resources that they just claimed complete rights over? You say you don't care about voting if armed robbers always win, fair. But instead your solution is to hand the country over to a different set of armed robbers to and give them complete rein over you. How does that make sense?
I think you are struggling to understand that America does not care for Nigeria. Do not conflate the success they have brought to their own country to be what they will bring for us.

How did the US set the right precedent? Any state with the power to do so, can follow their precedent and kidnap another state's leader on the claim the leader is a criminal to their people.
Iraq is different because the USA got permission from the UN to get Iraq out of Kuwait.
A strong power like the US abusing its power, builds resentment among nations and brings about disorder.
You make it appear as if US investing in Venezuela's natural resources was permitted by a sovereign Venezuela. It is like you take someone's debit card without their permission i.e steal, and use it to buy stocks then you say you are just "investing" so nothing is wrong lol. Even if you give the owner some of the value you have gotten from your investment back, it would still be stealing because they never authorized you to make that investment in the first place.
For your Nigerian analogy, the Nigerian government authorized Shell's extraction of resources in Nigeria so it is a different thing. I will give you this — the Nigerian government does not represent the best interest of the Nigerian people but it is still the nationally recognized sovereign of the state.

Sir, we both know you are dreaming, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself that you are not. We both know Nigeria would only get worse. It's never going to be better. I advise you start telling yourself the hard truth. You claim the US would be another kind of armed robbers, but that's unfair; we have yet to find out. So why judge? Let's see what happens to Venezuela, and then we can have this discussion about the US being another robber. For now, Tinubu and our government are the robbers we know.

For your second paragraph
Just study history, no nation in its right senses would do that as long as there remains a world power. Invading another nation would only invite the might of the world's powers. Every world power in history wants to be the only one able to dominate and usurp. What the US did is a power move that puts all other nations in check; it doesn't empower them.
Let's talk about resentment. Which do you think would bring more resentment, picking up the madman from Venezuela or tariffing the rest of the world? Trump tariffed the whole world, friend and foe, and nothing happened. World leaders would talk, but nothing would happen.
Talking about the resources of Venezuela, let's not be so naive; the world did not start today. Nations face all kinds of business pressure in the global stage. The US will be foolish not to use this to its advantage. They were stupid in Iraq, Afghan and Libya. China was able to fill the investment gap in these countries. Only a foolish leader will not use military advantage to gain economic advantage. If I have military control over a region, the least I can do is allow my companies to have priority. This is how the world has always been since nations were formed until the West started growing woke and weak. The US has zero economic aid in Libya and Iraq, yet both countries have become a disaster for all. Business and investments bring stability.
Doing business is not the same as robbery.
This would be incredibly great for the Venezuelan people. Why are we mourning and complaining when life is about to get great for these people?
Wait, do you think it was ever going to get better in Venezuela without this? Why are you even sad?

For your last paragraph about Shell, to the ordinary man on the street, it does not matter who authorizes the companies as long as the people get the benefits. If under the US, the average man on the streets lives a better life, then I don't really care so much about sovereinty especially when a drug lord was in power. There are many things more important to me than sovereignty. Security, food, a thriving economy, and hope for the next generation all trump sovereignty. It is not a perfect world, but at least this is a better deal for the ordinary man.

steadygo:
Even if we say those companies deserve their investment back, you can double and triple the earnings and it still would not amount to complete control over Venezuela's oil. And not even just oil but their other natural resources too. What is going on, is simply theft if you want to be honest.

Sir, how do you see business investments as theft? I am not getting your line of thought. Chevron is an American company with business interests in Nigeria. Is that theft? This is a system where both parties benefit, the government and the people of Venezuela, and the company taking the risk and making the investments.
You seem to be anti-investment as long as it is coming from the US. Will Trump's action swing open the doors of investment in Venezuela? Yes
Would it be great for the American companies? Yes, but also the Venezuelan people. Much better than what they ever had.
Please tell me your main problem with this new arrangement.
If I were president and I took military action against another country, I would want it to benefit my people as much as I could. I guess you will want the same, too, but when Trump does it, we just have to hate.

steadygo:
Kidnapping another sovereign leader is a dangerous precedent to set. You say that international law does nothing for us, what benefit is it if smaller states like those in Africa now feel empowered to do the same to neighbors? Furthermore, if they kidnapped Maduro because he is trafficking drugs to the US, what now gives them claims of rights over Venezuela's oil like they are suggesting?

I have to assume you're Nigerian from prior posts I've read from you— I'm really shocked how a Nigerian man that seems as well read as you will think colonization by the US will be beneficial to us. What reason do you think the USA sees us as so special that after they colonize us, they will take away time and resources they could spend on their people, to instead make lives better for us? Sure, there would be enough stability to allow them to extract resources but it doesn't end far from that. We would also not be able to vote nor replace leadership, our future will depend entirely on what direction US sways in. Colonization does not take away corruption, it only makes changes to the people benefiting which in this case will be the US.

I have already responded to you in my earlier post but do you realize that 18 years ago Venezuela stole and nationalized the property of American oil companies?
Do you think these companies should be compensated?

kingthreat:
So speaking English is now an special thing?
Celebration of colonization.

Oga its actually a special thing it would get you a job faster than speaking Yoruba or Igbo and this has nothing to do with colonization. English is the world's language fir business and finance

Lexzeey:
In every family there's these uncles and aunts who knows nothing about you, they don't even know your name sometimes or how you survived into adulthood but feels you owe them allegiance whenever they see you.

first off I know it's an African thing to always respect people older than you, and before you crucify me I am also an adult now with his own adult life, I keep to myself and I don't force people to respect me as respect is earned.

A family member died and we all came back for it, coupled with the holidays, the whole extended family was present including some of those in diaspora, I'm an introvert so I keep to myself, I generally greeted everyone when I came and sat in my corner.

Then there's this useless Cockatoo who drank free beer until his brains froze, first he kept talking about yahoo boys, how they dress a certain way, how they do all sorts to be rich, how they kill people to be rich, they both with soap gotten from herbalist, they don't go to work yet they're living fine, they have cars at a young age etc.

Now when you're talking and you don't call my name trust me I won't answer you. Even if it's obvious you're talking about me, and from all indication this man was talking about me, one my mom is dead, two I earn online and don't physically go to work, third I am not begging I'm doing okay, but I still didn't pay him any mind, then he indirectly started talking about how they don't respect people enough, he was so pained for some reason and condescending.

I just got up and went to a shop outside our family house, as I was buying something this weyrey came, I got what I wanted and turned to leave and that was when I felt it, waaam at my back, this guy slapped me on my back, then he asked me directly, didn't you see me? Don't you know I'm your uncle?

I lost it, and like a reflex I slapped him back hard it was a resounding slap, he staggered backwards, and my cousins held me, before I know it has spread that I just slapped uncle whatever his name is, what's painful is everyone blamed me, for being disrespectful and suddenly it didn't matter what he did, I'm somehow supposed to attone for it.

this man didn't know how I survived till adulthood, not even a penny of his went into my upbringing, I don't know why he felt I owe him respect and allegiance, even if I did, why does he have to go about it that way.

Google image

Men who come online to discuss their family matter are weak. I noticed you even attacked someone who faulted so its clear you came here looking and hoping to be congratulated for slapping your uncle.
You slap your uncle and you come online hoping to ne told Weldon what kind of man are you?