₦airaland Forum

cornelboy:
No need. He's not one of the JWs.

I guess he's a Mormon. Member of the church of Jesus Christ latter day saints.

You are free to keep asking my church, I guess I have the answers now.

cornelboy:
No need. He's not one of the JWs.

I guess he's a Mormon. Member of the church of Jesus Christ latter day saints.

You are now guessing churches for me. lol. You would never cease to amaze me.

cornelboy:
Form your private church and share your beliefs with your members.

You haven't read what Paul said about certain people bringing another doctrine different from theirs?

I did not bring any other doctrine. This is an online platform not a JW branch. Here, I can share any belief. If I am in a JW meeting, I would respect their doctrines and position.

cornelboy:
You believe all this and you haven't been disfellowshipped like your friend archorladey?

Why would anyone be disfellowshipped for his private beliefs?

cornelboy:
Lol.
Talk something meaningful jàre.

You have actually been by far the most impressive. You are mostly well mannered. I am sure you know, you don't have to insult those that disagree with you. Remember, Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the Children of God.

achorladey:
Na their mode of operation. Wetin go be their gain without insult?

Cornelboy is much more respectful than most of his fellows I am even surprised that he is mostly respectful.

cornelboy:
Your believe that GOD is a state, where did it come from, watchtower article?

Being a JW does not mean I cant believe whatever I want does it? Or does it mean that I cant read the bible to learn more on my own?

cornelboy:
First question: When did you become a JW?

I have been a JW all my life

cornelboy:
You foolish self know that it's a lie.
The question no end o, it just started!

If its a lie, its up to You to prove it. You too have began to insult. correct boy, you are learning fast.

achorladey:
I await their response to this

Conelboy refuses to learn that you don't force out personal info. He is acting as if I am answerable to him.

achorladey:
This becomes really interesting. Wait and see how they deny you

I would stick to my position from now, I am Jw for life.

cornelboy:
Only a person without good brain will be that Jesus is Jehovah.

When Jesus was baptized by John, who was the one that said "this is my beloved son in whom I'm well pleased"?

And the bible teaches that that son is God John 1.1

cornelboy:
But you denied you said that the other time.

What's your religion?

you are more interested in my person than my position. I am still not understanding how its your business. But to end such questions, from now I would be telling you that I am a JW member

cornelboy:
But you denied you said that the other time.

What's your religion?

I never denied anything you Claim. I never made an Argument or even gave you my position. You did not even ask my position. I presented you a long text that showed how sholas are confused. Please read with understanding

cornelboy:
Person wey tell me say God is not a person but a state . Also said Jesus is JEHOVAH.
He's here for the fun after all.

Yes God is a state. If the bible teaches that We are Gods then clearly, it was not referring to a person. And I gave you over 50 scripture that clearly taught Jesus is the Jehovah of the old testament.

cornelboy:
Which one gangan you believe and accept as Bible TRUTH?

. I don't depend on scholar for my truth. I read the bible on my own.

Janosky:
Tctrills Post:
"For the Gnostics, Jesus was the true God, as opposed to Yahweh, the creator....."

The same man who said Janosky doesn't know Jesus is the true God.

Achorladey coman help your friend explain wetin he post.

Did you understand the document I sent, It was a compilation of different arguments from scholars. Some argued your position, others argued the catholic position and So many other arguments. Please read it.
It was my response to the scholastic article you sent to show you that Greek scholars cannot come together to explain the bible. They all have their opinions.

Janosky:

Shuoooo
Oturugbeke !!!!!!!!!!

"For the Gnostics, Jesus was the true God, as opposed to Yahweh, the creator....."
The same claim Oga Tctrills have been making repeatedly on this thread.

The Gnostics were the source of your Trinity GIBBERISH.
Not genuine believers, NOT Jehovah's servants.


Oga, continue your belief in the Gnostics philosophy you call "Trinity".

Congratulations

Show me where I said Yahweh is not the one true God?

Janosky:


Tctrills, you have been UNABLE to disprove John and Jesus Christ@ John 20:17.
Oga, go & rest.

I love the fact that you are now using one verse of the bible to fight off another verse. Good Job. But what you don't understand is that Both scripture are speaking the same truth. being the Son of God makes him God. He is both God and the son of God. this is simple biology. A man is also the son of a man.
So the bible called Jesus both God and the son of God. How hard is that to understand. John 20.17 tells that the Father is God and John 1.1 tells that the Son is God. How is this hard for you to understand?
I am comfortable with the entire bible, I don't need to prove one verse is false just to prove another is correct.
He is also both the Son: Psalm 2:7 and the everlasting Father ; Isaiah 9:6.
And I am quoting from the bible not from some unknow Hebrew professor.

Janosky:
For how long will you continue like this?
John 20:17 is the nemesis of your claims on this thread.

Are you saying that John 1.1 is not in your bible?

Princechinox:
Pleaae, I'm here to learn...

The question is, who are Gods' children? The answer is all humans are God's children. The Sons of God live both in heaven and on earth.

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Acts 17.29 29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

PSALM 82. 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

We all came from heaven (God's Presence) So don't be shocked to know that there are still spirit children of God in heaven. Its only when then come to earth that they gain mortal bodies.

Janosky:
Oga, you are confused & very desperate to console yourself .
John 20:17, Jesus Christ brought your confusion to an end but you vehemently refused & rejected his evidence.

Shalom.

I just went through all you wrote again. The more I read the more It becomes clear that you are not sure how to place Jesus Christ. You are not comfortable calling him God because it would destroy are your arguments. Yet you cant do without calling him God because it is clearly stated in the bible. Again you cant tell if he is a true God because John 17.3 says there is only one true God yet again, you don't know if he a a false God.
The Catholics you condemn are far better than you. At least they understand their position. When you come up with a clear position of who Jesus is, I would love to know.

Janosky:
Tctrills, you have proven your allegiance to the Trinity GIBBERISH.
Yet you continue LYING as if you don't espouse Trinity
Read Acts 12:22-23 & John 1:1 Bill Mounce Greek Interlinear /Biblehub screenshots.
Two times Theos is in John 1:1 & Acts12:22-23.
Look at the circle dot, Bil Mounce your Trinity mentor, REMOVED Greek definite article ("ho" from John 1:1.
Did Bill Mounce remove the same article ("ho" from Acts12:23?
No.
What is the reason?
To perpetuate Trinity GIBBERISH.
@ Acts 12:22-23 Bill Mounce gives the full meaning of Greek Theos just as Emphatic Diaglott Bible & NWT John 1:1 did the same at John 1:1.
But, Bill Mounce refused to do same at John 1:1.

Scholars are not the solution here.
Below are various interpretation of John 1.1 all by scholars
The Meaning and Origin of ‘In the Beginning Was the Word’

‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ These are among the most famous lines in the New Testament: they begin the Gospel of St. John. But what does ‘In the beginning was the Word’ mean? Let’s take a closer look at the meaning of this famous opening sentence.

LATEST VIDEOS
It’s perhaps helpful to begin by setting out the difference between the Gospel of John and the three other gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The Gospel of Mark is thought to have been composed the earliest of the four gospels, with Matthew and Luke basing their own accounts on it. The gospel of John was written later still, and of the four, has the strongest claim to actually having been written by one of Jesus’ apostles. (It’s been speculated, though we cannot know for sure, that John may have written his account in the late first century AD, when he was an old man of nearly 90.)


Matthew, Mark, and Luke are grouped together as the ‘Synoptic’ gospels, from a word meaning ‘seeing together’. These three accounts all reflect each other to varying degrees. But the Gospel of John is quite different. Right from those opening words, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’, John is signalling that his account of Jesus’ life will be treating Jesus as much more than a human being. This is not to say that the other gospel writers don’t also acknowledge that Jesus is the Messiah (as well as a human being), but that John’s Jesus is supernatural and ethereal – otherworldly, almost – right from the beginning.


‘In the beginning was the Word.’ But what does John mean by ‘the Word’? The original Greek text has Logos, for which ‘the Word’ is our English translation. But Logos is a word that comes with a lot of meanings packed into it, and ‘the Word’ is only a partial reflection of this densely significant word. This term, ‘the Word’, is not found in the Old Testament, and its use in the New Testament is down entirely to John.

In his endlessly informative Asimov’s Guide to the Bible: The New Testament: 002, the author and all-round polymath Isaac Asimov links John’s ‘In the beginning was the Word’ to the Greek philosophy of Thales of Miletus, who lived in the seventh century BC. Thales argued that, contrary to the idea that the world was largely erratic and unpredictable in its operations, it was actually subject to rigid laws of nature, and that these laws could be discovered using reason and observation. This is the beginnings of both rationalism and empiricism, if you will.


This meant that God – or, depending on which belief system you subscribed to, a whole pantheon of gods – created the world upon some clear and knowable principle, and that this principle is constant rather than changeable and arbitrary. One of Thales’ followers, Heraclitus, used the term ‘Logos’ to refer to this rational principle. ‘Logos’ means ‘word’ but it also denotes the entire rational structure of knowledge as Thales and Heraclitus had theorised it.


And as the term ‘Logos’ was taken up by more and more philosophers, it came to refer not to some abstract entity but to a thing, even a person: the person who had created this orderly system of knowledge and principle in the world. Logos, if you will, became personified. This tradition spread beyond the Greek world, and was taken up by the Jewish followers of Yahweh, or the Old Testament God. In Jesus’ time, a man named Philo the Jew popularised the term Logos as a reference to the rational aspect of Yahweh.


So when John begins his gospel by taking us back to the very beginning – of time and of the world and the universe – he is using the term Logos in light of this thinking. So ‘In the beginning was the Word’ means ‘In the beginning was Logos’ which means ‘at the beginning of everything, there was the entity we know as God, who embodied, and created, the rational principle on which everything is founded’.

So much for ‘In the beginning was the Word’; but what about the next part of John’s sentence? How was ‘the Word’ with God as well as being God?


Well, as Asimov explains, at the time John was writing there were some philosophers who tried to keep God and Logos separate. Logos was not synonymous with God, but merely one power that he possessed, if you will. God, being spiritual, was removed from the rational and scientific processes of the world: he could not be associated with material things, as an elision of ‘God’ with ‘Logos’ would imply. These philosophers and mystics were known as ‘Gnostics’, from the Greek meaning ‘to know’.

For these Gnostics, because the world is material, God could not have been directly responsible for creating it. Instead, they believed some sub-divine and more malevolent entity had done that. Because the world is full of evil, the Gnostics reasoned, an evil being must have had a hand in its creation. Plato famously called this being the ‘Demiurge’. And for Gnostics, Yahweh – the Old Testament version of God – was really the Demiurge, this inferior being to the true God, and the Demiurge was the one who had brought the (flawed) world into being.

For the Gnostics, Jesus was the true God, as opposed to Yahweh, the creator and Demiurge. And the Gospel of John, and those opening lines, set themselves against such a Gnostic interpretation of God and Creation. God and Jesus, God and Logos, Logos and Jesus: all are one and the same. Or, as John more poetically (but obscurely) puts it: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ That is, at the beginning of all things there was Logos, the creator of everything. And Logos was not only with God, but Logos was God. As the succeeding two verses of the Gospel of John make clear, Logos and God are the same being:

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

1:2 The same [i.e., Logos, the Word] was in the beginning with God.

1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

That is, Logos was God, and Logos made ‘all things’. God made all things, but God was Logos, or the Word.
John 1:1 is the first verse in the opening chapter of the Gospel of John in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. The traditional and majority translation of this verse reads reads:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[1][2][3][4]

The verse has been a source of much debate among Bible scholars and translators.

"The Word," a translation of the Greek λόγος (logos), is widely interpreted as referring to Jesus, as indicated in other verses later in the same chapter.[5] For example, “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14; cf. 1:15, 17).

This and other concepts in the Johannine literature set the stage for the Logos-Christology in which the Apologists of the second and third centuries connected the divine Word of John 1:1-5 to the Hebrew Wisdom literature and to the divine Logos of contemporary Greek philosophy.[6]

On the basis of John 1:1, Tertullian, early in the third century, argued for two Gods where the Persons are distinct but the substance is undivided. But Tertullian saw the Word as ontologically inferior because He is only “a portion of the Whole.”

In John 1:1c, logos has the article but theos does not. Origen of Alexandria, a teacher in Greek grammar of the third century, argued that John uses the article when theos refers to "the uncreated cause of all things." But the Logos is named theos without the article because He participates in the divinity of the Father because of “His being with the Father.”

The main dispute with respect to this verse relates to John 1:1c (“the Word was God”). One minority translation is "the Word was divine." This is based on the argument that the grammatical structure of the Greek does not identify the Word as the Person of God but indicates a qualitative sense. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father. In that case, “the Word was God” may be misleading because, in normal English, "God" is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead.

With respect to John 1:1, Ernest Cadman Colwell writes:

The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb, it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it.

So, whether the predicate (theos) is definite, indefinite or qualitative depends on the context. Consequently, this article raises the concern that uncertainty with respect to the grammar may result in translations based on the theology of the translator. The commonly held theology that Jesus is God naturally leads to a corresponding translation. But a theology in which Jesus is subordinate to God leads to the conclusion that "... a god" or "... divine" is the proper rendering.

achorladey:
This one that one of his brother in Jehovah said nairaland has no rules no go listen to your words. They feed and drink on insult, name calling, tags and labels. They inherited it from their forerunners and religious leaders

Janosky resulted to insults and name calling when the going got tough. For me, its simple. If you claim all others are wrong, no problem just be ready to give the correct answer whenever you are asked. The more he tries to distract with his insults, the more I bring him back to topic. Let him answer or keep quiet. I am sure Janosky feels like erasing John 1.1 from his bible.

Janosky:
Oga, you are confused & very desperate to console yourself .
John 20:17, Jesus Christ brought your confusion to an end but you vehemently refused & rejected his evidence.

Shalom.

Let me also advise, please lets not turn this thread to an insulting contest were we use rude words. We obviously don't agree, you have an answers but I would not insult you for that. Its not your fault. We can still love ourselves if even if you cant answer my questions

Janosky:
Oga, you are confused & very desperate to console yourself .
John 20:17, Jesus Christ brought your confusion to an end but you vehemently refused & rejected his evidence.

Shalom.

I DONT SEE THE USE OF TRADING WORDS WITH YOU. I just find it funny that you cant answer the simplest of bible questions yet you feel you are qualified to teach the gospel online. Tell the whole world, is Jesus Christ a true or a false God? If he is a true God, who is the only true God. I don't care about your insults but I would keep asking this simple question. This is one question you have no idea.

Gentlerespect76:
Cry to God because you want to ruin your home. Love kwa? How I wish Nairalanders can be known like on Facebook. Then the sins of everybody would find them out.

YOU ARE INTERESTED IN KNOWING OTHER'S SINS. YOU SHOULD BE FIGHTING FOR YOUR SALVATION IN FEAR AND TREMBLING AND NOT LOOKING TO FIND OUT SINNERS. Detective.

Janosky:
Oga, you are a 3 deities worshipping Polytheist.
Whether you put the officially recognized name (Catholic, Pentecostal, RCCG etc) on your NL profile or Facebook page,na your own cup of tea.

Oga, please read my previous response as many times as it takes you to understand it.

Shalom.

Boss let others attempt the question. You seem to have no idea who Jesus Christ is. You are not even sure if he is God or not. You don't seem to have a stand. At one point, you said he is a true God, at another time you say he is not God. Haba. What is the matter?

Janosky:
Oga, you are a 3 deities worshipping Polytheist.
Una plenty for Religion Section, Nairaland.
Whether you say the officially recognized name on your NL profile or Facebook page, na your own cup of tea.

My religion is not in debate here. What is your point?

Janosky:
Tctrills, you have proven your allegiance to the Trinity GIBBERISH.
Yet you continue LYING as if you don't espouse Trinity
Read Acts 12:22-23 & John 1:1 Bill Mounce Greek Interlinear /Biblehub screenshots.
Two times Theos is in John 1:1 & Acts12:22-23.
Look at the circle dot, Bil Mounce your Trinity mentor, REMOVED Greek definite article ("ho" from John 1:1.
Did Bill Mounce remove the same article ("ho" from Acts12:23?
No.
What is the reason?
To perpetuate Trinity GIBBERISH.
@ Acts 12:22-23 Bill Mounce gives the full meaning of Greek Theos just as Emphatic Diaglott Bible & NWT John 1:1 did the same at John 1:1.
But, Bill Mounce refused to do same at John 1:1.

Baba, are you ready to answer my question or do you want to keep sending me stuff that dont apply to the discussion. let me make it easy for you.
According to John 1.1 Jesus is God now in John 17.3 there is only one true God. Question 1, is Jesus the true God? If he is not, is he a false God?
If you don't understand my questions, you are free to ignore let some one else try. But if you have to answer, send relevant materials. I read all you sent, none answered the very simple question.

Janosky:
Tctrills," thou shalt not lie".
Proven by your own post on this thread.
Violation of Nairaland Rule 8.

What is your point? I asked you to reconcile john 1.1 and you got offended. You are just exposing yourself. Show me post where I defended Trinity and this is what you show. Please don't let people doubt your intelligence. You would not find a single post where I defended trinity. I am sure you searched all day yet you could come up with nothing.

achorladey:
The whole idea for they seeking the religious of others is to go down the part of they have always been insult, labels, name call, shame that religious denominations just like their founding fathers did


See the below from their publications

Paul obviously was aware of some Greek teachings, and he used such knowledge to give a most effective witness. (Acts 17:28) Similarly, Jehovah’s Witnesses are not ignorant of others’ beliefs. They have gained considerable basic knowledge of the doctrinal beliefs of religions common in their area. Consideration to such teachings has been given in the book What Has Religion Done for Mankind? as well as numerous articles in The Watchtower and Awake! Such information on various religions is presented in the context of its contrast with accurate Biblical teachings............


Since they have the basic knowledge and more about the common religions in their area, why are they asking the name of church of others here. Do they now lack these knowledge?


I said earlier they don't believe their is any good in the religion of others

See this again from the same publication


Many people who believe that ‘there is good in all religions’ might consider it narrow-minded to think otherwise. (Contrast Jesus’ view expressed at Matthew 7:13, 14, 21-23.) The Greek philosophers in ancient Athens encouraged such an “open-minded” attitude and enjoyed “telling something or listening to something new.” (Acts 17:18-21) But when the apostle Paul appeared before them, it was not to swap philosophies or ideas. He used the occasion to present what he knew to be the truth, whether he was considered narrow-minded or not.

In reality they don't believe their is good in all religion and Paul believed that too .

Anyone that wants to do anything worthwhile pertaining to religion or worship as it were should be a Jehovah’s witness

I wouldn't allow conelboy to do that to me. I have never spoken against their church. I only discuss doctrines so if he is planning to have a church war with me, I surrender even before the war begins.