₦airaland Forum

plappville: NO DOUBT, true2god IS A SHE NOT HE

TroGunn: Techinically, there's nothing wrong is saying Jesus is God, a god,(as translated from Hebrew "Elohim" which means - Strong One or Powerful One), as long as you acknowledge that he's no equal to the Almighty God and Creator Yahweh. Jesus is really a strong One- Revelation 5 hightlights this.

No one is saying Christ is just an "ordinary" angel. (Btw "ordinary" angels are also called "gods" [powerful ones] - just one siglehandedly killed 185 000 Assyrians soldiers). Christ plays the role of the Archangel (Chief or leader of angels). Clearly, in this role he commands angelic armies to achieve God's set objectives.

I honestly don't know why people find it difficult to accept this.

Nothing delights Jesus more than serving and carrying out his Father's instructions faithfully (John 4:34) - he's always at the forefront of such. He set a perfect example for us in obedience to God. It's why he had no issue "becoming obedient to the point of death" ( Philipians 2:8 ). Surely, Jesus would not consider being the messenger (angel, if you like) of the Most High Yahweh something demeaning.

People should get over this already!

mazaje: Another bible contradiction. .God things and the holy spirit are NOT the same thing. . .The unknow writer of Mathew and the Unknow writer of Luke did NOT have the same thing in mind when they wrote down what ever it is they chose to write down. . .One said holy spirit the other said good things they do not mean the same thing if they both wanted to write holy spirit they would have written holy spirit. .



Your god loves you but then allows you to be killed and maimed?. . .The same bible talks about god protecting his own and guiding them,no?. . .You just can't get away with this very contradictory book of mythology. . .



I do not have time for basless mythology that have nothing to do with reality. . .The only point I was making right from the beggining is that despite all these claims of heaven and bla bla bla and how you all want to go there. . If christians are in danger or come face to face with death ALL they do is cry and beg for mercy to live. .They NEVER pary for a painless of fast death, all the do ALL the time is pray for more life. . .The nonsense you put ut there will make sense only if christians pray for fast death when ever they come in contact with death, they trhey ALWAYS do other wise shows that the reality as we know it has nothing to do with the mytholgy they profess to believe. .



Then why do christians never pray for death to come quickly and take them so that they will go and be with christ which is the greatest good?. . .Its easy to keep repeating long held mythical beliefs, no?. . .When reality comes to shove that's when we know the real thing. . .



Just like the same reason reason allah revealed his final revelations to mohammed. What am I to do with your mythical held beliefs?. . .Am talking about the reality I see happening around and you keep repeating your long held mythical beliefs to me as if they mean anything or have anything to do with reality. . .Soul?. . Clear cut irrefutable evidence that the soul exist is what?. . .




Its not even about death. . .You claimed your god loves humans and gave example with the human society, you are always found of using humans to explain your god, but when we use the same humans to show that your god is nothing but a convoluted idea you will claim that your god is kind of beyond our understanding and his ways are different from the human ways after trying to use the human ways to explain away the mythical god idea. . .



I hope you die tomorrow so that you will go and be with with your sweet Jesus. . .Say amen to that. . .

wiegraf: What does all this have to do with anything? Or are you trying to say I am wrong just because? Or is this an attempt at some sort of jedi mind trick?
wow...
sheeple will be sheeple I guess...

wiegraf: This is all good and fine in some ways, but this is issue is settled in a simpler way. With simple yes/nos

Can yahweh tell you with exact certainty everything about you 24 hours?
Can he be wrong?

Note, if you're saying he can know if he wants to, but chooses not to, it would mean he's not omniscient as far as dictionary standard meaning of the word is concerned, which is simply; knowing every single thing.

And regardless, the situation is still untenable for a variety of reasons (there's the butterfly effect, cascading changes for instance). The simplest one would be, what of his own actions? If he does not know his own future actions, how does he know he would not change his mind and interfere with your fate? He could tell where you're going to be and be completely honest and sure about it, but as he does not know if he'll change his mind, he cannot tell you with complete certainty where you would be at the allotted time. In essence, the only way he can be completely capable of telling you what the actual future would be, what choices or path will become the real one(s), is if he know every single action that he himself is ever going to take, voiding his own free will. And by knowing every single action he is going to take, considering his omnipresence, or just the fact that he is supposedly involved with all of us, that means our actions have been determined as well.

BARRISTERS: @truthislight
see his(true2God) church,(many more are coming)

FAITH HEALING SERVICES (DELIVERANCE) assemblies of God church

see stage managed show! able bodied men paid to lie down as if they are ill, to deceive; wonders shall never end;

BARRISTERS: truthislight



dont worry, just wait and see his mess, leave that to me!

true2god: Kettle callin pot black. I hav no hatred for JW or anybody but hatred for falsehood. I dnt even tink u read watchtower to see hw dey condemn christendom. Anyway dat apart. U called bible doctrines dogma and to u the following are not dogma:

1) Jesus christ starting his reign in 1914

2) Prophets of old will come down to earth in 1925 (berth serim).

3) the king of the north and the king of the south are both uunited states and nazi-germany before ww2 (reasonin frm the scriptures edition before 1945) and the king of the north and the king of the south were anglo-america and and the soviet union (reasoning frm the scriptures after 1945)

4) not all who witnessd world war 1 will die till Jehova make earth paradise (living forever in paradise on earth)

5) Blood transfussion is canibalis, but u can accept blood fraction (on medical issue)

6) Jesus christ is the mediator between God and only 144,000. Not all men. Etc

if any1 beleive on these pooo as truth being taught by JW, the person should hav his brain examined.

wiegraf: Do have reading comprehension problems? Do I have to say it in yoruba or igbo? Or what do y'all call it, cockney?

MY POSITION DOES NOT MATTER. The whole point was to get your definition, not mine. This is about you, not me..

If you need more than that, my position is my position does not matter, at all. Wtf? And I have non on this matter, non, mostly because I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD(S). My stance on freewill, predermination, etc, absolutely nothing to do with this current discussion, they would not have god in their equations. And I'm not trying to push my view on you, I'm trying to get your definition.

Let me give you even more in case you don't get it. My position is that your position, no matter how you try to dress or hide it, or your being blinded by whatever, leads to this conclusion; a fixed future that cannot be changed. Again, that is your conclusion, not mine.

Do you agree with this? Is it so? If not, why not?

Again, if god is omniscient, if god cannot be wrong, then the future is already set in stone, hence non of us have free will. If I'm wrong, show me how, else meh.. My own position has nothing to do with this discussion. Sheesh

true2god: The problem u hav is dat virtually evry1 dat had had encounter wit u on nairaland has knwn u and ur level of reasoning. So im not shocked at any of ur post.

I still stand to be corrected, many authors rendered messengers as angels, even tho' they (the messangers are not partcularly angels) while others do not. Many bible translators never rendred this verse as angels 'of the covenant', most rendered it as 'messenger of the covenant'. John the baptist was also rendered (by some translations) as 'angel' as well in dis same verse and chapter of malachi. According ur ur reasoniing, John being rendered here as an angel is 'symbolic' or non literal but christ being renderec here as 'angel of the covenant' is literal. Take an instance, many guys call their wife\girl friend 'my angel', does dat make ladies\women\wives\girls angels? No.

U need to tink beyond d box most times; stop being irrational pls. The person of christ bears no ambiguity just dat the likes like u hav zeroed off ur mind to believ wishfully any doctrine passed acros to u without any sense of judgement or reasoning. Read the bible for ursef im sure ur opinion will be fine-tuned on dis subject matter.

The prophets of old renderd christ as mighty God (emphaticallly without ambiguity as broght in by watchtower org ), pslams quoted the father rendering the son thus:'your throne oh God is for ever and ever' . The father called the son 'God or mighty God' in some bible passages and not angel michael as u r being false made to believe.

Its unfortunate that foolishless and ignorance is no respect to any person or certificate.

wiegraf: Ah, but you miss my point as well.

By your understanding of omniscience, can god (or any omniscient for that matter) tell you with absolute certainty, a hundred percent accuracy what you'll be doing 24 hours from now, with no chance of him being wrong, regardless of any conditions?

wiegraf: Do have reading comprehension problems? Do I have to say it in yoruba or igbo? Or what do y'all call it, cockney?

MY POSITION DOES NOT MATTER. The whole point was to get your definition, not mine. This is about you, not me..

If you need more than that, my position is my position does not matter, at all. Wtf? And I have non on this matter, non, mostly because I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD(S). My stance on freewill, predermination, etc, absolutely nothing to do with this current discussion, they would not have god in their equations. And I'm not trying to push my view on you, I'm trying to get your definition.

Let me give you even more in case you don't get it. My position is that your position, no matter how you try to dress or hide it, or your being blinded by whatever, leads to this conclusion; a fixed future that cannot be changed. Again, that is your conclusion, not mine.

Do you agree with this? Is it so? If not, why not?

Again, if god is omniscient, if god cannot be wrong, then the future is already set in stone, hence non of us have free will. If I'm wrong, show me how, else meh.. My own position has nothing to do with this discussion. Sheesh

mazaje: Jesus promises many times that he will answer the prayers of his children who he loves. For example, in Matthew 7:7 Jesus says:

Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

Mark 11:24:
Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Matthew 18:19
Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them

From these verses we have seen some of anony's god's will. . .ask believe and it will be yours. . .lets wait for anony to come and tell us that the bible does not really mean what it says. . .

plaetton: Every is going to start blaming the devil now, no one is going to question god for abdicating his responsibility to protect innocent children.

plaetton: So why is he not acting according to the will set out in the bible?

true2god: Heb 1:5 reads 'for unto which of the angels said he(God) at any time, ''u r my Son, today have i beggoten u? And again, ''i will be to him a father and he shall be to me a son''.

Compare this verse with hw it was rendered in malachi u will understand better (if at all u hav the power of simple comprehension).

The problem with u is that WTS has beclouded ur sense or reasoning and judgement and its quite unfortunate. (I used to think u were logical and comprehend well but u always proved me wrong). If u dnt understand, the verse is simply tellin us dat at no time had God tell any angel (whether angel michael or not) ' u (Jesus) r my Son today hav i beggottn u'.

Ur willful misinterpretation of this simple verse (written in a very simple and understandable language) made me doubt ur integrity and honesty as a person. To justify ur mischief u start quotin encyclopedia and dictionary to nullify a simple verse dat, even a nursry sch pupil will easily grasped. Really dnt knw dat such pple still still exist. Its quite unfortunate.

true2god: The problem u hav is dat virtually evry1 dat had had encounter wit u on nairaland has knwn u and ur level of reasoning. So im not shocked at any of ur post.

true2god: I still stand to be corrected, many authors rendered messengers as angels, even tho' they (the messangers are not partcularly angels)

true2god: Many bible translators never rendred this verse as angels 'of the covenant', most rendered it as 'messenger of the covenant'.

true2god: U need to tink beyond d box most times; stop being irrational pls.

true2god: Its unfortunate that foolishless and ignorance is no respect to any person or certificate.

true2god: So ur challenges here us dat Jesus was called mighty God and not almighty God so he is not God but an angel. An angel is called mighty God and u hav sense of reasoning to concur to dat. Dats bad of u cos im vry sure u neva study the bible independently but just quotin dogmas as taught u by WTS.

true2god: Malachi never called or interpreatwd Jesus as an angel, neither did any new testament apostle or teacher hold this view. Neither do 99% of oda xtain congregations held dis believe.

On ths issue of tithing, malachi 3:9 support dis doctrine. The same malachi u guys ar quotin ur bogus 'jesus=angel michael' (tho false) support tithing in the synagogue and yet u discard it wen u wanna discredit any organization dat holds contarry view to urs. Hw do expect the church to fund its varios activities in dis modern era? I believ u might be a financial expert and ur input in church financing will be welcome. Or do u prefare all churches printing and sellin magazines to finance their activities?

On the issue of trinity pls explain isiaiah 9:6, 1tim3:16, heb 1:8, John 1:1, den i will giv u my response.

On the issue of hell fire, did jesus warned of the dangers of hell fire? Did he give a story about the richman and lazarus to butres his point? Did mathew say anytin about hell fire and the final judgement? I need ur input?

On the immortality of the soul, i will giv u numeros bible verses dat talked about it soonest.

I knw u hav been taught in ur org. Dat bible doctrines are all dogmas, so im not surprised.

See my responses later.

Enigma: I think this is one of the most sensible points in all the posts/threads dealing with "my denomination or my abomination is better than yours."

Jesus Christ established "The Church". He did not establish The Roman Catholic Church (aka 'The Catholic Church'); or the Pentecostal Church, or the Anglican church, or the Baptist Church; or the Methodist Church; or "Power Must Change Hands Ministry", or "Koboko Ministry".

Part of the answer to your question what is hapening to Christianity as a body is the consequence of this insane denominationalism; just as 'tribalism' and 'ethnicism' are dragging Nigeria down, denominationalism is having a corrupting and corroding effect on what Christianity is supposed to be.

In the earliest days, the Church did not have any of these denominational adjectives; instead the Church was simply identified where a particular branch of the one Church met: e.g. the Church at Ephesus, the Church at Antioch, the Church in Rome, 'the Church that meets in your home' etc.

When Ignatius, who was not a Roman Catholic, coined the expression "catholic", he did not mean it as a denomination at all. He was trying to highlight the oneness of the Church; and he meant by catholic essentially universal. It is a pity that Roman Catholics reject this original meaning of catholic; that they dissociate themselves from the catholic Church, which is the universal Church, in order to advance their very very sad denominationalism!

It is true that about 200-250 years after Ignatius coined the word catholic with its original meaning, a particular appropriation of the word took place particularly in the time of Theodosius (and Damasus); even that does not compare with the misuse of the word today.

As for the other denominations (other than Roman Catholic), each has its own problems including shortcomings on both orthodoxy and orthopraxy. So no one is perfect. It may appear paradoxical that the Church in its different faces or denominations has all these problems. Yet we need to bear a number of things in mind: the warnings from Jesus Himself and from the apostles that wolves etc will come into and be inside the Church! Second, even as for Christians who are trying to do right, there is one thing we must remember: one can only do it if one constantly submits to the Holy Spirit. I think this is where we miss it and this is a very significant cause of all these our difficulties.

As for the private jet people, many of the leaders practising and teaching these things may not even be Christians at all; or at best, what they are practising is not Christianity even if they are honest but genuinely mistaken. Unfortunately, their followers are too blinded by bling, desire or even greed to be concerned to pay attention to the not very hard to understand teachings of Jesus and the apostles on subjects like that. I don't think anyone who reads, understands and tries to be guided by 1 Timothy 6 will have difficulties seeing the private jet fad for the worldy nonsense that it all is.

sylve11: Italo I dey shame for u. Ijawkid just finished u and all u could do's constant repetition of words. Sorry to say, I am catholic and same time a christian, but when matters like 'Catholics worship Idols surfaces, I keep quiet and never speak a word'. If u can answer some of ijawkid's questions, then this whole protestant vs catholic would have been over. As a catholic, I don't support the idea of bowing down to Mary whom I don't even know her looks; the rest of my brethren can crucify me for saying this but I don't care. If the bible was compiled by catholic, then where's it in the bible we should bow before Mary's image? Ijawkid made valid points even though I don't take side with his doctrine. Ur questions are annoying. If Ijawkid and the rest of the protestant or pentecostal bow to worship their bible, that is their own cup of tea. Infact the way Christianity is going now, I don't truly _stand who are the true Christians anymore. God of the heavens and Christ Your Son I believe in. Private jets flying all around in the name of Christ.; as for who came 1st or 2nd is non of ma business, my only question is ' what is happening to Christianity as a body' or religion? *sad*

Ubenedictus: truthislight cul down oh!! Italo i blive has a point he his making!! If hypocrisy is removed and kneeling b4 an image of christ is called idolotry, then kneeling in front of anything may b considered as such wether it d pic of ur mum dat just happens to b in d room or ur own pic, ur bed or ur bible!