₦airaland Forum

Suhaibu:
@Viaro. Quran is not a book of history nor book of stories unlike bible where certain stories (most of them false) and erroneous genealogy of a Man, Jesus that has no genealogy (Luke 3:23-38; Matthew 1:1-17) and indecency also in the bible (Ezekiel 23:1-49) among others.

Suhaibu, I don't think this is a place or time to display your vast ignorance about the Bible. Of course, Quran has no history you can talk about. And if you want to talk about the Quran and its fanciful web of tall tales, where is the evidence for allah's "seven earths" (Quran 65:12)? Talk about genealogy, why was Muhammad and allah equating Mary the mother of Jesus to the same person as Aaron's sister (Quran 66:12)? On the question of indecency, who was the Arab prophet that was devouring a minor at the tender age of 9 years old? (Hint: Aisha is her name - mark, her 'name', not 'title').

When you are faced with certain issues you can't deal with, you try to muddy the waters by all desperate means of deriding Christians and the Bible. Well done - are you not the same chap in the OP of this thread who said "it is not the purpose of this piece to insult or mock any religion"? And you can't wait now to jump at the slightest opportunity to do that very same thing? Some of you Muslims are no surprises, you know?

al Masih D[b]a[/b]jjal or whatever the spelling might be (D[b]i[/b]jjal/ D[b]u[/b]jjal) denoting one single thing: "The Decieving Messiah).

Oh please, focus! All the muslims I ever asked about 'd[b]a[/b]jjal' laughed at the idea of your spelling it as 'd[b]i[/b]jjal' .[color=Black].[/color]. only for you to return now with another one: d[b]u[/b]jjal. Nice. Next we know, you will also spell it 'd[b]e[/b]jjal' (more like dettol) or 'd[b]y[/b]jjal', or 'd[b]o[/b]jjal', or even 'd[b]@[/b]jjal' if it helps your al-taqiyya. Go on .[color=Black].[/color]. use up all the English vowels (a, e, i, o, u, and sometimes y) to confuse yourself on your second 'messiah' - it's your loss, not mine.

Quran did not mentioned Dajjal because:

He is so beneath contempt that he did not deserve a mention in the word of God (SWT).

Oh puhleease!! Where did your Ilah tell you so in the Quran?
What a wonderful and magical excuse!

If 'dajjal' was beneath contempt as reason for why your allah could not mention him, was it 'Iblis' (the very same shaitan or Satan) that your Allah could find more palatable to mention in the Quran? Between Iblis and 'dajjal', who should be more contemptible?

And oh, there are far more contemptible things mentioned in the Quran than worrying over Iblis, dajjal, dujjal, or dojjal .[color=Black].[/color]. or whatever. I don't see where your Allah explains his lack of recognisance on the subject of your second messiah 'dajjal' on the excuse of whether or not it was 'beneath contempt' - you're just singing your soprano here.

So it was left to the Prophet (PBUH) to warn the human race about the up and comming fitna.

Okay, so your Allah could not remember to remind his slaves of the Islamic religion - so it was up to Muhammad to fill in the gaps. How interesting. Problem is, there are far too many tales that Muhammad told about your 'dajjal' that even Muslims are at a loss to explicate. Wanna try some?

There are reams of ahadith which relate to Dajjal. And as I remember alot of them actually give a physical description, ie. black curly hair, strongly built. This would lend credence to the fact that the Dajjal may actually be a man (not just a system). Of course the system preceding the emmergence of Dajjal, would have to significantly weaken the spiritual resolve of humanity - so that the evil in all men could be then exploited to its full - so (as Shiekh Imran Hossein says) perhaps Dajjal is behind the scenes and is waiting to make his apperance. And, of course Allah (SWT) knows best.

Please don't amuse yourself - Allah does not know anything about what he did not mention on the 'dajjal'. So the acappella sung by any one of your shiekhs/sheiks does not count at all. The probability of "perhaps" being behind the scenes falls flat on its face if we have to consider that Muhammad's prophecy on the 'dajjal' has categorically failed. I should not be schooling you up on these matters, unless you are one of those muslims too eager to listen to the blarring of the PAS without reading your own Quran or hadiths.

The second is that it is a moot point to mention him, because if you follow the majestic Quran and the excellent example of the Prophet (PBUH), then the Dajjal's power will not be able to effect you anyway.

So, which one of the "excellent examples" of Muhammad should we follow - because as it is, I can't take a 9 year old to bed for one; nor am I prepared to mount 30 women in a day! No, on a serious note, which one of those examples should we follow?

Suhaibu:
*Nowhere is Adam mentioned as being the image of God. Do you know what we call the chains of narration of Hadith? is that hadith authentic? I want answers to these false accusation.

What do you call a 'sahih hadith' in Islam? I checked up the meaning and got this -

[list]From a online Islamic-Dictionary:

Sahih
Meaning: Sound/correct/authentic. Used mainly to refer to hadiths and/or the books they were written in.
True Form: صحيح 
Grammar: word;
Explanation: The most famous sahih books are Sahih by Bukhari, and Sahih by Muslim. There are 6 recognised sahih books collectivly known as the sihah sitah (six sahihs). These books contain narrations of what Prophet Muhammed (SAW) did or said as well as other details.[/list]

https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif

[list]Islamic-Awareness classifies the hadiths this way:

The final verdict on a hadith, i.e. Sahih (sound), Hasan (good), Da`if (weak) or Maudu` (fabricated, forged), depends critically on this factor.[/list]

Now, it is obvious that the Islamic teaching that Adam is in the image of Allah is taken directly from the SAHIH hadith of Sahih Muslim - it was not from a 'maudu' (fabricated, forged) hadith that I cited, but rather from the 'authentic' Sahih Muslim hadith. Here is my previous reply again -

[list]

viaro:
However, it is also known that Islam teaches the same thing about Adam being in the image of Allah, no? For instance, at least two references in [size=14pt]Sahih Muslim[/size] hadith (S.M.) say that ~

    (a)  Allah created Adam in His own image with His length of sixty cubits
          [S.M., Book 40, Number 6809]

    (b)  When any one of you fights with his brother, he should avoid his face
           for Allah created Adam in His own image [S.M., Book 32, Number 6325]

[/list]

Are you still denying the plain fact? Please go and learn the meaning of "sahih" before you come back to be schooled up again on your religion by a non-muslim.

Suhaibu:
Learn the basic Arabic before debating me,

I won't bother - as can be seen, you don't have any Arabic in you before confusing yourself here.

@Suhaibu,

Suhaibu:
Am back right here. I've seen many red-herrings and straw man fallacy.

Oh school up, dude. You don't even know the meaning of 'straw man fallacy' before using the term.

To begin with, in Quran Messiah is referred to Jesus but it is not his real name it's his title. Esa is the name of Jesus in Quran and in everywhere.

Don't make me laugh. Your Quran does not say it is a 'title' but rather His Name, unless you want to deceive yourself by denying what your quran says. It doesn't matter anyways, for we know that Muslims are ready to temporarily lie to anybody through al-taqiyya.

If it merely says that the Word shall be called Messiah, then we might have taken it for granted and supposed it was a 'title'. But all the English translations of the Quran that are available to me declare that it was 'Messiah' that is His NAME rather than a 'title'. Only embarrassed Muslims today are now saying your Quran was wrong by saying it was His 'name', and should have been a 'title' instead.

Suhaibu:
To begin with, Masih-al-Dijjal is not contradicting Masih-Esa (Peace be upon him).

The word Dijjal is a common Arabic word meaning "deceiving" with the definite article refers to the "Deceiving Messiah"

First above all, please go and learn your arabic thoroughly. It was not 'Dijjal' I quoted but 'Dajjal'. Second, it was not 'Masih-al-Dijjal' that your Islamic sources call it, but rather 'Messiah, Ad-Dajjal'. Is the article 'al' or 'ad'? Do you mind taking care to not confuse yourself on your own assertions?

Certainly, there are quite a few variations by which your second messiah is called, including -

[list][li]Ad-dajjal[/li]
[li]Al-Masih Ad-dajjal[/li]
[li]the Dajjal[/li][/list]

Most often he is called simply 'Ad-dajjal' or 'the Dajjal', and in some translations of hadiths he is called 'antichrist' - which should have been sufficient if the sense to be conveyed was merely a figure who is 'the deceiver'. How Islamic theology adds 'Masih' (or 'Messiah') to the appellation of 'Dijjal' makes one wonder what kind of Messiah Muslims are looking for. If it was simply a question of 'Ad-dijjal' as 'the Deceiver' that was meant, what need then was there to have added 'Masih' ('Messiah') to his title - what role does he play as the Muslim 'messiah'?

But the remarkable thing is that since the whole subject of the antichrist or ad-dajjal is so important to the Muslim world, why is the Quran so silent about the Dajjal? Although I've not completed reading through the Quran, but even after asking Muslims, none of them is able to show me any verse in Allah's book that mentions Ad-dajjal or the antichrist! Why is that so? Did your Islamic Allah completely forget all about the 'Dajjal'?

Since Jesus is coming at the end of the world to destroy the false Messiah ( Dijjal/anti-Christ); and since the false Messiah is also coming at the end of the world, that is why Islam beautifully contrast the two calling the later the "Decieving Messiah" (Masih al Dijjal).

Where do you find such a contrast in your Quran? You sound like one of those muslims who conveniently takes sides with the quran when it suits them, and then deny the hadiths when it helps their al-taqiyya. So please quote me the Quran where your allah "beautifully contrasts" between your two messiahs.

I think every one with an elementary knowledge of Arabic knows that. Stop attacking straw man!

Dude, you already built a double straw man - first by your "al-dijjal" (instead of 'ad-dajjal'), and then by "beautifully contrasting" what is not in your Quran. Your arabic is neither here nor there, so what are you on about?

davidylan:
thanks viaro! I didnt even know that "messiah" was a NAME for Jesus (and the antichrist at the same time ) IN THE QURAN!

Yes, in the Quran, 'Messiah' is actually a NAME (and not a 'title') of Jesus.

Suhaibu where are you? 

Infact, I just took another look at the OP and wonder why many Muslims often have difficulty composing simple statement without twisting their original intended meaning. Like this one from the same Suhaibu:

Suhaibu:
Christianity holds the believe that God is the true image of Man. The Bible quotes as saying: “Let us make Man in to our image” {Genesis 1:26}.

Dude, it's the other way round, thank you very much! Instead of "God is the true image of Man", the Bible states that man was created in the image of God.

The first twist in your statement {"God is the true image of man"} is dubious - I don't know where you got it from; but Christians do not hold that idea. It is called reductionism, and if you had paid a little more attention to the verse you cited (Genesis 1:26) it would not be difficult to spot the difference.

However, it is also known that Islam teaches the same thing about Adam being in the image of Allah, no? For instance, at least two references in Sahih Muslim hadith (S.M.) say that ~

    (a)  Allah created Adam in His own image with His length of sixty cubits
          [S.M., Book 40, Number 6809]

    (b)  When any one of you fights with his brother, he should avoid his face
           for Allah created Adam in His own image [S.M., Book 32, Number 6325]

The first time I read the hadith at (a) above, I wondered if the Allah of Islam was only sixty feet in cubits. Taking for granted that may not be the case, I still wondered if Islam has compared their Allah with any thing in creation. Okay, I know my Muslim friend yaps on and on that Allah cannot be compared to anything at all, etc., etc., etc. No worries - but the more I read the more I found that certain points are conveniently circumvented.

Suhaibu, I guess even you should not be able to duck the fact that the Allah of Islam is many times compared to what he is said to have created, no? Apart from the ones cited above that Allah created Adam in his own image (sixty cubits more or less), what about those other established teaching in Islam where Muhammad is said to be some of Allah's anthropomorphic particulars? No, I'm not kidding - so let me quote you partly from Sahih Bukhari, book 76, Number 509::

[list]. . . My slave keeps on coming closer to Me through performing Nawafil (praying or doing extra deeds besides what is obligatory) till I love him, so I become his sense of hearing with which he hears, and his sense of sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he grips, and his leg with which he walks; and if he asks Me, I will give him, and if he asks My protection (Refuge), I will protect him; (i.e. give him My Refuge) and I do not hesitate to do anything as I hesitate to take the soul of the believer, for he hates death, and I hate to disappoint him.[/list]

Now, Suhaibu, you may have a problem with the Bible declaring that Adam was made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27); but why is that despite Muslims claiming not to compare the Allah of Islam to anything, yet he is the same one declaring that he becomes the hands and legs of one of his slaves? What did your Allah see that he wants to transform himself into the hands and legs of his slaves?

Suhaibu:
In Christianity, the Christians believe that God reveals Himself.
In Islam, the Muslims believe that God reveals His Will.

Well said. That is why I'm not surprised that anything goes in Islam - your Allah seems only to reveal himself as the hands and legs of his slaves, so how do you expect to know anything about him/it?

noetic16:
uhmn. . .quite evasive IMO

I don't think you should've expected anything better.

https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif

Deep Sight:
This can equally be used to defend the Hindu idea that cows are divine, no?

Do Hindus quote Biblical verses to preach any idea in Hinduism?

That idea sounds silly to the non-Hindu. . . perhaps we can conclude that the Hindu “gospel” is “silly” to you who will perish? ? ? ?

Where has a Hindu told you anything about their escatology on matters of "gospel" or "perish" based on any verse of the Bible?

One of such laws is the law of Karma – which Jesus himself affirmed in saying “verily verily I say unto you, whatsoever a man sows, the same shall he reap.”

First of all, the passage you're trying misquote is found in Paul's epistle of Galatians 6:7 - "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." That was not a direct quote of Jesus - so adding your own "verily verily I say unto you" to make it appear or sound exegetically Biblical is dubious on your part. That expression {"Verily, verily, I say unto thee"} is peculiarly the style employed in John's Gospel - that was why I could quickly sort you out on that, and prolly why you just dribbled that twist of yours and left no direct reference! Dude, please play it easy with your misquotes.

Second, Jesus never "affirmed" the law of karma in any verse of the Gospel. None. Karma itself is regarded as "a belief in Hinduism and Buddhism that the way you behaved in past lives affects your present life, and the way you behave in this life will affect your future lives" [MacMillan English Dictionary]; and the likely misquote attributing it to Christ's affirmation could be sourced from various people who just argue this notion for granted and never show you where in the Bible such a quote {"verily verily I say unto you . . ."} is to be found for your Karma (see this example of the Vedanta Society of Southern California).

We have debated this whole garboil about reincarnation ideologies and factually demonstrated that the idea of ascribing karma or reincarnation to Christ is a farce. Especially so is the case when you are trying to gull the public with misquotes that you do not reference. What verse in the Bible (apart from Paul's Gal. 6:7) has Jesus Himself "affirming" your idea by this quote: "verily verily I say unto you, whatsoever a man sows, the same shall he reap"?? Where is that verse showing that it was "Jesus Himself" stating what you ascribed to Him?

Suhaibu:
It's just a title.

davidylan:
That is NOT true. No one else was called a "Messiah" either in the bible or quran which means this "title" was extra special and meant something.

Hi davidylan, that up there ^^ may need a little balance. I don't know much about what Islam teaches (other than secondhand sources here and there), but I reckon we cannot say that no one else was called or referred to as 'Messiah' in the Bible (I don't know about the Quran since I have not completed my reading of the English translation at this time).

The term 'Messiah' might be derived from the Hebrew equivalent transliteration of משׁיח (mâshıyach), and is used in reference to priests (Lev. 4:3 & 5 - "the priest that is annointed", and to kings (2 Sam. 1:16 - "the LORD'S anointed" in reference to king Saul).

However, (and this is important), I would agree with you that as regards prophetic declarations about God's divine 'prophet-priest-king', no one else in Scripture is specifically called 'Messiah' than Jesus Christ Himself. It is in that sense, I suppose, that the prophets specifically addressed the prophecied Christ (1 Sam. 2:10 and Daniel 9:25-26).

Now, my wonder is this: if 'Messiah' is only a title and nothing else in Islam, why is there no other prophet or holy messenger of Allah (than Jesus) who is ever called by the same term, 'Messiah', in the Quran? Even though I have not completed my reading of the Quran, it does not appear that any other particular figure is addressed by that 'title'.

In fact, the Quran does not refer to 'Messiah' as a 'title' - rather, it says that 'Messiah' is a NAME of Mary's Son, the very name by which Jesus is to be known in the Islamic world! For example, Quran 3:38 says "O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose NAME is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary" - which indicates that 'Messiah' (or 'Christ') in Islam is more than a 'title'.

From where then is this Suhaibu chap getting his drone about Messiah being 'just a title'? 

Yet, as I said earlier, it does not appear that any other particular figure is addressed by that 'title' in the Quran. That is to say, outside of the Quran, Muslims give that same title of 'Messiah' to the antichrist. I once asked my Muslim friend why they (Muslims) also refer to the antichrist as 'Messiah', but I was not given a coherent answer. Yet, the dilemma is remarkable - for the hadiths indeed refer to the antichrist in Islam as 'the Messiah' as well. Example -

[list]Sahih Buhari, Volume 9, Book 87, Number 128:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:

Allah's Apostle said, "I saw myself (in a dream) near the Ka'ba last night, and I saw a man with whitish red complexion, the best you may see amongst men of that complexion having long hair reaching his earlobes which was the best hair of its sort, and he had combed his hair and water was dropping from it, and he was performing the Tawaf around the Ka'ba while he was leaning on two men or on the shoulders of two men. I asked, 'Who is this man?' Somebody replied, '(He is) Messiah, son of Mary.'

Then I saw another man with very curly hair, blind in the right eye which looked like a protruding out grape. I asked, 'Who is this?' Somebody replied, '(He is) Messiah, Ad-Dajjal.'"[/list]

So which is which, Suhaibu?

aletheia:
^^^
Joagbaje's logic is defeated by the evidence that miracles occur. Miracles by their nature are a suspension of the laws in operation on earth when God chooses to sovereignly act to bring them to pass. The irony of the situation is that WoF is very loud in it's claims of miracles.

Simple as A-B-C. I wonder whether Joagbaje takes time to consider simple issues like that ^^.

The Law is clear, "the soul that sins will die" and thus all men die but God has intervened that we might live. But Joagbaje's logic would have God bound and constrained by Law and unable to save.

And his reply to that was - what? ~~

Joagbaje:
You are wrong here . it is not the will of God for any to die.

@Joagbaje, did you consider that aletheia was not asserting that it was God's will that all men should die? Did you read how he qualified the fact of his statement by saying "but God has intervened that we might live"?? On what basis then do you fault that simple clause? Is it that you like to just disagree by default if what you read does not have the WOF silverline in it? Just curious.


https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif

Joagbaje:
A miracle is not precisely an act of Gods sovereignty but a manifestation of Gods will through faith in his word. A miracle is not a suspension in God's law.

Do you consider the Virgin birth of Christ to be an act of God's sovereignty or not? And who was exercising 'faith' in order to permit God to bring His sovereignty to bear in enacting the New Covenant in Christ?

More than that, who has been His counsellor (Rom. 11:34), without which God's Sovereignty would be stalled?

Nobody is denying that there are callings, giftings and abilities. Dont try to cleverly manipulate it into another thing. God has his will for each person. We need to know his will for our lives and fulfill. The attempt to pitch me against the plan and purpose of God will not be successful. My point is simple. A man will need to cooperate with God ,to bring his will to pass in his life. The will of God may not come to pass in a man's life, God Omnipotence cannot force a man into his will. Even though God possess such ability , he will not use it. You shoul know his will and purpose to fulfil it.

In all of this, I am still interested in your claim that God has to "submit His omnipotence" to the laws of the universe - please deal with that. It is pertinent that we know whether you have some substance in your assertions or just rather throwing words around the place.

Deep Sight:
@ Karo93. . .

My Nairaland experience has taught me a few things - one of them is the extent of the power of the blindfold of dogma.

Good one - is that why you are self conceited to have been blinding yourself by your own dogma of OOI? Do you ever take time to see your own blind dogma before you whine and complain about what others believe?

There is NOTHING YOU CAN DO OR SAY: NO MATTER HOW REASONABLE, NOT EVEN IF IT IS RIGHT THERE IS THE BIBLE THAT WILL CONVINCE A TRINITARIAN THAT JESUS THE JEWISH CARPENTER IS NOT ALMIGHTY GOD. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

At least Trinitarians have good sense to make a case for what they believe - and they do so with more common sense than you could ever have refuted calmly without evading ANY point being discussed. You have not demonstrated any dot of understanding about "essence" or "begotten" even after I discussed them - which you have categorically ignored with the yelps of a weakling.

Yet, nothing anyone tells you in your rogue religion would convince you of the fallacy of your mathematically suicidal OOI, nor of the fallacy of your 'singularity' that has not even impressed you yourself, nor of yet the fallacy of your own dubious 0 + 0 = 0 suddenly becoming "something", nor a myriad of your other prosaic fallacies! ALL of them bar none are as redundant to date as ever - and no amount of deistic duplicity has been able to give your OOI a facelift nor spared it from collapsing into its doomed blackhole. Live with it.

This thread has run 10 pages already and the pointers are starkly clear to those who choose to see. . . that Jesus cannot be God - not biblically, and not even by simple logical inference without reference to the bible.

From the first few pages, the point has been soundly made: that Jesus is God and is to be worshipped. That Jesus is to be worshipped has not been refuted by even karo93 himself - so this puerile drama so characteristic of your charade is best reserved for the circus you like to play in Dubai.

I advise you to drop the subject. Your last post was particularly incisive: the whole idea of power being "given" to the son is more than enough to conclude the debate - it is obvious that giver and receiver cannot be the same person.

Hahaha! Good one - fantastic!   Right, karo93 - you're being advised to drop the argument you started. At least, none of your amanuensis is now backing you any further. Why? Go figure!

Just leave it - no one will listen. You will only get unnecessary insults for your efforts.

No, we won't listen to drab drama ignoring patent issues while you deniers continue to confuse yourselves from Genesis to Revelation on matters which you do not know anything about. Let karo93 ask you: how do you worship your OOI without recourse to anything you steal for your rogue religion - what would you say? What would you produce for your own worship of your collapsible OOI? 'Nothing' magically becoming 'something' by mathematical suicide - that is what karo93 will join with you in worshipping, no?

You guys make me laugh with the way you miserly back-pat each other.

karo93:
John3.35. “The father loves the son and puts everything in his power”

Doesn’t john.3.35 clearly destroy all claims that Jesus is God?? Doesn’t it show that Jesus didn’t always have power over everything??

Doesn’t it show that the father has everything but CHOSE to give all to his son OUT OF LOVE??

Jesus cannot have being the owner of everything from the start and yet be given everything by someone.

Isn’t it clear that even if Jesus were to be God there will be a higher power than him-the one who gave him power over it all??

Is it to hard to understand that Jesus is now the owner of everything because it was GIVEN to him and not that it always belonged to him?

Have you ever considered what we have discussed prior to your recent pretentious yapping? Neither authority nor role determines essence - that is as simply as I can put it for you; and unless you eternally want to blind yourself to plain facts, I don't see how that should be difficult for you to grasp.

John 3:35 is NOT the reason why Jesus Christ is to be worshipped. At least you yourself acknowledge that He is to be worshipped - you don't deny that. However, we disagree on what basis that should be evident. For me, if you worship a "created being", then you are promoting idolatry in the Biblical sense. But since you are basing your worhip of Jesus Christ on the denial of His Deity, you have no leg to stand on - that is why John 3:35 does not give you the reason as to why worship is to be ascribed to the Son of God.

The only reason why Jesus is worshipped is because of Who He is in His ESSENCE: He is Deity - He is God: and that is the only reason why worship is ascribed to Him (Hebrews 1:6). Now why are you deliberately ignoring that fact? Since I started pointing this issue out, you have categorically ignored it to argue your hypocrisy repeatedly. At least, I do not ignore what you present: but you have constantly evaded the points I raise.

Why have you decided to close your eyes to the truth? Are your minds as closed as prophesied in john.12.40? My heart burns for you!

You've been lying, so please stop this drama of claiming to know the 'truth'. You are the one person who has been twisting Biblical quotes (like your twisting of Acts 20:28 and Phil. 2:6 and claiming it was from the Good News translation - that was an obvious lie which you did not correct at any time). Should readers not be concerned for people like you who go about claiming 'truth' whereas all you do is lie constantly from start to finish?

karo93:
First things first i did not run but my internet connection was faulty.
2.whats up with the Jehovah W? i neither attend nor accept them into my house.

Your interpretations and duplicity are only fitting the JW style of hermeneutics like a hand fits into a glove. You can sit down here and claim to be an Anglican and yet display your JW disguise. Anglicans, as far as I know, do not deny the Deity of Christ (nevermind some Anglican Bishops who tried to do so). Baptists do not deny His Deity. Catholics do not deny His Deity. The only group that have agreed on their theological position to deny the Deity of Christ is JW - and your arguments here are just about the same things one would find from any JW propagandist.

C'mon viaro i never said that it was when jesus came to earth that he was given power over over all.

When did that happen then? Please be clear and play less on your dribbling games.

Lastly are you trying to tell me that the father and son were not worshipped separately?[only God knows what your brain is for]

I showed you Revelation 5:13 as an example - thanks, my brain is mine, and I use it well.

Are you forgetting that there were two thrones even in rev.22?

Sorry, dude - there is ONLY ONE THRONE in Revelation 22. If you carefully read verses 2 and 3, it becomes all the more plain to see that the one throne is ascribed to the Father and the Son - ("the throne of God and of the Lamb" - singular "throne", and not plural thrones.

When you want to see the plural 'thrones', turn to Rev. 20:4 ("I saw thrones, and they sat upon them" .[color=Black].[/color]. But in Rev. 22:2 & 3, it is rather just one throne.

Certainly, there are different thrones spoken of in the book of Revelation - such as the 'thrones' in Rev. 20:4, and a 'great white throne' in Rev. 20:11. But did you consider carefully why there was just one throne in view in Revelation 22:2 & 3? It was because chapter 7:17 says that the Lamb which is 'in the midst of the throne' - He is there, in the midst, and not seated on another throne to pluralise the single 'throne' in Revelation 22.

If you want more info, please look at Revelation 3:21 - there Jesus is not sitting on another throne, but rather in the same throne of the Father: "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne". We often tend to look at these things through the lenses of reductionism as if everything has to be understood in a literal sense, and that is why so many folks have serious problems seeing there is only one throne in Revelation 22:2 & 3.

Have you forgotten that in john.14.1 jesus asked the disciples to believe in God and ALSO in him?what are you trying to say?

Lol, dude, there is only one faith (Eph. 4:5) - therefore, to believe in Jesus Christ is to believe in God in the Biblical sense (John 5:24 & 6:40 and 12:44). By believing in God and believing in Christ, a believer is not espousing two beliefs or having two seperate faiths - rather, by believing in Christ, the believer believes in God in precisely the same one expression of faith.


Sorry karo93, your arguments in Revelation 22 in seeing two separate thrones is why you are yet confused. And that is the same reason why you're seeing a sort of worship that tends to idolatry in the Biblical sense. As long as you keep grasping at thin air to argue what is not there, your confusion remains.

Joagbaje:
Maybe God is bound may not sound appropriate , it was not used to suggest God as being bound as in bondage. maybe I should rather " God abides "by the rules of justice he set on the earth

No worries, for however 'appropriately' you may have tried to express it, your ideas are still skewed and do not point to God's Word.

This is what you had stated:

Joagbaje:
But the Issue is ,God is a just God, and there are laws he has set in the universe. He himself is bound by those laws and has to submit his omnipotence to the rules he has set.

First, what are the "laws" God has set in the 'universe' that would necessitate His submitting His omnipotence to the rules He has set?

I do not want to confuse between 'laws of the universe' in either - (a) the scientific sense, or (b) the [url=http://members.optusnet.com.au/~acceptance/UnderstandingSpirituality/Spirituality%20Files/LawsoftheUniverse.htm]religio-spirituality sense[/url]. However, in whatever sense you might have meant it, what are those 'laws' of the universe that are so baronial as that God would have to "submit His omnipotence" to them?

Now, if by 'laws of the universe' you now narrow them down to 'the rules of justice he set on the earth', how do you reconcile both statements? Does God actually "submit" His omnipotence to rules He set on earth? Is the earth now the same as the 'universe' that your reductionism has to bring God's omnipotence over all things down to what you want to argue on earth?

You see, it is now clear with each passing day that the WOF doctrines you espouse are sailing further and farther away from God's Word. It seems the latest in your posts is to find new ways for old tales of WOF doctrines to make God {who upholds all things by the word of His power} to now be subservient to whatever puny man dictates on earth - a tiny speck in a vast universe.

Joagbaje:
Noobody can ban God . But the Issue is ,God is a just God, and there are laws he has set in the universe. He himself is bound by those laws and has to submit his omnipotence to the rules he has set.

I just cannot imagine the ::[bleep]:: behind such statements!

viaro:
I cannot presently lay my hands on a paper that seriously discusses this issue to a fine point, but let me rather post another article and a few reactions to it, that may show just what some people take for granted in this subject [next post].

So here it is:

---

Article reposted from Scientific American:

Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?

Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, provides this answer.

[list]Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.

Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.

But while the virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles, and that leads to a number of tests of the quantum-mechanical predictions about virtual particles. The first test was understood in the late 1940s. In a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton are bound together by photons (the quanta of the electromagnetic field). Every photon will spend some time as a virtual electron plus its antiparticle, the virtual positron, since this is allowed by quantum mechanics as described above. The hydrogen atom has two energy levels that coincidentally seem to have the same energy. But when the atom is in one of those levels it interacts differently with the virtual electron and positron than when it is in the other, so their energies are shifted a tiny bit because of those interactions. That shift was measured by Willis Lamb and the Lamb shift was born, for which a Nobel Prize was eventually awarded.

Quarks are particles much like electrons, but different in that they also interact via the strong force. Two of the lighter quarks, the so-called "up" and "down" quarks, bind together to make up protons and neutrons. The "top" quark is the heaviest of the six types of quarks. In the early 1990s it had been predicted to exist but had not been directly seen in any experiment. At the LEP collider at the European particle physics laboratory CERN, millions of Z bosons--the particles that mediate neutral weak interactions--were produced and their mass was very accurately measured. The Standard Model of particle physics predicts the mass of the Z boson, but the measured value differed a little. This small difference could be explained in terms of the time the Z spent as a virtual top quark if such a top quark had a certain mass. When the top quark mass was directly measured a few years later at the Tevatron collider at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago, the value agreed with that obtained from the virtual particle analysis, providing a dramatic test of our understanding of virtual particles.

Another very good test some readers may want to look up, which we do not have space to describe here, is the Casimir effect, where forces between metal plates in empty space are modified by the presence of virtual particles.

Thus virtual particles are indeed real and have observable effects that physicists have devised ways of measuring. Their properties and consequences are well established and well understood consequences of quantum mechanics.[/list]

https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif

[list]Excerpted reactions[/list]

[list]pgtruspace at 11:10 PM on 08/25/09

(a)  Don't be fooled by the statements in the article. Nearly all "particles" are artifacts of test equipment and the need of researchers to earn grants and awards for greater and greater complexities and discriptions in their theories. That is why "particles" are interchangable. Only Protons are real things, and atoms are made up of protons and their electron shells. Electrons and all other "particles" are interchangable as has been shown in many test experiments. An Electron shell is a charge field not an orbiting electron "particle".

A neutron is a hydrogen atom with an electron shell in a compressed condition, and is slightly larger then a proton and has slightly more mass then a hydrogen atom. This lead to the first totally invented none existent particle, the neutrino, to cover up the error in thought with more B.S. and earn the "inventor" greater standing with his peers. Much later test equipment gave hints of something that almost matched the theories discriptions so everyone had more bragging rights for finding the much sought particle and "proved" the theories.

Today the discription of a dependable test equipment artifact "particle"can earn lifetime fame and fortune. The discription of the "electron" as a real particle was the first error of quantum machanics and everything else has been built on that.

Dark matter / Dark energy is the primal building block of the hydrogen1 atom and everything else. All "quanta" are test equipment measurements of the same thing. That is why all quanta are interchangeable, one changing to another. Just different test results at different points on the test track. This has been known for at least 40 years that I know of, but there is not much academic profit in that.
. . . . .

(b) Dark matter / Dark energy, two word descriptions of the same thing, Aether. Aether is supramagnetic, ( easily influenced by magnetic fields) has charge, ( an excess charge is negitive, a lack of charge is positive) and is in chaos (travels or has movement in 3 dimensions, causes the effects of inertia / mass and the transport of EMF (photonic)energy. Sorry no electrons,photons,neutrinos, mesons, glueons, gravitons and ons and ons. No need for Nobel prizes for yearly B.S. of greater complexities.[/list]


[list]MagnetMan at 02:36 PM on 12/21/09

The article above presents both virtual particles and quarks as real entities. As an independent thinker, I'm not convinced. All "particles" as far as I can fathom, are actually fields, probably magnetic in character and spinning or oscillating at some frequency. The electron, in my view, has no edge and therefore doesn't need to send out virtual photons to communicate with other charged particles. It is already in contact with them. However, the attributes of its own infinite structure could be modeled as virtual entities.[/list]

https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif


Certainly, the article and comments reacting to it are not to be taken as standard formulations of theories in quantum physics. However, a lot of B.S. is being passed around to 'validate' this desperate talk about virtual particles popping or flushing into and out of "existence" - how many informed readers are getting more and more convinced by such contraptions?

No, toneyb - 'nothing' is not an explanation for "existence", and definitely NOT in the question of virtual (or even real) particles behaving in one way or another in quantum physics. Any smart chap can propound any number of mathematical models to goon the public and collect nobel prizes for this and that - but how many such have any thing of substance to say about "existence" itself?

Hello toneyb,

toneyb:
Virtual particles flutter into and out of existence.

This 'into' and 'out of' existence is a fallacy. Particles do not 'pop' in and out of "existence" on their own, nevermind the pretentious talk of some "scientists" who are trying to hoodwink the gullible public with such ideas.

We've discussed this just a bit in another thread (Can Anything Come Out of Nothing) - and there are far too many holes in the assumptions of such a statement as that 'virtual particles flutter into and out of existence'. Not that in itself the "theory" (as a theory) has no applause; rather, it just does not explain anything about 'existence' in itself.

Any mathematical model - I mean practically ANY mathematical model - could be used to explain away any excuses in such contrivances, but please don't be fooled by all this desperate talk of particles (virtual or real) popping, fluttering or coming into and out of existence.

As regards causations, when you infer that 'nothing' explains certain events (ie., 'what "causes" blah-blah .[color=Black].[/color]. Nothing. It just does'), the one question many people have asked about this assumption still remains, and more and more are not convinced that the assumption of "nothing" as an explanation satisfies the equation. Not one tiny bit. That answer of 'nothing' is rather a materialist ideology, and yet not even in quantum physics is 'nothing' an answer as an explanation for 'existence'.

I cannot presently lay my hands on a paper that seriously discusses this issue to a fine point, but let me rather post another article and a few reactions to it, that may show just what some people take for granted in this subject [next post].

@karo93,

You opened a thread trying to 'prove' what is beyond you, and when the heat was turned on you took to your heels, no? Then you came back to complain like the thread was opened upon 'viaro'. Please.

karo93:
Viaro still wont let go of why jesus is to be worshiped[or honored] even if i have explained why using john.3.35 that he is to be worshiped becos God GAVE him power over everything out of love.

looking critically you would wonder why God gave jesus what he already owned or why God gave to himself out of love.

John 3:35 does not tell us that Jesus is to be worshipped on account of the Father giving Him power over everything - that is JW interpretation, and the JW scholarship has been soundly trashed for its emptiness.

Instead, I have shown you that before the Incarnation, Jesus was already worshipped by all the angels (Heb. 1:6 - 'And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him'). You must have a serious problem ignoring what others are saying so that you could try to deceive yourself with lame excuses.

If you worship a "created being", you're promoting civilised idolatry. And because Jesus was not created, He is to be worshipped because He is God. Your JW fallacy can't deal with that, which is why you keep dashing here and there to John 3:35 that says nothing about why Jesus is to be worshipped.

Now, isn't peculiar that you acknowledge Jesus is to be worshipped? And yet you deny His Deity? I thought the JW assert that only 'God' is to be worshipped? Ah yes - I remember your claiming to be Anglican; but have I not shown you that the Anglicans also acknowledge that Christians believe that Jesus is God? Have I not? Dude, you just have nothing to cover your bragado - it's empty, so just zip it.

2.You would wonder why Jesus and God were worshiped separately in rev. since they are still the same person and why the Holy spirit was not worshiped too since the other two of the proposed 'trinity' were worshiped.

Does Revelation 5:13 tell you that the Father and Christ were worshipped separately? Are you thick? Your problem is that you often want to force your cowardly antics into a book you really have no clues about so you could dribble in bits and bits here and there.

Viaro has decided not to see reason so anyone trying to show him the way is wasting valuable time which is why i pleaded with him earlier to abandon this thread.

Yes, you wanted viaro to abandon this thread so you could come sell your JW snake oil to the gullible and provide grounds for your apprentices who are supporting your drama to deceive the public. Sweet. I have tried to reason with you guys by both quoting verses and discussing issues. Not once would you and your apprentices address any question offered you .[color=Black].[/color]. and then you claim I'm trying to not see reason.

KunleOshob:
I can see Viaro is really rearing up to tear Pastor agbaje apart

May God have mercy on me.

No, by 'God' I don't mean any "deity" of the WOFers - Jeremiah 10:11

Krayola:
Deepsight uses IF in line one of his argument, then it just disappears into thin air. .  and we end up with an "undeniable" conclusion.    Dat one na 419 o

^^ You're absolutely correct, IMO. Not that anything is wrong with DeepSight's assumption, though - and that is why he would first need to "show" how 'nothing' transforms into 'something' or 'anything' from 'nowhere'.

In another respect though, I was being facetious with the 'IF' .[color=Black].[/color]. you know how these things work with that nebolous thing called 'philosophy'. Just imagine a statement like this :::

           A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if
           it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true
           and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.

'Valid', you say? Yep. On the 'iff' form that makes a premise impossible to be true and then its conclusion false. Where do we go from there? But that is one funny thing about questions around epistemic logic like '0 + 0 = 0' until 'something' from 'nowhere' transforms 'nothing' into 'everything'. Conclusion: false (according to the 'deductive argument above')!

Bro, I'm out!

Krayola:
@ 1. That is IF. How can u claim something is undeniable when it's validity depends on an "IF"

. . . then you say:

(An "if" that is itself the koko of enquiry)

. . . so how come you also are the same dude employing the "IF" -

and if something did always exist, it isn't necessarily A creator.

Hahaha!! You're a very interesting human being .[color=Black].[/color]. that is "IF" you're a human being!

Joagbaje:
Your questions are insultive to me , your post likewise.

2 Tim. 2:23-24
But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. [24] And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

If I have a honest question , I will gladly and eagerly answer. I have answered part of your question in my post to Babaearly.

I did not try to insult you in any way. As simple as I can put it now: please Joagbaje, answer these few questions for me on the subject of "begotten" in reference to Christ and our Christian relationships ~

[list](a) what is the meaning of "only begotten" in reference to Jesus Christ?

(b) what is the meaning of "firstbegotten" in reference to Jesus Christ?

(c) do you find anyone else described as "only begotten" in the same way as Jesus is?

(d) do the terms "only begotten" and "firstbegotten" mean the same things to you?

(e) when was Jesus Christ called "the only begotten" - before or after His resurrection?[/list]

Since I do not see any answers to any one of those questions in your reply to babaearly, please kindly answer the ones above. I'm eagerly waiting. Thanks.

@Joagbaje,

Joagbaje:
I dont know what you are calling popular shema here.

The Shema is .[color=Black].[/color]. oh well, aletheia has done a better summary for us all, so that I don't further drag this on and on. Please see his reply above.

Joagbaje:
The point of my question is , do you believe there is only one God according to deut 6:4? and if your answ1er is yes, then what do you have to say about the deity of jesus ?.

I have replied that question here: Yes, "Jesus is God".

are there two Gods? So i dont understand your Shema answer. Give a direct respose.

My direct answer(s): there is a Trinity in the one Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Spirit); the Trinity is NOT tritheism, so it's not 'two gods'; .[color=Black].[/color]. and if you need more direct answers on the Deity of Christ from me, join us in a relevant thread where we examine many other related issues.

So again: what NEXT?

Deep Sight:
@ Inesqor -

I have a question for you.

Do you remember the "breath of life" which God breathed into man, for man to "become a living soul."

You remember? Yes.

From where did this breath of life come?

It came from God, yes? Yes.

It forms the "spirit" and thus is the "essence" of man, yes? Yes.

So the Essence of man came from the immaterial essence of God?, yes? Yes.

Yet would it be correct to state that man is God?

There.

'There' what? Did anybody tell you that the created man was DEITY in ESSENCE? Do you know what "essence" is? The same Genesis from which you have tried to draw your logic also uses the very same expression (chay nephesh) for both man and animals - Gen. 1:21 (every 'living creature') and Gen. 2:7 (man became a 'living soul'). In no sense did creation ffrom God translate into DEITY in ESSENCE just because they all came from God.

On the other hand, where did the Bible say that God created Christ and breathed into His nostrils so that Christ might become a "(chay nephesh)"? What kind of logic makes this kind of thin grasping for what is not there in the first place?
__________________________________________________________________________

Deep Sight:
One more example - You are the child of your father and thus have the same human essence as him, yes? Yes.

So you are both human, yes? yes.

Are you your father?

No.

And what does that 'prove'? Has anyone here said that Christ is the entirety of the Trinity in Himself? How does your simplistic logic (which is no logic at all) deny the fact of Christ Deity in His divine essence?? In the first place, Scripture does not tell us that the Father "sired" Christ in eternity past - so what analogy are you drawing here in your very weak attempt to deny the Deity of Christ?
__________________________________________________________________________

Deep Sight:
So please i am not sure you are going anywhere with this "essence" gist.

That is all the more reason you should pay some attention and go and study the meaning of "essence". No wonder you completely and categorically ignored it after I discussed it in some detail - perhaps indicating you can't handle something which is beyond you, no?

Deep Sight:
If you will reflect on it you will see that it is neither here nor there because in truth EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS bears the essence and imprint of God, since everything issued from God.

In that case, since everything issued from God and bear His imprint, that makes you DeepSight also DEITY in essence, yes?    Dude, you just do not have the faintest clue what is meant by essence. It would have simply helped you if you refrain from arguing what you just have no knowledge about in the slightest. Please go and study the meaning of ESSENCE - then if you think you're up to the discussion, you can proceed from there. All these logical fallacies you propound all in your bid to deny the Deity of Christ are laughable at best.

That does not make the toad in my backyard God.

But you have said that "EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS bears the essence and imprint of God", no? Then you immediately deny the implication of your own statement??

Hahahaha .[color=Black].[/color]. !! Dude, please just zip it.  You have never had the foggiest idea what you wanted to argue on this subject, so asserting something and denying it all at once is simply .[color=Black].[/color]. okay, laughable!

InesQor:
@viaro: Yes I would like to see those answers. In fact, I don dey tire for this long gist sef, my brother.

You know what? It's no longer a [b]d[/b]iscussion but now a [b]d[/b]rama all on its own. After all is said and done, should we be surprised that they would never attend the core issues pointing to the Deity of Christ? No. You can wait from now to another 'singularity' - don't expect them to provide any answers. NONE.

^^ I understand, and thank goodness my reply didn't come across muddled for you.

Here is something on that same question about "begotten" that I thought the deniers of Christ's Deity might consider - a few questions which I posted in another thread:

[list](a)     what is the meaning of "only begotten" in reference to Jesus Christ?

(b)     what is the meaning of "firstbegotten" in reference to Jesus Christ?

(c)     do you find anyone else described as "only begotten" in the same way as Jesus is?

(d)    do the terms "only begotten" and "firstbegotten" mean the same things to you?

(e)    when was Jesus Christ called "the only begotten" - before or after His resurrection?[/list]

Some have assumed that the term "begotten" is indicative of Christ having been "created" by God. Regardless the explanations that have been proffered, the same arguments are still advanced by the same folks. This time around, perhaps it is best to now ask them to EXPLAIN and RELATE how that affects the essence of Christ - just as you proposed. The easiest thing under the sun to do is deny and deny and keep denying a simple fact, regardless how many times answers have been proffered. So, here is a point at which we should directly ask these deniers to explicate the very term they have been forever singing about as the mainstay of their arguments.

Joagbaje:
I didnt say I am only begotten. I was only correcting Altheia, that Jesus is no longer the only begotten, I joint heir with him .I am begotten of Gods word also. He was only begotten before I came on the scene, Now he is first begotten .

When he rose from the dead, I rose with him . His beign called only begotten was before his death. But after resurrection, We share thesame image and glory. I am his brother.

This is why I have been waiting for your answers to these questions -

[list](a) what is the meaning of "only begotten" in reference to Jesus Christ?

(b) what is the meaning of "firstbegotten" in reference to Jesus Christ?

(c) do you find anyone else described as "only begotten" in the same way as Jesus is?

(d) do the terms "only begotten" and "firstbegotten" mean the same things to you?

(e) when was Jesus Christ called "the only begotten" - before or after His resurrection?[/list]

You have time to preach your WOF propaganda touted as 'truth' that is too much for 'religious individuals' - so why is your 'strong truth' unable to address those simple questions? Just make an attempt, if you may, so we could help solve your problem for you.

^^ I apologise - my browser is messing up my work, and in a bid to be coherent I've been having to come back and correct obvious typos and laughable mistakes here and there, haha. Happens often when I try to post hyperlinks.

@InesQor,

InesQor:
1. What does it mean to say Jesus is Begotten? Explain and relate this to how you concluded that he cannot have the same essence of God.

"I have also discussed other points that you and your fellows use to deny the Deity of Christ, such as the term "begotten" (see this reply for example). But NO - you also categorically ignored that one as well"

~~ post #260

You already know why he won't explain.

Deep Sight:
Note that (as you noted in your human example below) this does not make the woman the man or make the man the woman. They remain separate distinct beings occupying different roles.

(1)  The man and woman are the same as far as essence and nature are concerned. It is not 'different roles' that determine the "essence" of any being, for we cannot confuse bewteen the nature of a Being with His engagements in any sphere.

(2)  Theologians do not stretch the distinctions in the Trinity to such extremes as to suggest tritheism:
[list]

For an adequate understanding of the trinitarian conception of God, the distinctions among the persons of the Trinity must not become so sharp that there seems to be a plurality of gods, nor may these distinctions be swallowed up in an undifferentiated monism.

[/list]

(3)  'Different roles' does not take anything from the fact of sameness of divine essence in the one Godhead. This is why the Shema is one mystery that even the best theological exposés may not adequately capture (Job 11:7 & 26:14).

Deep Sight:
The honest fact remains that even is Jesus is said to have the same nature as God – this says exactly nothing because having the same nature as God is not being God.

Is having the same nature as a human being prove that such a being is not a human being? Is the essence of an angel prove that the angel is not an angel? Is Christ being God in essence 'prove' that He is not what He is - God?

Your denials are sickening.

I state this with certainty because EVEN MERE MAN is said to be built in the God-Like nature – It is said that man is made “in the image of God.” However it remains clear that while we share certain attributes with God (such as the impulse to create for example, or government, or order etc) we do not share ALL his attributes and as such cannot be considered to be God.

(1)  Man is never said anywhere to be a deity in essence. That he is made in the image of God does not mean that he is a 'created deity' in his essential being.

(2)  Man does not have the attribute of God to be a creator ex nihilo. Anyone could form a government without being a deity - for governments are not 'Deity' in essence.

(3)  The creation of man does not take anything away from the Creator who Himself is Deity - God.

In this instance it is clear that Jesus even if he has the same nature with God, much as man is also said to have, cannot be called God because he does not have ALL the attributes of God – viz – he plainly admits that he had a beginning, that he is not omniscient.

(1)   Jesus nowhere claims to have had a beginning - please keep your lies to yourself!

(2)   Jesus is not said to be a created being as is man as far as divine essence is concerned.

(3)    Humanity and Deity are not the same; for man is essentially human, while Christ had subsisted before time and before ages as Deity - God.

Thus you have to understand that this forms no basis whatsoever for asserting that any similarity in the nature takes away the fact that the Father is said to be greater and pre-eminent: which is in direct and irredeemable contrast to the doctrine of the Trinity which states them to be equal.

(1)   The 'forms' are not presented in Scripture on reductionistic terms - which si what you have done previously, and are now doing again. I noted much earlier that God cannot be reduced to man's fallable rationalism; and the 'similarity' that you claim here is a moot point.

(2)   The collective testimony of Scripture is that the Father and the Son are in essence Deity. The pronouncement of Christ that the Father is greater than He, does not rest on the question of "essential being" or divine ESSENCE.

Nice to see that you concede that the Greek word indicates “larger, more relevant in position of authority. . .what else is to be understood by greater? Your very use of the phrase “more relevant in sense of position or authority” simple seals my point – for the doctrine of the Trinity claims perfect equality whereas your words negate that clearly. . ,

(1)   Position of authority does not deny the divine essence of Christ as Deity. NOT ONCE. A position does not change the essential nature of any Being - for no position in life would change the essence of man from human into something else. So also, no position would change the essential nature of Christ from Deity to anything less than what He is in Himself.

(2)   That Christ became Man (John 1:14) does not negate the fact of His Deity - which is why both His Humanity and Deity are united in Him in perfect accord.

(3)    Following from (2) above^^, the question arises - what was the Son of God in His essence BEFORE the Incarnation - was He 'human' or Deity before the Incarnation? If He was not 'human' before the Incarnation, what was His essence?

(4)    The question of authority is another shining example that extends what I said earlier on supremacy and sovereignty. Christ the Son of God had "authority" over ALL CREATION - including angels who are described as 'Mighty', for they worshipped Him when He stepped into creation (Heb. 1:6). However, in His "authority", He humbled Himself to such a level as to be made "a little lower than the angels" - why? the Bible explains that it was on account of "the suffering of death" (Heb. 2:9). This is a classic example where the Sovereign One condescends to Humility without such display of His Humility taking anything away from His ESSENCE as Deity.

This cannot be accepted as Jesus is still said to have a God EVEN AFTER he had risen to heaven – 1 Peter 1:3.

But after His resurrection, was Jesus Christ not known as the Alpha and Omega in Revelation 1:8-11? The question rather is: WHAT was the Son of God BEFORE the Incarnation - mere man or Deity in ESSENCE?

Thus we can see that all these excuses about “he was on earth . . .etc” - are just that – excuses.

No, rather we can see how you cleverly duck germane issues so you can wave your excuses in our faces.

In revelation it is severally indicated that he receives his authority “from the one who sits on the throne” . . .it is also said that he sits “at the right hand side” of that one.

How does that affect the fact He did not "receive" His ESSENCE as the Alpha and Omega in the same Revelation?

Great; this only affirms that as you have said – We have various careers, various roles with various levels of authority, – which emphatically shows us to be different beings with different scales or powers.

Do such things as various careers, various roles and different scales of authority change any being from what they are in ESSENCE? Do you cease being "human" when you have no more authority, career or role in life? Do the roles played by anybody - ANY BEING - determine their ESSENCE?

Deep Sight:
Well sir: If you look at my posts above you will see that I have focused on the subject and not personalities. If i had to mention you inorder to contradict your statements, then my apologies. Frankly i am surprised that my consistent effort to keep the discourse clean and devoid of personal insults is never reciprocated and I sincerely beleive that it has come to it that further discourse with you is injurious your dignity and my dignty and both our sensibilities.

You're an absolute dummkopf!  YOU?!? Keep discourse . . clean?!?

Who was the consummate knucklehead by the username  'Deep Sight' that was mentioning 'viaro' and saying all these -

Deep Sight:
The attitude that returns insults and a circus of irrelevant vulgarities in return for objective reasoning and criticism is honestly and seriously to be deplored.

. . If at all the Christian feels no shame in blatantly calling Jesus a liar when he said this – at least the Christian should make an honest attempt to explain what that statement could have connoted IF NOT THAT HE IS CERTAINLY NOT EQUAL TO THE FATHER.

Which Christian in THIS THREAD has ever called Jesus a LIAR?!?

Deep Sight:
It just emphasizes what I have always said – namely that we have Christians like Viaro who have greater respect for their vocabulary than they do for Jesus own words – which are supposed to be their guiding light. He slaps Jesus this way and that every day, denigrating the man and dismissing his statements and yet calls himself a Christian. It is really difficult for me to comprehend such.

Where did I ever "slap Jesus this way and that" - and you idiot talk about "irrelevant vulgarities"?!? You were blind to not notice your own vulgarities, no?

Deep Sight:
It is the greatest absurdity in the history of mankind and it begs belief that otherwise intelligent and supposedly educated persons would passionately subscribe to this, whilst denouncing what they see as the “absurdities” of other religions.

Yes - that was so, soooo polite of you, DeepSight. That is why when I use such kinds of expressions to smart you up, you crawl back under cover of your illiterate mega-idiocy to wave a victim's card in our faces like you ever sought to be "clean" in the manner you discuss. Who was the twerp that referred to John 5:23 as "his delusions"?? You sat comfy in your bed-bug ridden mattress (between Nigeria and Dubai) insulting others, even Christ Himself in that manner, and you come back lying through your yellow teeth that you were seeking to keep discussions clean? I hear you. Dunce.

Those are just samples from your recent post TODAY alone - nevermind if I have to go back and excerpt other acrid statements in your hypocritical "discourses". You still retain the top seat in being Nairaland's most illiterate braincell. If you want a discussion, you would know how to engage in one, instead of displaying your vainglory and then asking others to turn a blind eye to your retardation.

InesQor:
Viaro, do you know that I haven't even followed this discussion in complete detail? If I had, I would have known you already mentioned the essence of Deity. Which was why I bothered to explain it! Na wa. LOL. In fact, I didn't bother responding to Deep Sight's most recent questions in #256 because understanding my post in #255 will explain everything: the essence of the discussion is in the ontological essence of Christ!

Initially, it was annoying (not frustrating) to see the way he hypocritically ignored the fact that I had discussed the ESSENCE of the Deity of Christ. This is not the first time DeepSight has displayed his theatricals and amazing vainglory in discussions.

Deep Sight, [size=14pt]so you already knew this from viaro?  Why are you bringing it up then?[/size] I recall nuclearboy accusing you of arguing for the sake of argument, and I  think I have been thoroughly convinced!

Any wonder why I don't have the stomach to put up with his pretences anymore? Just roundly ignore the dead braincell.

Deep Sight:
If a Governor of a State demands as much protocol as is accorded the President, does that make him equal to the president?

In essence, what is the nature of the "being" between any President and any Governor? Are they HUMAN BEINGS in their essence or not?

The clear answer is no; thus your act of ABSOLUTELY IGNORING Jn 14:28 and seeking refuge in the weaker verse which says exactly nothing is at best comical because -

1. Jn 14:28 is stronger and vastly more unequivocal - It states clearly: "The Father is greater than I"

You're making an absolute dunce of yourself by ignoring the fact of their ESSENCE! Please scroll up and choose your poison - you often argue like a complete illiterate who has had to repeat classes until he was kicked outa school! Please come forward and argue the essence of Christ - then you will get really cleaned up from your mud.

If you assert that this is not true in contradistinction to Jn 5:23 - THEN:

EITHER -

1. You are admitting that the bible contradicts itself.

or

2. You must explain thoroughly and lucidly why both statements remain true and are not contradictory.

I have explained in summary - AGAIN - above. Follow the links and see that it was not here I first articulated the question of ESSENCE. You have completely and constantly ignored the fact of this point, that is why you have run round in circles and grasping at thin air to circumvallate on John 14:28. If you want me to repeat my explanation on ESSENCE, then you confirm you have never once been reasonable!

I have already shown above why Jn. 5:23 is NOT topical. A request to honour him as the Father is honoured does nothing to detract from the unequivocal declaration in Jn 14:28 regarding his subjugation to the Father.

What a consummate dimwit you are!! First, you have NOT at anytime discussed the issue of John 5:23 - NOT ONCE. You only dismiss it with your hypocrisy and then come here to say that it is 'NOT topical'! You forget you're the very same idiot who said at one time that John 5:23 was "his delusions"?

Second, to say that John 5:23 does not detract from John 14:28 - is that any different from my noting that what you have been arguing does not take anything away from the fact that Jesus Christ is "to receive equal worship as is given to the Father (John 5:23)"?!? Did I not make that point clear much earlier?

Dude, even at your best, you the one sham of the decade who's Nairaland's most illiterate braincell! You ignore patent points that have been sorted out, come back repeating your decimal on non-issues, never once consider what others are saying .[color=Black].[/color]. and now you only display how hideously hypocritical you can afford to be in your conceit. Well done.

The fact remains that you have NEVER even once offered an explanation of Jn:1428. Never! You simply IGNORE it and scamper off to Jn. 5:23 - shockingly forgetting that that either exposes a contradiction in the bible which you must resolve OR as i have asserted - shows up blank given that Jn 5:23 says exactly nothing!

Look up again and swallow a rhino this time. Have I discussed the ESSENCE now or not?

So please lucidly address this and stop amusing me with puerile boasts of "dealing" with anybody.

Eh .[color=Black].[/color]. like you were 'somebody' before now? Oh please get lost - you're just a waste.

This ain't your high-school play ground you know?

I didn't drop outa school like you, so run along and your school pitch.

Deep Sight:
Is this a reasoned approach?

Where have you ever tried reasoning at all? You vroom in here, LIED every so often and end up the idiot you have ever shown yourself until your desperation accentuates your illiteracy - and you ask if that was a reasoned approach? I only humoured you on that summary seeing that you had run out of steam and resorted to your endless repetitions since you have nothing to cover your lying spree. I am just so ashamed of having tried to see you at anytime as a genuine person.

Jn 14:28 absolutely contradicts your assertion that the son is equal to the father.

It does not - that is why I have often posted you John 5:23 and ancillary verses (Revelation 1:8-11 and 5:13) to see why it is not a contradiction. WHERE have you ever tried a "reasoned approach" to DISCUSS those verses? Instead of discussing them, look at the miserly excuse you tendered: that John 5:23 "is NOT topical"!! Are you thick or doubly dumb?!?  You have forever scuttled round that issue and made your illiterate repetitions completely ignorant of those answers - and you come back asking for a "reasoned approach"? How about I say that your assertions on John 14:28 is also "NOT topical" here - would you not be the same consummate twerp who would scream that I was not following a "reasoned approach"? No, you don't discuss them - rather you totally ignore them, run from thread to thread and repost your idiocy all over the place and then wave the victim's card asking others for a "reasoned approach". Dummkopf.

If you want a discussion, be willing to calmly address issues free of your drama. I have always been open to reason and never once been able to stomach your pretentions.

Your response - you ignore it entirely and seek refuge in a verse in which he says he should be honoured as the father is.

I did not ignore it entirely. Rather, John 5:23 is not the only verse I have posted in this and other threads showing the Deity of Christ. I obliged you a discourse here, and you never bothered with what I pointed out there. Neverminding that, I still tried to reason with you[color=Black].[/color][color=Black].[/color]. until you completely lost all sanity and started messing up all over the place like a school drop-out!

If you had sought to sanely discuss, what would have prevented you from considering the pointers to the Deity of Christ that have been posted? Why did you categorically ignore all those verses, just as karo93 tried to duck them and then scooted away from the same thread he proposed this argument? Let us see you face up to those verses and discuss them sanely and genuinely IF and only IF you actually want to seek a "reasoned approach", and not ignoring them with all your hypocritical theatricals.

If your mother demands equal respect as you give your father, does that make her equal to him? Does that make her the head of the house? ? ?

Do you have parents? What has brought anyone's mother or father into this?

In ESSENCE, a man and woman are EQUAL - inasmuch as they are HUMAN BEINGS. One needs to understand the context and sphere of 'equality' and 'submission', and I also pointed out this issue when you broached the question of 'supremacy'. You have completely been ignoring the context, and that is why you keep running into this cowardly game you repeatedly play.

In essential being, both the man and the woman are equal - and this is clear in the sense of their essence and nature:

(a)  in creation, they are equal - both the man and woman were called 'ADAM' (Gen. 5:2)

(b)  in marriage relationship, they are equal - they are ONE flesh (Gen. 2:24 and Eph. 5:31)

(c)  in redemption, they are equal - there is neither male nor female in Christ (Gal. 3:28)

These are all spheres where 'equality' exists between man and woman - in their essential nature of being, a woman is as much a human being as is a man! She is not a 'less' human than the man, nor is he more of a sapiens than is the woman. Both of them exist in essence as human beings.

So it is in the Godhead - Christ in ESSENCE is DEITY in the very same way as the Father in ESSENCE is DEITY. I have not ignored the issue of John 14:28 in anywise; but I have made clear that as far as their very nature is concerned, in essence Christ is in every sense 'God' as is the Father (which is not something that leads to tritheism). From MyJoe's excerpt, I highlighted the fact that theologians do not stretch the concept of the trinity in the Godhead to the extremes of fundamentalist twerps as you display of yourself - [list]

For an adequate understanding of the trinitarian conception of God, the distinctions among the persons of the Trinity must not become so sharp that there seems to be a plurality of gods, nor may these distinctions be swallowed up in an undifferentiated monism.

[/list]

This is why neither you nor your fellows have ever once faced up to this point about the essential being of Christ which I have made clear on several occasions - for example in my reply to TrueSeeker here where this issue about "ESSENCE" was conspicuous.

Besides, I have also discussed other points that you and your fellows use to deny the Deity of Christ, such as the term "begotten" (see this reply for example). But NO - you also categorically ignored that one as well - and then you come back accusing me of your insanity on "reasoned approach"? Your duplicity is what I am verily ashamed of on your behalf!

^^I was waiting for you to get done with your drama, but let me just throw in these bits:

Deep Sight:
. . . .

2. He would not state that he worships God - in his words "my God and your God" Viaro attempted once again to belittle the words of Jesus by claiming that “That was not a statement of worship.”


It just emphasizes what I have always said – namely that we have Christians like Viaro who have greater respect for their vocabulary than they do for Jesus own words – which are supposed to be their guiding light.

DeepSight, this is not about 'viaro'. I know that all you have been attempting here is simply because I happen to have run out of trying to stomach your idiocy - sorry, it's hard for me to pretend not noticing when you display the arrogant hypocrite you are! What has what I believe have to do with you illiterate deism? Just because you have never once been able to impress anybody (not even yourself) on how you tried to lie your way through with your faceless OOI does not mean all of a sudden you should now base everything on 'viaro' on this subject.

You have tried to force-read your deceit into my position previously, I corrected you and thought you would take care to be reasonable - but no, I often make the mistake of thinking there might be hope for conceited fellows like you. So, please enjoy your world: such duplicity is why I have become so very ashamed on your behalf to this very day.

^^ I would indeed be surprised if sonofallah is the much-missed Abuzo-lala!
His signature {'Son of The Almight Allah'} is a transformation out of this world - discuss!