₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight:
I cannot get over this.

Jesus: "The Father is greater than I" - Jn 14:28

Viaro: "NO! They are equal!"

Who is lying here? Jesus or Viaro? Decide for yourself!

They CANNOT both be speaking the truth!

Deep Sight:
I cannot get over this. And insults will not becloud the truth. No escape:

Jesus: "The Father is greater than I" - Jn 14:28

Viaro: "NO! They are equal!"

Who is lying here? Jesus or Viaro? Decide for yourself!

[size=16pt]They CANNOT both be speaking the truth![/size]

Deep Sight:
Maybe repetition will help. It is a teaching method used in Nursery school you know? It helps struggling minds grasp basic principles:

So here we go again -

We will highlight the needful to assist you yet again -

Jesus: "The Father is greater than I" - Jn 14:28

Viaro: "NO! They are equal!"

Who is lying here? Jesus or Viaro? Decide for yourself!

[size=16pt]They CANNOT both be speaking the truth![/size]

Repeat it. . . highlight it. . . enlarge the fonts. . . fill the pages. . . but my answer is simply this:

viaro:
You can repeat it as many times as you wish - idiots do exactly that. That is what you often do after I reply your enquiries.

[quote author=la_vivi link=topic=403867.msg5642210#msg5642210 date=1267946307], From the old testament,we were told that God is one not three persons in one God. Will i hear someone saying that in the begining God said let us,  Well to my understanding that US is God and his sons(gods) and other heavenly bodies like angels.[/quote]Please stop making up stories - show us precisely from Scripture where you got all these lullabies from. This is what happens when you guys no longer look at what Scripture says, so you can dribble in your preconceived notions to fill in the gaps.

All are united in one accord and harmony.

Please show us. Just please demonstrate how angels and God are "united" - like God created you through an angel, yes?

They were created by God and existed before the creation of universe. So let 'us' is not ambiguity.

Did any angel create you?

Lucifer the arc-angel before his rebellion is among the sons of God, So God does his things in harmony with his creations.

Was God speaking to Lucifer in that verse when He said "Let us make man"? Who precisely was He speaking to, and where do you find verses for what you're asserting?

When he asked Adam 'where art thou?, ' it does not mean God do not know,  but he want Man to answer from his (man) own volition where he is,  So this should not be compared with when it is said that Jesus has limited knowledge of time and space.

Thank you so very much - at least you acknowledge the scenario in Genesis 3:9 that God who knew all things yet was asking Adam where he was. That was brilliant. Not only was God wanting Adam to answer the question, but what about the same manner He spoke as regards the issue of Sodom and Gomorrah? Did God not see it already? Did He not know? Did you deal with that as well?

In New testament God send one of his sons  redemed man of his wrong doings and for his (son) great work of redemption,God glorified him and gave him right to be worshiped,  There is an injunction in the bible that said,  that those who do the will of God and pleases him ( God) will be given the right to become sons of God,  So my God promotes beings that pleases him.

Excellent. Your 'god' promotes "beings" as it please him - so that you can just worship any "being" as it pleases you, no? I like the way you fill pages with your story-telling without pointing anything out from Scripture.

The Bible does not tell us that God sent "one of His sons" - rather, it says that He gave His "ONLY BEGOTTEN" Son for our redemption (John 3:16). There is no other "being" that is called the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father in Scripture - and that is because there is none else like 'Christ who is God over all' (Romans 9:5). Christ in His divine ESSENCE is exactly what the Father is in His divine ESSENCE - that is what John 1:1 presents to us. This does not make the Son the Father; but unless you take time to see that Jesus is God in His divine ESSENCE, whatever you term 'worship' is civilised idolatry.

For it is by God's will that jesus is to worshiped,respect jesus,you'll respect God,deny jesus,you'll denied God. For Man: 'whatever you do unto your fellow brother that's what you do unto jesus and God'

God cannot set up a "created being" for any man or angel to worship. That was the very thing that Lucifer wanted - and that was what sent Lucifer out of God's presence (Isaiah 14:12-15 . . . "I will be like the most High". And that, again, is what Lucifer is looking for in the endtimes (2 Thes. 2:4). Has Lucifer found a recruit in you?

Deep Sight:
I cannot get over this. And insults will not becloud the truth. No escape:

Jesus: "The Father is greater than I" - Jn 14:28

Viaro: "NO! They are equal!"

Who is lying here? Jesus or Viaro? Decide for yourself!

[size=16pt]They CANNOT both be speaking the truth![/size]

You can repeat it as many times as you wish - idiots do exactly that. That is what you often do after I reply your enquiries.

[quote author=la_vivi link=topic=403867.msg5642234#msg5642234 date=1267947525]lol, do u expect him to give up easily? When you re killing a horse, it kicks before it finally gives up. It wasn't easy for me initially.[/quote]Lol, la_vivi. . . if you're thinking of killing any horses here, you won't find it applicable to viaro. You may have come to the conclusion that Jesus is not God - but was that new at all? You came here pretending to be enquiring, and in time you showed exactly where you already had stationed your heart so you could find sympathy for what you already believed, no?

Deep Sight:
I cannot get over this.

Jesus: "The Father is greater than I" - Jn 14:28

Viaro: "NO! They are equal!"

Who is lying here? Jesus or Viaro? Decide for yourself!

Actually, DeepSight is lying, thank you very much.

No matter how many times I have mentioned clearly the context in which He spoke that verse, you conceitedly ignored what I explained so you can find some dot for your lying adventures, no? Did you read how many times I mentioned "essence" to you? You must be one arrogant idi[color=Black]ot wi[/color]th a rare malady on Nairaland.

They CANNOT both be speaking the truth!

We both are - the problem is that you are too busy ignoring what has been said already.

karo93:
VIARO!!!
Haven t i told you why he is to be worshiped or have you resigned all argument just to hold onto your points
if it is so then you should stop sending the point and keep it to yourself for i have explained it.peace

Dude, you told yourself whatever you want to believe - that is a different thing from having told me anything.

I made my point that the only reason why Jesus Christ is to be worshipped is because He is God and nothing other than that reason would count. If Jesus was not God, then you're saying He was a "created being" - and if that is what you're asserting, then your worship is idolatry: keep it to yourself! Any worship you ascribe to a "created being" at par with divine worship to God is idolatry - for only when you recognize the Deity of Christ would it be proper for you to affirm that "Jesus is to be worshipped".

^^ I like that 'analogy'. Brilliant.

InesQor:
The reasoning of those that say Christ is not God, simply amazes me

And yet they are willing to acknowledge that 'Jesus is to be worshipped'. It only fascinates me as much as the Arius fellow who, while arguing to deny the eternal Deity of Christ, yet asserts that the same Jesus Christ is "perfect God" who subsisted before time and before ages. Nice.

Joagbaje:
Point of correction, Jesus is not the only begotten , .Every christian is begooten by the word. Jesus is no longer only begotten but now he is first begotten.We are his brothers!

@Joabgaje, a few questions:

(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?

If you can answer these simple questions, then your problem will come to light. If you cannot, then perhaps your choice is to remain in your dark arguments.

James was one of the last  apostles to be converted, He was a kind of principality in the early church and he troubled the ministry of Paul a littlel, People feared him.

Where did you read these from the Bible?

James still teach that a man must be circumcised according to the law to be saved.

Where in the Bible did you read that?

He terrorised the early church with his teachings in his ignorance that Peter the great apostle was afraid of him.

Where in the Bible did you read such things?

Deep Sight:
Viaro –

Let us look at a few of your comebacks to elucidate the point.

So can you explain exactly why he stated that the Father is greater than he is?

Why do you contradict him – and insist that they are equal?

Since you are deaf to what I have explained, now rather let me ask you why you are the one so blind as to contradict Him on John 5:23?? Does it make any sense to you that a mere "created being" would be making such statements in that verse as that ALL MEN would honour Him even as they honour the Father? You wake up and deal with that and stop acting like you've resumed smoking what's not in the books.

It is either –

1. He was lying OR

2. YOU are lying.

Both cannot be true.

So which is it?

Neither.

And yes, I have used the example of the Triple Point (which is NOT the Trinity) to show that "a scenario of a contrapositive statement where two things stand in contrast" is not out of joint; nor is it "impossible" nor "contrary to all reason". The Humility of Christ does not take anything away from His Deity (Phil. 2:6) - and that is not an impossible situation.

This statement was not made on the cross at all!

“My father and your father, my God and your God. . .” he utters these words whilst teaching the disciples!

I did not say that Hebrews 2:9 was made at the Cross! Are you thick or blind or both?

I said rather "see Heb. 2:9" in explanation of what went before.

Why does he claim to have a God, if he is God.

I don't know. Nor can I tell why the Father would refer to Christ as "God" in Heb. 1:8. Scripture affirms the Trinity in the Godhead, and viaro is satisfied with that - for I do not argue OOI into my faith.

Does it make any sense to you for God to pray to a being having greater powers that he? Is God not said to be the “Supreme being?” If Jesus subordinated himself and his will to another being (as he repeatedly did when praying to the Father) then he CANNOT be said to be the “Supreme” being.

Can the terrible internal inconsistency here really miss you?

It is not my loss but yours. I already said that the Trinity is not based on reductionist rationalism; and also, I have noted that the Trinity is NOT tritheism. What you tend to argue is tritheism and not the Trinity.

What does “Supremacy” mean to you Viaro? Does a supreme being go about declaring that another is “greater” than him – or pleading with another saying - “nevertheless not as I wilt but as thou wilt? ? ?”

Dude, you have no clue about the words you bandy around. Besides supremacy, there is also Sovereignty. As regards supremacy, the Subjects being discussed could still show humility and condescension; whereas in Sovereignty, it is a case of divine prerogatives. Both connotations are found in Christ Himself, and His submission to the Father does not affect either of them.

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.

And your point is. . .?

You are aware of what the proper Greek interpretation of this verse is.

Yes. And it does not deny the Deity of Jesus Christ.

I urge you to dig deep, pray and ask God to make the truth known to us all in this matter.

I have done so, no offense. The one thing I know God has shown me is the Deity of Christ, and I cannot dismiss that truth on the fallacies of your OOI.

Deep Sight:
^^^ When you find yourself having to explain away a zillion clear statements of your Christ which apparently negate what you teach about him; perhaps you should stop to consider sincerely, carefully and truthfully whether it has not come to it that you are actually mis-representing the poor guy.

DeepSight, your deism is NOT Christianity. That is a very simple message that ought to have sunk in by now. You don't use the reductionism of your deism to exegete or interpret matters of the Christian faith that are beyond you - especially where you do not have a grasp of its teachings, nor understand its particulars, nor even yet subscribe to the Christian faith. This twist and turn is beginning to show you infected with something more than a bug of fundamentalism and now bordering on insanity. I think you ought to show a bit more decorum by saving the last dregs of your OOI - at least for your own sake.

For no matter how you may twist and turn, you cannot escape that GOD is said to be Omniscient and Omnipotent: Two qualities that Christ EXPRESSLY and AFFIRMATIVELY DENIED having.

I do not see or read those texts as Christ positively or expressly denying His Omnipotence or Omniscience.

With Omniscience - he stated clearly that there are some things he knew not - Thus he affirms that he is NOT omniscient.

He did not affirm that He was not omniscient - you're reading it as such. I have given you examples of the very same manner or construct where God Himself speaks in language as to make the reader at first glance suppose that He did not know what was going on - (a) the case of Adam [Gen. 3:9]; and (b) the case of Sodom and Gomorrah [Gen. 18:21]. Such manner of speaking do not take anything away from His Deity - and that are many such examples outside the manner of speaking that might make the reader assume a reductionist position in reading those texts superficially.

With Omnipotence - he pleaded with GOD for a certain outcome on a certain matter, closing his prayer acknowledging that things could not be done according to his own will, but[b] only according to the will of God[/b] - thereby showing that he was NOT omnipotent: and also that his will could be distinguished from God's will.

That does not demonstrate a lack of Omnipotence. If you know what it takes to create the world and also sustain it, you would not speak so carelessly like [color=Black]an id[/color]iot. The Bible teaches that Christ created the world (John 1:3) as well that the same Christ upholds ALL THINGS by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3). His Humility is not something He supposed should be grasped at (Phil. 2:6) - nor does such a display of His subjection to the Father assume that He was merely man and nothing else. The one thing we have seen in this thread is the clear establishment that Jesus is God, and that is why even those that argue to the contrary still will bow down and yet worship Him.

These signal points are inescapable; utterly ineluctable and serve on their very own to affirm that which every sincere person should know in his heart: namely that the man Jesus of Nazareth IS NOT ALMIGHTY GOD.

Namely, that you are a hypocrite who argues with dark rings around his eyeballs so as not to see the essential points that Christ is also Alpha and Omega and as such receives the same equal worship that the ENTIRE CREATION renders to Deity (Rev. 1:8-11 and 5:13). Arguing just only one side of the issue smarks of conceited hypocrisy, which is more than an entertainment on its own.

The question of whether Jesus is 'Almighty God' still begs the question of whether He is GOD at all. Is Jesus God? I never see you guys stand up to address that point. Rather, like rabid goons you sit all day arguing what you cannot steal to add to your rogue religion of a doomed OOI.

So Viaro; i sincerely invite you to stop a moment in the mad rush of life and contemplate in sincerity and honesty why all these major signals would have been set forth by Jesus if indeed he were God. Indeed it should not be pilot for you to seek to "win" an argument on such serious matters - it would rather be in your spiritual interest to stop and see if it really and truly makes sense to insist that a mere mortal who stated very clearly and in no ambiguous terms that he is NOT omniscient and NOT Omnipotent - could actually be called Almighty GOD.

I am not looking out to win any arguments. From the onset I have made my point, and I'm not forcing it on any other Christian. The fact is that Jesus is to be worshipped because He is God. The purple higlight of your quote establishes that you are denying that Jesus is 'God' - so the question of whether He is 'Almighty God' is quite a subterfuge.

I already stated the reason that brought me here - to discuss the topic that argues "That Jesus Is Not God" - and that is what I have dealt with. Why do the likes of karo93 who started the thread admit that Jesus is to be worshipped if He was not God? Why? Yes, they make all sorts of excuses (nevermind that they twist direct texts of Scripture), but if anyone should know that such arguments only promote idolatry in the Biblical sense, then they should know. To you it may not matter to worship a dot in the cosmos called your beloved OOI; but for Christians it is altogether another thing to consider the very essence of the Person of Christ - whom Scripture affirms as God over all (Romans 9:5).

It neither makes logical sense; nor can it be sensed in any terms as even remotely true.

Stay blessed.

That's what I said earlier -

God cannot be constrained by rigid reductionism or rationalism - we cannot bring Him down to any determined position of our finite understanding, and this is especially true in the case of the Trinity.

The Trinity is a mystery of the Christian faith which cannot be adequately captured in any metaphysical diction (Job 11:7 - "canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?". Yet, that does not therefore weaken its Biblical foundation in any way.

^^^ hehe. . . the rounds will come. Patience. . . patience.

toneyb:
I really don't care much about philosophy and all that it entails, To me it is nothing other than endless opinions and counter opinions that are usually flawed and tricky(not always). There are atheist that are really interested in it and are good philosophers(good for them). But I don't like it and I don't care much about it.

No problem. I noted that your opinion about philosophy is your own - it does not mean that is what Philosophy is in itself.

toneyb:
And what is philosophy beside endless opinions and counter opinions which mostly involves and relies on flawed and tricky reasoning?

That is not philosophy but rather your own idea of what you don't know nor can handle. If that is what philosophy is to atheists, then no atheist should be found claiming to be a Philosopher, yes?

toneyb:
How many times per month does a new christian apologist show up espousing the argument for natural religion as a "proof" of the existence of the christian God?

And how many times do we see atheists reharshing their retired strawman fallacies for their atheism? Is it any wonder that even in the matrix of modern philosophy, atheists are generally spectators and never able to attempt any discussion on philosophy?

Deep Sight:
FALSE. What then have you been doing describing Deism in every term? You also call it a "theif" of worldviews, no?

I warned you that I would treat you in exactly the same manner if your fundamentalism against Christian beliefs continues. You're not the only deist on Nairaland; and if I wanted to excoriate deism, I made clear that it was "your deism" I would focus on and not broadly on Deism for all deists. You continue with your fundy adventures - what's up next will leave you a sorry mess when I again put you in your place.

The pot calling the kettle black then.

I'm neither pot nor kettle - you call yourself whatever you want: it's a free world.

FALSE AGAIN: You have done this extensively on Deism. Also on other sects of Christianity that do not hold your views.

False. I have only slapped YOUR DEISM (specifically DeepSight's deism) because you invited trouble and deserved the whipping you got. For others who went about with WOF doctrines, I have also stood against their heresies rather than stand against 'Christianity'.

The ONLY reason you refrained from attacking the Hindu supposition is because i set it to you as evidence that YOU are living in a glass house and as such cannot throw stones: YOU realize that your worship of a Jew as GOD is just as ridiculous as the Hindu supposition of sacred cows.

No. I did not go down that path with you - and you were the same fellow that first attacked that Hindu sanctity, remember? Not satisfied there, when you brought up the issue of living in a glass house, I said plainly that I don't live in glass houses but in marbled houses - so if you dare, try me: I shall come against you with mortar tanks and flamethrowers! You were the schmuck who never had the guts to proceed, because you're prolly still nursing your bruises after your OOI was wasted. Try and again, this time I will send you and your redundant and illiterate OOI to a super whitehole.

That's why you MUST keep mum on the hindus.

Nope. I don't go out of my way to quarrel with Hindus or their philosophy. I already indicated that I discuss with Hindus, and I let them have their say without trying to argue with them unnecessarily (remind yourself - see here, here and here).

Could it be possible that u fail to understand what Diesm says and could be wrong? It is possible. Then why should u then enslave urself to disparaging the Deist for what u do not understand at all?

I don't disparage 'the Deist' - I am specific: I excoriate one particular person on his own type of deism: DeepSight. I have deists around me and there are some on Nairaland - you will not find me disparaging them on 'Deism'. However, because you are the only son of a collapsible OOI who must display some insanity in your rogue religion, you will constantly be at the receiving end of my baton. (that doesn't mean we can't relate outside your deism; but if you dare bring your OOI bragado near me, I would have wounded you before I remember your identity - trust me).

Deep Sight:
^^^ Bollocks. Codswollop. Nonsense.

Just those three? Is that your trinity of derision in your deistic OOI?

IF JESUS WERE GOD -

1. He would not categorically state the Father to be greater than him - which you have the ridiculous effrontery to contradict by insisting that he is equal with the Father.

I did not contradict that in any way - rather I have posted John 5:23 so many times and none of your ilks have ever addressed that issue for ONCE! If Jesus was not God/Deity, He would not have asserted that He is to be worshipped in exactly the same way as the Father is to be worshipped.

2. He would not state that he worships God - in his words "my God and your God"

That was not a statement of worship - it was His prophecied declaration on the Cross in His vicarious death in His Humanity - see Heb. 2:9. It is in His Humanity and not Hid Deity that He could taste death for every man - and it is in His Humanity that He made that pornouncement on the Cross.

3. He would not state clearly that as the son, there are things which remain unknown to him - God is omniscient, no?

That in no way negates the fact that He is God (John 1:1), nor does it take anything that He is to receive equal worship as is given to the Father (John 5:23).

In the divine economy of Redemptive history, God speaks as though He was unaware of certain events - "Where art thou", He asked Adam, as if He did not know (Gen. 3:9); "I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it", as if He did not see that event prior to that time (Gen. 18:21); etc. Jesus would not be obliged to reveal the time or hour of the consummation of the present epoch, because it was not for the disciples to know "the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power" (Acts 1:7). If He did not tell them, does that deny His Deity?

4. He would not be "begotten"

I already explained what "begotten" means. Do you mind acting your age instead of repeating this one-liner like you know any better?

5. He would not make the statement in Gethsemane evincing a possible dichotomy of wills within the Godhead ("Nevertheless not as i will but as THOU wilt" - This statement also shows that he is NOT omnipotent as the Father is said to be.

That also I already explained.

6. The book of Revelation would not evince his CLEAR subjugation to that Father

The book of Revelation does not present Him literally as a Lamb either. But one thing is clear: Jesus in Revelation is also the Alpha and Omega - and He also received EQUAL WORSHIP from the ENTIRETY of CREATION (Revelations 1:8-11 and 5:13).

7. He would not speak of being forsaken by the Father: being God he would have known the WHOLE script and what it meant

Please stop repeating yourself - that has been dealt with as well.

8. He would not be capable of being reduced to a finite element such as a human being as God is absolutely intangible and Transcendental; an infinite element cannot be borne within a finite vessel.

See your problem? I already anticipated goons like you who go about with this notion of reductionism. That was why I stated clearly: "God cannot be constrained by rigid reductionism or rationalism". Since your OOI is a reductionist element, little wonder that it ever takes off from the ground and has collapsed into the blackhole of complete ignorance.

Deep Sight:
^^^ Odd Viaro.

Is it wrong for you perhaps to argue that Islam actually teaches submission to the will of Allah - against someone who asserts that it does not?

If you knew viaro even a bit, you would not be asking such a question. My attitude to the worldviews that I do not subscribe to is not to sit all day argue what is 'right' or 'wrong' in them as if it is my prerogative to define their religion for them. That is what you have been doing, which is why as a Christian I would stand up to you anytime and anyday.

Even when I cannot understand the philosophical underpinnings of a worldview, it is not my style to betake myself endlessly to argue what they should believe. For example, I have used the case of Hinduism's sacrosanctity for bovines {'cows are God'} - that is not what I believe; and it is not up to me to disparage the Hindu on that. Could it be possible that I fail to understand what such a text says and could be wrong? It is possible. Then why should I then enslave myself to disparaging the Hindu for what I do not understand at all?

The same with Islam. The only times I would engage the Muslim is when he throws his (or her) fundamentalism to argue the Quran over the Bible. Yet, even when I engage in such apologetic discussions, you won't find me going over to the Muslim motherboard to yan a dot there - I do not subscribe to Islam, nor do I have any scholarship of to define anything in Islam for the Muslim. That is not my "indaba" and you will not find me in such an arena.

In that case you are merely seeking to tell that person what you are positively aware is the teaching of Islam.

That is a waste of time, bro. Islam is not a 'one-size-fits-all', just as you won't find all deists agree about essentials in Deism, nor Christians all confessing the same thing on any subject. I don't make it my business to go over to yell at the Muslim in a bid to tell him what he ought to believe or not believe - nor is it in my domain to deride them as 'deluded' simply because they do not agree with any argument I might have with them on Islam that I do not subscribe to.

I have been a Christian in the past and as such i am familiar with Christian doctrines: there cannot be anything wrong in my setting a Christian right on what I know is contained within his scripture.

Well, you don't have to be a Christian to be familiar with Christian doctrines. Anyone could get up today and be familiar with Christian doctrines without having any Christian background - in just the same way that I know quite a lot about deism without being once a deist. I don't see any biggy there.

Do i have to laboriously explain everything to you? ? ?

No - but you can do with laboriously shutting your pipe and saving us from your noise pollution.

karo93:
@viaro
i want us to reach a verdict together so pls answer these questions for me
1.After studying the way Jesus related and referred to God the father as a different entity['i am the way to the father',my God my God why hast thou forsaken me?] and the book of revelation do you believe that Jesus and God are separate entities but still one God?

I told you already:

[list](a)  God cannot be constrained by rigid reductionism or rationalism - we cannot bring Him down to any determined position of our finite understanding, and this is especially true in the case of the Trinity.[/list]

[list](b)  The Trinity is a mystery of the Christian faith which cannot be adequately captured in any metaphysical diction (Job 11:7 - "canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?".[/list]

Now, if you feel that you can adequately unravel and reveal all mysteries about the Godhead, please go ahead and do the same - I also have about 75 simple questions for you when you're done, and then I shall see what would be left of your arguments against the Deity of Jesus Christ.

However, I have no problem with the fact that the Deity and Humanity of Christ are perfectly united in Him. And the basic point that brought me here is the denial of His Deity as in your topic {"Proving That Jesus Is Not God"}. So far, rather than prove your denial, we have seen again and again that Jesus is God indeed - and that is why He is to be worshipped. That alone is enough for me, and if you have anything fresh to present, let's read from you.

Deep Sight:
Inesqor -

I do not agree with Joagbaje because i do NOT believe in the whole Christian delusion of Christ, his deity, his sacrifice as redemption, etc.

I simply point out that going by scripture Joagbaje has it right in his understanding of the Christian concept of redemption and union with Christ.

FOR ME: such concepts are meaningless and rooted in pagan ideas and ridiculous fantasy - not to mention a failure to grasp the laws of God which i do not believe permit ANY person to make atonement for the sins of ANY OTHER person. Whatever a man sows, he must unconditionally reap.

Hahaha. . . do you know the name of the ailment for someone who argues in favour of something that he does not believe in or subscribe to, particularly when it comes to worldviews?

InesQor:
I do not know the genesis of Deep Sight's obsessions but am I the only one who thinks its weird that Deep Sight denies the deity of Christ but he agrees with Joagbaje who says We are as much God as Christ is? How much sense does that make?

DeepSight is neither here nor there - that much we know. He would argue assertively and affirmatively on something he does not believe in, otherwise he would only so much as pretend to believe in something if it helps his rogue religion that steals concepts from all worldviews and yet arrives nowhere.

Deep Sight:
Question from Deep Sight -

Let me ask them this; If Jesus came to the earth, suffered death, rose again, and supposedly returned to heaven: what had he "lost?" - What had he "sacrificed?" - "What had he "laid down?" - If this is all there is to it, then he had laid down NOTHING because all intangible beings come to the world and pass away onto the spiritual ANYWAY.

Answer from Viaro -

It's not a problem actually. The first thing you ought to be concerned with is how your OOI has been fairing right after it was exposed for the sham it has always been. What has your OOI done for you? Nothing. What has your OOI done for anybody? Zilch. How has your OOI improved your reasoning faculty? Nix. So, rather than be too concerned for the Christian worldview, you ought to be trying to rescue your OOI from its dying sleep before he moans into the blackhole where it is already headed.

Men, talk about dodging the issue.

I was not dodging any issues; which was why I rather took time to expound on your fallacy of asserting that He "{laid aside his perfect divinity to enter the world}". My answer to your fallacy on that claim is still there - read and think through issues before quickly clicking on the 'reply' botton.

Deep Sight:
Quote from Viaro -

(3) There's a world of difference between "becoming" and "remaining" ~

(a) to "become" something means you were not that thing previously

And equally being "begotten" means. . .? ? ?

The word "begotten" does not mean that He was "created". In the NT, in reference to Christ, it is often used in the various forms (eg., "only begotten" or "firstbegotten" to indicate a number of things -

(a) His Divine Nature

(b) His Victory in Resurrection

The word itself is μονογενής (monogenēs) in Greek; and it is different from another word for procreation, γεννάω (gennaō).

That Christ is the "only begotten" of the Father is saying that Christ is the unique and exact same essence or nature (Deity) as is the Father. No other 'being' (angel or human being) is called the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father in Scripture.

Why do you keep citing this? You know what the greek inferred.

I cite it because that is what Scripture says and implies.

Do you speak Italian?

Do you?

Image123:
Haha, viaro is breaking posts. And someone is looking for an evidence that there's God. Nice try sha.
Who is that Arius? The guy no go school or what?
I woke up this morning and I'm reading something pleasant(apart from the Bible). Thank you, that analogy of the trinity write was pleasant. Especially the Exodus 3v14 part. If I wasn't male, I could've sworn that the baby leaped in my womb.

Enigma:
@Viaro

Excellent posts -- esp no 177-179.

@Enigma and Image123, many thanks.

Deep Sight:
Viaro my brother!

Howdy brotherly!

Quick question - why do you love referring to yourself in the third person?

Are you a Trinity?

Hehehe. . it is called illeism. I know - bad habit of me, but it's something about my Italian background that is hard to drop. I was worse than that, but I guess there's some improvement.

However, my illeism does not make me a divine trinity.

karo93:
@viaro
that verse was from good news

Thanks. Now let me compare them:

[table][tr][td]karo93 in post#146
[/td][td]. [/td][td]GoodNews Bible[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]Acts 20.28
So keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock which the holy spirit has placed in your care.be shephereds of the church of God which he made with the sacrificial death of his son.[/td][td]. [/td][td]
Acts 20:28
So keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock which the Holy Spirit has placed in your care. Be shepherds of the church of God,  which he made his own through the blood of his Son.
[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]phil.2.6
He always had the nature of God but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God.[/td][td]. [/td][td]
Phil. 2:6
He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to remain  equal with God.
[/td][/tr][/table]


ACTS 20:28

(1)  You can see that you quote and what appears from GoodNews are not the same. Now, I'm not accusing you of lying here; but I wonder if it might be possible that you were using a different edition of the GoodNews Bible than what we find as quoted above?

(2)  In the GoodNews Bible, Acts 20:28 reads "which he made his own through the blood of his Son". However, I want to ask you if you ever checked up John 1:1 in that same GoodNews Bible, where it reads: "In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God"? Does the GoodNews not say that Jesus is God in John 1:1? Don't forget also that the same version says in Rev. 19:13 that Jesus has a Name: 'The robe he wore was covered with blood. His name is "The Word of God."'

(3)   So, whether you quote GN Bible out of context, of otherwise twisted it, it still affirms in Acts 20:28 that it was with the Blood of His Son, and that the Son who is 'the Word'  is Himself GOD in John 1:1. What is your problem in that?

_________

PHILIPPIANS 2:6

(1)   So is the case of Phil. 2:6 between what you quoted and what we read in GN Bible: they are not the same.

(2)   While you argued that it was a case of "to become equal with God", the GN says it was rather a case of "to remain equal with God".

(3)   There's a world of difference between "becoming" and "remaining" ~

            (a)   to "become" something means you were not that thing previously

            (b)   to "remain" something means that you ALREADY were that same thing earlier

(4)   Jesus was not trying to "become" God - rather, He "always had the nature of God," but He did not "think that by force he should try to remain equal with God". That He 'always had the nature of God' is the same thing that John 1:1 says in the GN Bible - "the Word was God".

In all this, karo93. . . it just means that your topic is grasping at straws. Rather than "Proving That Jesus Is Not God", the verses from the GN Bible you cited are showing that Jesus is indeed God.

I did not repeat 'jesus never said' because we all know it and you never said he did so i would waste my time repeating myself.

I don't think I was asserting that you repeated yourself. It is enough for me that whether you said it once or many times, the case before us is that Jesus is God indeed.

what do you have to say about the father being greater than him a said in jn.14.28 and their inequality of knowledge and power seeing that i have told you why he is to be worshiped and why he had the full nature of God.

Simple: the context bears witness of itself in that verse - the superlative "greater" does not mean that Jesus was a 'lesser God'; it was rather a case of Divine Economy, which is what Phil. 2:6 points to once again. Jesus who always had the nature of God (Phil. 2:6, GNB) and was Himself God (John 1:1, GBN) did not try to force His equality with God upon us.

This is why you will read in other passages that demonstrate Christ's Humility as well, and such Humility does not affect His very essence as Deity.  It is because Jesus is God (John 1:1, GNB) that is why He is to be worshipped - for any other 'worship' you render to a "created being" is idolatry.

Deep Sight:
^^^ Except that such Physics can also be used to justify the Holy Trinity Of Horus, Isis and Osiris - the Egptian Triad which pre-dated Christian Trinitarian Ideas by centuries.

Pagan triads which are the predecessors of your Trinity.

So Viaro: based on the physics you set out above, the Egyptian Triad is also sound and true: no?

(1)  It may help you to carefully weigh what I said rather than see 'viaro' and just be driven to react.

(2)  I only used the Triple Point as an analogy, and yet noted and emphasized that the Triple Point is NOT the Trinity.

(3)  Since the Triple Point is NOT the Trinity, your attacking the analogy takes absolutely nothing from the Trinity.

(4)   In the case of the Triple Point, we were looking at what occurerence in nature; whereas, in the Trinity is not to be reduced to "nature". For me, the Trinity is transcendent and preternatural - beyond nature. As such, I also emphatically said two things:

        (a)  The Trinity is a mystery of the Christian faith which cannot be adequately
               captured in any metaphysical diction;

        (b)   In giving analogies, however, one should be careful to not equate them to
               the subject being spoken about; nor should such an analogy be taken to be
               the 'perfect explanation' for the Trinity.

In demonstrating the concept of the Trinity, my analogy is just that - an "analogy". I did not assert or argue that the Triple Point was equal to the Trinity. If you want to argue the Physics of the Triple Point, please open a thread and let's see what science you know at all (if any); or, if you are thirsty for the [i]Meta[/i]physics of 'Essential Being', you may also give me a shout and let's clean you up very quickly.

Let it be clear - any clown can produce zillions of phyical phenomena that serve as a seeming basis for spiritual propositions -

You've been doing that forever on Nairaland - did you just wake up to realise the clown you always have been?

I can equally use the laws of gravity, permanence of energy and cause and effect to justify my belief in Karma and reincarnation - though you would not accept that!

I have not tried to "justify" anything here, and I made sure to state that the Triple Point is NOT the Trinity. Yes, I believe in the Trinity; but that does not mean I set out to "justify" anything in that regard. However, your Karma and/reincarnation has nothing to do with my subject or discourse; and you're quite free to seek to "justify" your belief in them - so long as you find a deistic scripture for that and not peg it on any page of the Bible.

There are many many chemical formations that involve many amounts of different compounds - and it could equally be asserted that God is 4, 5, 6, 7 8, 9 or a million beings in one based on any agglomeration of equal chemical substances.

I did not assert that God is 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (yes, the fraud Benny Hinn prefers a "9" in his theology of the Godhead) or a million beings. My discourse was not about equating "chemical formations" to the Uncreated Trinity - I have repeatedly emphasized that point: the Triple Point is NOT the Trinity, but viaro only used the former to illustrate one thing: "how very little we can fathom the mystery of the Godhead". So if you miss that, I can well bear with you; but if you want to present a case for your belief in a million beings for your god, please do so - it would take nothing away from what I have said, for viaro is not a worshipper of your deistic OOI.

C.rap!

Yes, that's what you are.

Deep Sight:
I have never seen such great hypocrisy in my life before.

Worse still: paucity of comprehension of the very scriptures which some deluded Christians regard as the basis for their shrivelled spiritual existence.

I am utterly dumbstruck that the very essence and meaning of Christ's supposed sacrifice is entirely lost on persons who vaunt their Christianity with sickening monotony on this Forum.

^^ Your world, enjoy. For now, I'd rather leave you to keep demonstrating your fundamentalism - the time will come when you'd be at the receiving end yet again.

Let me ask them this; If Jesus came to the earth, suffered death, rose again, and supposedly returned to heaven: what had he "lost?" - What had he "sacrificed?" - "What had he "laid down?" - If this is all there is to it, then he had laid down NOTHING because all intangible beings come to the world and pass away onto the spiritual ANYWAY.

It's not a problem actually. The first thing you ought to be concerned with is how your OOI has been fairing right after it was exposed for the sham it has always been. What has your OOI done for you? Nothing. What has your OOI done for anybody? Zilch. How has your OOI improved your reasoning faculty? Nix. So, rather than be too concerned for the Christian worldview, you ought to be trying to rescue your OOI from its dying sleep before he moans into the blackhole where it is already headed.

Thus I need to get it across to the supposed "Christians" - Aletheia, Inesqor (Mavenbox), Viaro, Nuclearboy & company: the doctrine of salvation is synonymous with a genuine "sacrifice" on the part of Christ: namely that whereas he was previously non-contingent - now he is contingent: having laid aside his perfect divinity to enter the world and be associated with us and reconcile us to God: thus that whereas once he existed without need for us: he voluntarily brought us into association with the core of his being through the sacrifice at Golgotha - and thereby made us one with him: a perfect rose - a virgin now complete in unison with Christ which is now acceptable unto God.

Were it not for your mentioning 'viaro', I would actually have roundly ignored you. But even at your best, you still fail to impress yourself. Let me bring you round.

(1)   Your idea of "contingent" and "non-contingent" is skewed and does not apply in this subject. Jesus Christ in His essential Being is not dependent on any creature, regardless the divine economy that you might adduce to argue that.

(2)   Consequently, it is quite incorrect to assume that Jesus "{laid aside his perfect divinity to enter the world}". He did not lay aside His Deity of Divinity at any one epoch when He entered the world. It is not only at the Incarnation that He entered the world, and for simplicity sake, let me give you just three of such instances -

        (a)  He 'entered' the world as Head of all powers and received worship as DEITY -
        'And again, when He bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith,
         And let all the angels of God worship him' (Heb. 1:[color=Black]8[/color])

        (b)  He entered the world as Head of all who come under His covenant -
        'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad'
        (John 8:58)

        (c)  Then He entered the world in His Incarnation -
        'And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us' (John 1:14)

In none of these or any instance of His entering the world did He ever lay down His Divinity. His essence was not affected by the Incarnation, nor by His Death, nor even by His resurrection. That is why even though He was found in His Humanity, He maintained that He is still the "I AM" (John 8:5[color=Black]8[/color]). It was only in His Humanity that He could taste death for every man (Heb. 2:9); but that in itself did not mean that He laid down or lost His Divinity at any time.

Does it not strike you that this very “oneness” with Christ is the basis of the statement by Jesus that we must “eat his flesh and drink his blood” – a symbolic ritual affirmation of the core association with his very transcendent and perfect being which then reconciles humanity in perfection as a stainless virgin – as the body of Christ – to ALMIGHTY GOD.

I don't know where you woke up from; but did you read anywhere that any one of us (Aletheia, Inesqor, myself or Nuclearboy) denied our union with Christ? No. However, the one point that we have stressed is that our union with Christ does not translate into the idea that we automatically become DIVINITY or DEITY! There is no amount of "faith" that transforms any Christian into deity or divinity on the basis of having entered a relationship with Christ who is God over all (Rom. 9:5).

This is the spiritual basis of the claim by the Christian to oneness with the deity of Christ and ultimately to unity with God.

That's a fallacy, mr deist. Could I also apply the same principle to your own OOI and suppose that your "oneness" with your OOI makes you an "infinity"? Are you thick or throttled?

You know very well I do not believe the foregoing personally but for many years I was a Christian and as far as I know this is the core meaning and understanding of the salvation of Christ which makes the gospel of Christ and his salvation unique and different from that espoused by the human-led doctrines of other religions.

If you do not believe what you are driven rabidly to assert, does that not promote your fundamentalism to such a level as to border on insanity? What does it benefit to try to argue what you do not subscribe to? The core meaning of the salvation of Christ to any man does not mean such a man (or woman) automatically becomes Deity or Divinity. To argue that it does must mean that your own heresy was pending for a long time and we really don't miss your leaving Christianity to pursue an empty OOI.

I can hardly explain how staggering it is that the likes of Inesqor and Viaro are here unable the grasp the deepest core of what it means to be “Christian”: namely the core significance of the sacrifice of Christ and its implication in drawing the Christian into holy unity with God. In this, Pastor Joagbaje has it well wrapped up and I need not quote any scriptures to affirm this as he has quoted many already: regrettably all I see is the usual willingness by Christians to reject the very words of Christ himself.

I can speak for myself - the "deepest core" of what it means to be a "Christian" does not mean that we go about claiming to be DIVINE, DEITY, or "GOD". Even Joagbaje himself has not been able to stand to defend such a heresy, and for you to be applauding such a thing only accentuates your drama. Joagbaje himself may find your hypocrisy quite appealing - since you do not believe in what you argue, you're a good tool in his hands. Both of you can carry on deceiving yourselves.

You guys need to return to your scriptures and gain a sound understanding of the fundamentals of the religion that you hold so dear.

We never left the Scriptures - you did. Now you can return to the Scripture or just shut up for once.

Joagbaje:
@ Viaro

What is next up my sleeves is for you to tell me what you make of Deut 6:4

Deut. 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:

That's what is commonly called the Shema - google up if you want more info; otherwise be specific and let's know what exactly you have in mind. The Shema does not give you grounds to arrogate divine titles or appellations to yourself.

If Jesus is God and lord also, more with the consederation of what God expressly stated in Isaiah 48:11

Isaiah 48:11
I will not give my glory unto another.

Jesus is God. Should I take it that your question {"If Jesus is God and lord also"} implies that you no longer believe that Jesus is God?

Joagbaje:
Let Viaro answer

I have answered and will answer again: Absolutely YESES!

________

InesQor:
@Joagbaje: Let me answer for viaro. YES. Jesus is God. NEXT!?

Enigma:
Me too! Indeed Jesus is God, so NEXT?

Now viaro again: Three YESES - Jesus is God.

So, Joagbaje, what's next up your sleeves?

Joagbaje:
@viaro

You have written longer ones than these . I'm not really disappointed , I don't really feel you would be able to explain those scriptures .

Oh you bet I could! I just didn't feel it necessary upon myself to bore any reader with any exegesis, nor was it contingent upon the fact that you've been claiming your super-status on Nairaland - left, right and center! There's hardly an exegesis at this point that would defrag you of the WOF bug, trust me.

But if I were you , what I don't know , I would say I don't know instead of arguing ignorantly.

I never tend to argue what I don't know. I happen to know indeed that you've been parading yourself as the lordly "Christ" and super "God" (critical or not on small or big 'c/C' or 'g'/G). That much, I know - and that much, we have seen with our eyes (that goodness we survived the blindness that would have followed the dazzling flash).

Let me ask you a simpler one : Is Jesus God?

Absolutely YES! Infact, absolutely YESES!

nuclearboy:
@Viaro:

Chairman, my respects as always. Just a point here - I wonder if these people ever consider what they suggest when they keep going "He is the Vine, we the Branches" or "He is the Head, we the body" and make it LITERAL PHYSICAL RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW as in cut off Jesus Head and both He and this body will die!

Is it just me or is there implied the idea that without us, there can be NO God or Jesus? I thought God could raise up the very stones in lieu of anybody. Isn't WOF suggesting God is nothing without this "us"?

@commander nuclearboy, howdy?
Infact, you just captured it all in a nutshell for me. I can hardly improve on that, and we have seen more than enough of WOFers to point in that direction.

^^^^

What then is the analogy of the Triple Point indicating? Several things, among others:

(a)  the analogy is NOT the Trinity, but is only used to illustrate our own inability to grasp the mystery of this most important subject: the Trinity.

(b)  that, what might be thought 'impossible' to our finite minds is already demonstrated in nature - (such as that, three phases [solid, liquid, and gas] of a single substance can indeed coexist in equilibrium). It is not a question of three different substances, nor is it a question of new substances emerging from the original substance to become yet another substance - No. Just one substance in three phases in coexistence in equilibrium.

(c)   like I said, the analogy is NOT the Trinity - it was only used by viaro to illustrate how very little we can fathom the mystery of the Godhead.

(d)  in all of this, as far as this thread is concerned, there was just one question in the thread topic that drew my interest here: "Proving That Jesus Is Not God". My answer is that anyone who gives divine worship to a "created being" is promoting idolatry. And the only reason why Jesus is to be worshipped indeed is because He is God - He is Deity, and not a "created being".