₦airaland Forum

^^^^^

However, the Trinity is neither impossible nor contrary to all reason. Even natural phenomena, in their limitations and constraints, also demonstrate the coexistence of contrapositive reality.

For example, some may wonder: how could there be both 'boiling' and 'freezing' of the same substance coexisting and occuring at the same time in the same crucible? Yet, this is both possible and has been demonstrated, as in the vid below which shows both 'boiling' and 'freezing' of a substance in equilibrium in the same crucible:

[list][flash=300,250]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLRqpJN9zeA&hl=en_GB&fs=1&[/flash]

(tert-butyl boils and freezes at the same time)[/list]


Now, if nature shows us the possibility of one substance having three phases coexisting in equilibrium, could we not find any analogy as well that exemplifies the concept of the Trinity? Certainly, there is one such analogy: the 'Triple Point' in thermodynamics.

Let's consider a few definitions of 'triple point' ~

[list](a)   'In thermodynamics, the triple point of a substance is the temperature and pressure at which three phases (for example, gas, liquid, and solid) of that substance coexist in thermodynamic equilibrium' (Wikipedia)

(b)   'In physics, the temperature at which all three phases of matter (solid, liquid, and gas) for a given substance can coexist' [Dictionary.Reference].[/list]

The key features in those definitions are that -
          ::::  there's one substance
          ::::  there are three phases
          ::::  these coexist simultaneously
          ::::  they are in equilibrium

So it is in the Trinity of the Godhead -
          ::::  One divine Essence: Deity
          ::::  three Divine Persons: Father, Son, Holy Spirit
          ::::  their coexistence through eternity
          ::::  their Unity unaffected at any time

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.

Enigma:
Most enjoyable and moving when sung to Shipston

http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/f/i/firmlyib.htm#

Firmly I believe and truly
God is Three, and God is One;
And I next acknowledge duly
Manhood taken by the Son.
. . . . .

Beautiful! Most beautiful indeed. Please allow me to share something as an analogy of the highlighted second line of that hymn.

An Analogy of The Trinity

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.

When God revealed His Name as "I AM THAT I AM" (Exodus 3:14), it was not just a mere pointer to His existence, but rather to His essence. He is whatever He reveals of Himself, independent of human understanding or constraints, whether we grasp the concept of the Trinity or not. This is why I reckon that even the most intellectual expositions about God, Deity and the Trinity are still inadequate and can only bring us this close and no further.

Certainly, many people struggle to grasp the Biblical teaching of the Trinity. When they hear the Trinitarian confession as in that hymn above, that ~

         "God is Three, and God is One"

. . .these folks struggle with such a possibility and have consequently raised questions like: 'How can God be both One and Trinity?'. To such folks, it seems somewhat out of joint to posit a scenario of a contrapositive statement where two things stand in contrast, and then maintain that their coexistence is in equilibrium. Not only would that seem to be 'uncommon', but also almost contrary to all reason.

karo93:
ANSWERS THAT THOSE WHO BELIEVE JESUS TO BE GOD NORMALLY GIVE.

@karo93

The topic itself denies the Deity of Christ in stating: "That Jesus Is Not God". That was what caught my interest, for indeed you had tried to argue in favour of that denial. "First of all," you said in the OP, "Jesus never stated that he was God" - and then you went on arguing against the Deity of Jesus in the various posts you made.

However, it seems most remarkable that even you are now not so sure any more whether or not to argue in favour of your denial; or whether we should not notice that the discussion has subtly changed. What was your basic argument again? This: "That Jesus is not God" (topic). Perhaps, now after so long it seems you're holding up close to the affirmation that Jesus is indeed God.

Two basic points that sum up that conlusion for me are from these quotes:
(a)

karo93: Jesus had the full nature of God because he was possesed by the Holy spirit who is the acting hand or force of God not because he was God himself.mt 12:28
click here

(b)

karo93: Jesus is to be worshipped because according to john.3.35 the father loves the son and puts everything in his power.
click here

So, your arguments as regards Christ are that:

        (a)  Jesus had the full nature of God;
        (b)  Jesus is to be worshipped.

What is the meaning of saying that Jesus had "the full nature of God" other than unwittingly affirming His Deity? It is absolutely crass to assert that He had 'the full nature of God' and then keep on arguing against His Deity - that just turns out to be denying the very thing that you affirm. It reminds me of Arius of Alexandria who denied the eternal Deity of Christ while at the same time confessing that Christ was "perfect God". How could One who had the full nature of God be anything less than 'Deity', karo93? If you assume so, then you really do not have the slightest clue what you're stating.


Second, when you acknowledge and affirm that Jesus is to be worshipped, are you not again affirming the Deity of Christ? You should know that worshipping a "created being" tends to idolatry in the Biblical sense (Exodus 34:14 and Psa. 81:9). If Jesus is only a "created Being", why do you worship Him (Matt. 4:10)? Since you affirm that Jesus is to be worshipped, what kind of 'worship' do you as a Christian render to a "created being" that should be the same equal worship rendered to the Father (John 5:23 and Rev. 5:13)?

The only reason why anyone would render worship to Jesus Christ on equal terms as they do to the Father is because Jesus Himself is Deity - Jesus is God. Anything else is idolatry, for you cannot defend any Biblical teaching ascribing worship to a "created being" no matter how glorious or exalted that 'being' may be.

The angels are powerful beings created by God and described as ~

           *  great in power and might (2 Peter 2:11)
           *  excelling in strength (Psa. 103:20)
           *  'Mighty' (2 Thes. 1:7)

. . . and yet, none of the elect angels in all their glory would ever receive worship from man. For when the apostle John was moved to worship one of such mighty angels, he was twice expressly forbidden; and twice expressly told to "worship God" (Rev. 19:10 and 22:8-9). Not only so, but the Bible also expressly declares that ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD worship Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:6).

Now in all these, how is it possible for you to affirm that Jesus is to be worshipped if you yet deny His Deity? Any excuse you make up for this would only tend to idolatry. It is either Jesus is God and as such is deserving of worship; or your claim is nothing short of classic idolatry. The choice is yours.

karo93:
@viaro
i admire the way you twisted the whole son issue and want to see how you can do that to the father. i.e jesus referred to God as his father and God and God reffered to him as his beloved son and never as his God.

Please, kindly quote me precisely for what I said and not for what I did not say. I don't remember saying that the Father called the Son 'His God'. Rather, I pointed out that it was the Father's speech that was reported in Hebrews 1:8 referring to the Deity of His Son - "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom". I did not twist anything in that verse but quoted it directly from the KJV.

Also in post #149, I asked you to kindly let us know what versions or translations you're quoting in twisting Acts 20:28 and Phil. 2:6 - no, I have not forgotten and will not let it pass. Please kindly oblige us so we can read those verses and more for ourselves.

just asking-i am an anglican, are u a catholic??

No, viaro is not Catholic (no offense to Catholics); but I'm a Baptist.

However, it is remarkable that Anglicans are known to confess that Jesus is God, as in this example:

[list]All Saints Anglican Church

Q: What does it mean to be a Christian?

Christians are followers of Jesus Christ. They seek to follow his teachings and model their lives on His example. More importantly, Christians believe that Jesus is God, having become a human being, come to rescue and restore us and all of His broken creation.  . . . [/list]

Now I understand that some Anglicans find it difficult to believe the Deity of Jesus Christ, and they deny that confession altogether. Let's just say that your denial is not definitive of the Anglican position on this subject; nor is it definitive for Baptists or Catholics. For me personally, I confess most affirmatively that Jesus Christ is God.

You are [/b]doing it again. You have unilaterally assumed the [b]evidence for God must be metaphysical. Yet you said it was amenable to logic. You have also assumed no one could tell you anything different despite being shown with examples why your metaphysical God must leave evidence at least if he really performs miracles. I thought you were also able to present the evidence using logic. Which I said was amenable to the scientific method. Even if all you want to do is to present your evidence by metaphysics you may do so but I'll prefer you using logic.

I did not "do it again" nor assume anything. If you can read, is it my fault? If you find metaphysics too much to your flavour, is that my fault, too? Why, if I may ask, have you been complaining about the metaphysics all along?

All you've done is to stretch this thread requesting for [b]your own[b] evidence for a God this far.

No worries. I long realised you're just are not a serious discussant.

You have not given the said evidence.
I'm really getting bored with this. If you have no evidence or if you believe because you believe you've found evidence for this metaphysical miracle performing christian God whose word is the bible through philosophy then good luck to you.
So you can go ahead and present your evidence whether through logic since you asked my preference and let's get on from there.

I got bored already seeing the way you negotiate the issue of "information" and "non-information". I tried to see the sort of discussant you were by taking up that issue - and up until now, you have done nothing but present fallacy after fallacy. . . at the end of the day, we still don't have your example of "non-information". If that simple issue was far way out of your league, would I be surprised you can't habdle metaphysics? Please.

1. You've not demonstrated what the metaphysical God does here on earth. (His present actions)

You show me what type of science you know that discusses the metaphysics, and then we proceed. You have done nothing of the sort - not even your Stenger was helpful. What is this redundancy of your making hot-air repetitions? Dude, if you can't show me that simple thing, please just let it be.

2. You've not demonstrated what you consider evidence.

Please read my outline here and follow the links.

2. You've not demonstrated your claimed evidence.

You oblige me my simple request, then we discuss further.

3. You've not demonstrated why the evidence should not be amenable to science while I've shown why it will.

Dude, please don't resort to outright lies - for the umpteenth time, please. I demonstrated why and how I would be discussing my subject on metaphysical premises; also showed from an atheist source which was in agreement. If you had one clue about metaphysics, you would have proceeded to demonstrate the same rather than come back repeatedly with empty excuses.

I had to give the example of miracles since you did not give any examples of the supernatural, which you tried to defend but couldn't beyond your anecdotal evidence.

That's not true, and I would appreciate that you please try to not misquote or misread me. I declined using anecdotal evidence, since neither you nor I myself felt that is the proper approach. If you only wanted anecdotal evidence, I already hinted that I've seen an actual healing occur in one of my own experiences - and if that was what you sought, then for pete's sake use your science to argue that all you want! But if you find that way beyond your ability, then smart up like a grown up and let's discuss this subject free from your usual strawman and circular excuses.

And I'm saying that the activities of this metaphysical God if they actually do occur, they must be detectable scientifically.

No worries - you oblige me my request. That's all I have been asking for eons.

You asked for my outline which I gave with reasons.

Please show me the link - I saw no outline of yours. If I missed it, I shall reconsider.

No it's not considered a science. It's more of an attempt to explain some cultural characteristics that people share.

It's simply not science (at least not yet). For it to be considered science, it still has several steps to go. Of course he'll try to protect it. He's proposing a hypothesis. In science, such new hypotheses are criticized. It's not a religion where someone makes a statement and all who believe the person just follow whatever he says. It simply is not considered science.

Thanks for confirming that even Dawkins' memetics which he touted as "science" is actually pseudoscience. Next?

You see, it is not Dawkins' memetics or Dr. Werner's argument against evolution that is central here. Please thehomer, for several pages going now, you have not been able to present even ONE case of "non-information" so we can progress the thread. All you have been arguing thus far point directly to information and not "non-information". If you have searched endlessly for an example of "non-information" and can't find one, please wrap it up and let's be content therewith.

From the article you recommended,
i.e all three are used in science. For a scientific conclusion to have been arrived at, at least one of these methods must have been used. So your "one-size-fits-all" statement is pointless. All three are used

My statement was not pointless - please stay on course. In science, it is not a matter of one-size-fits all; and the link I provided shows that same thing. You do not pretend that deductiive is the same thing as inductive - and you cannot just jump on any approach willy-nilly. They are pointing to 'scientific method', and I didn't argue against that; but you cannot just keep saying "scientific method" without knowing what exactly in that method you want to employ.

What have I simply told you without demonstration?
I have given you several examples (demonstrations) for you to easily grasp what I'm saying.
You're the one who never demonstrates any thing.

I have done so. I repeated it several times. I also had to post links where I have said so several times and demonstrated it in the past. If you're just going round in denial, please let me know so I can roundly ignore you - afterall, it is not as if your cyclical argument so far even for your "non-information" has yielded any fruit in your defence.

thehomer:
From your example with computers, the datum would be the bits that make up a byte.

Data is also datum - either terms are not confused: they basically mean "information" and not "non-information". In this case as well, the 'bit' is still regarded as information ~

'bit:
a unit of measurement of information (from binary + digit);
the amount of information in a system having two equiprobable states'
(Concise English Dictionary)

bit:
'Short for bi[/b]nary digi[b]t, the smallest unit of information on a machine'
(Webopedia)

The whole point here for several pages is simply this: do you have any example of information that comes from non-information? So far all we have been doing is define information in its varied level of abstraction - every time you return we have had to turn you right back to show that all the terms you appeal to are still information and not "non-information". The 'bit' is still a type of information, even though it is the smallest unit of information - it is not the smallest unit of "non-information".

How much information can you get from a bit that would make sense in the whole scheme?

Very simple: your answer is the first line in the quote below ~

>> A 1-bit image is monochrome;
an 8-bit image supports 256 colors or grayscales;
and a 24- or 32-bit graphic supports true color.
(Webopedia again)

It's either on or off, 0 or 1. It has to be grouped i.e to become a byte before one can make any sense out of it. To show how low level it is, you cannot even address one directly. Even at that there is very little sense to be made out of it.

There's a lot of sense to be made from a '1-bit' image - it is a monochrome, and designers use the monochrome for various applications. The byte is only the next level of abstraction; and the megabyte still another level of abstraction higher than the previous ones; and then on to the next at the gigabyte, and then further to the level of the terabyte. . . etc. For all of these, you don't have anything to hold on to for your argument of "non-information" - all the foregoing are examples of information at various levels of abstraction.

From your example with the blood groups, if you just said O without referring to other letters of the blood group or to the fact that you were speaking of blood groups what information do you have from it?

I cannot just belch out the letter 'O' like an automaton. If someone had asked me quite plainly: 'what blood group did you find in the sample?', there would be no confusion at all in my reply if I said simply: 'O' without adding anything further. The enquirer absolutely understands me - and in that case I have passed a full information, and not a "non-information".

For datum to become information, you have to either collect enough to form a group or add some vital piece of information to it.

Wrong. Rather, datum is factually defined as information -

(a) "datum: a single piece of information" (Wikitionary)
(b) "datum: a fact or piece of information" (Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary)

How can you claim that the whole group (information) is the same as a small bit used to make it up? Is the 5th bit in the 200th byte from the start instruction of the RAM the same as the whole byte? (You're yet to answer).

You're confusing issues here. I did not claim any such thing as that the whole group (information) is the same as a small bit used to make it up. This is precisely what I said:

"It makes no difference - whether data or datum, it still refers to information
at its most basic level of abstraction. Neither data nor datum are examples
of non-information"

Whether data or datum, what you have is still information and not "non-information". As you can see from all that I have been consistently pointing out, we're dealing with information, and not in one instance have you provided an example of "non-information". So, whether it is datum ('a single piece of information') or data ('information at its most basic level of abstraction'), we're still being presented with "information" and not "non-information".

Joagbaje:
We are just scratching the surface , there are yet deeper things.What is so had to understand of our union with God and Christ.

Ephes. 4:13
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

John 1:16
And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

1 John 4:17
Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.

Col. 2:9-10
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. [10] And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Ephes. 1:22-23
The church, Which is his body, the fulness of him

Ephes. 4:13
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

John 17:21-23
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. [22] And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: [23] I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Viaroooo ,if you are there can you read this scriptures again and explain your understanding.

Are you expecting me to write a whole encyclopedia? Look sir, writing exegesis on them is unnecessary, for none of those verses warrants any Christian calling himself or herself "deity" or "Christ".

jaffi:
@ viaro,
There is noway we-christisns can relate with God with FAITH .Do you agree with me?

I don't have a blipp what you're on about - so I can't agree with or disagree.

if you bible the bible and act accordingly the you (ACTION as a result of your believing)is what FAITH is.

Okay.

whta WOF is saying is DO THE WORD PERIOD!

Okay again. I just know that no part of the Word says I should call myself Deity or Christ.

EXAMPLES:MARK 11:22-23-that is one of the reasons for confessions!
1 CORINTHIANS 5:17
EPH 5:1-2 ETC.
you see there is always a balance in this, and the parameter for the balance is not what you think or what others think
the parameter is THE WORD OF GOD-ACCORDING TO REVELATIONS.
AND THIS REVELATIONS ARE IN DEGREES
AND THIS DEGREES are BASED ON YOUR PERSONAL INTIMATE FELLOWSHIP WITH THE SPIRIT OF GOD.
That ihe reason i suggested to you that you should take time out of your busy schedules,distractions from anywhere including NL and invest it in quality fellowship on the subject matter.

Nice, thanks.

I personally i have done a research and i have THE BALANCE! by the spirit of God.
and all these arguement will end.

Cool.

TrueSeeker:
Now, you are not a serious Bible student, are you?

I don't boast myself to be anything; but I certainly do not let shoddy arguments like yours be waved in our faces.

TrueSeeker:
@viaro
lol,

It is a paraphrase truly, because it make the text understandable. But as your assertion that no serious bible student uses it is an ambiguous, it shot you.
cyao, remain blessed.

Don't let me laugh.   
You had nothing to say on the other translations I used and analysed the same verse 1 John 5:20? Of course not.

But it is interesting to see how CEV renders John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God."

Yep, the CEV says that Jesus is "TRULY GOD", and I'll give that to you. Seriously.

__________

TrueSeeker:
When I say literal I mean, it meant what it mean son not God the son as you believe but God Son. No hidden meaning or what so ever.

Dude, quit it. You actually qualified what you meant by "literal" in stating this: 'it meant “Son” in a literal way, as with a natural father and son'. You don't state things to fly like that and expect us to be magicians reading something else!

NOETIC!! Great to see you again!

debosky:
How have you arrived at this opinion? Because of a $4.99 app?

I arrived at that point because of the excuses being waved in defence of Adeboye's greed.

maedan:
Selling salvation?? Oh viaro, may God forgive you! . I don't know much about how Churches are run, but there are things to be paid for.

Nobody - I repeat: NOBODY - should have to pay anything to secure any place in heaven! Adeboye's doctrine on that instance sets a fee to secure salvation for those in RCCG, and that is clearly wrong.

The electrician that fixes the sound and PA system for the services needs to be paid; so do the handymen that handle the building of the structures that hold masses of devotees during big programmes. But these are just tiny examples of how money is used for a good cause to get "salvation to the masses".

Dear maedan, you're not the one I would like to discuss this issue with - because you don't seem to know the seriousness of what's at stake here. Anyone could enter into some business deal or employment of sorts; but on no account should anyone have to pay anything for the message of salvation, nor connect the receiving of money to save any man's soul.

People like the Witness have loads of sponsors so they can afford to give out free pamphlets (which can in no way be compared to a yearly devotional like Adeboye's Open Heavens) But when it comes to published works it takes a lot to get it out in the market - how can it then be given out free to the millions who require it??

I appreciate what you're on to; but I've also shown examples of people giving out published works free - even far more than what Adeboye gives to anybody. These examples do not take or solicit anything from anyone for the materials they give out freely: some of them that I know about look to their own churches or groups for donations to make those materials available without asking receivers anything for them.

I don't know anything about Adeboye's accountability, all I'm saying is that Open Heavens, app, soft or hard copy version, is worth paying for. If you're such a generous Christian you can buy a million copies and give it out to the needy Christian masses (joke )

Okay maedan, I shall leave it there. . . with a sense of humour.

debosky:
The BB app is being marketed primarily to people in the West and not to Africans. With all due respect, if you can buy a single burger for $4.99 or even more, then it is a token amount in this case.

There are dozens of devotionals out there - some free, some paid for. No one is compelling anyone to buy this devotional in any of its forms.

I am not asking anyone to buy or reject the BB app on the basis of any "compelling". Why is RCCG's too focused on money?

TrueSeeker:
@viaro
1 John 5:20
"We know that Jesus Christ the Son of God has come and has shown us the true God. And because of Jesus, we now belong to the true God who gives eternal life." - CEV

The CEV (Contemporary English Version) is a paraphrase, not a translation. No serious Bible student uses CEV as a serious tool in Biblical study.

There are other contemporary versions, such as the BBE (Bible in Basic English) which renders that verse thus:

[list]And we are certain that the Son of God has come, and has given us a clear vision, so that we may see him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.[/list]

And so others:

[list]And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him that is true; and we are in Him that is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. ~ EMTV[/list]

[list]And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life - ESV[/list]

This does not contradict what we find declared about the Son Jesus Christ in other references:

(a)  Him who is true - compare with Rev. 3:7 where Jesus calls Himself "he that is holy, he that is true".

(b)  He is. .  eternal life - did Jesus not specifically refer to Himself as "the resurrection, and the life" in John 11:25? Even John in his epistles called Jesus "that eternal life, which was with the Father" (1 John 1:2).

See, I don't have any problems with 1 John 5:20 - the problem is with those who look for every excuse to deny the Deity of Christ, which I can understand was why you rushed to CEV.

So who is the true God here?
The preceding verse shed more light: "We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one."

I just explained above.

On John 20: 28
About the apostle Thomas’ saying, “My Lord and my God!” to Jesus at John 20:28. Thomas may simply have made an emotional exclamation of astonishment, spoken to Jesus but directed to God. In such case, Thomas did not think that Jesus was Almighty God, for he and all the other apostles knew that Jesus never claimed to be God but taught that His Father alone is “the only true God.”—John 17:3.

Thomas was not being emotional or exclaming anything. The Bible says that he directly was referring to Jesus Christ in that confession - and we don't need a special Oxford degree to understand it simply: "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." Thomas was directly addressing Him (Jesus) in that confession, and not acting like an emotionally inbalanced person.

Again, the context helps us to understand this. A few days earlier the resurrected Jesus had told Mary Magdalene to tell the disciples: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.” (John 20:17) Even though Jesus was already resurrected his Father was still his God. And Jesus continued to refer to Him as such even in the last book of the Bible, after he was glorified.—Revelation 1:5, 6; 3:2, 12.

I have no problem with that - for in Hebrews 1:8, the Son is called "God" by the Father - "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom". That was the Father calling the Son "God" - and no worries there.

Just three verses after Thomas’ exclamation, at John 20:31, the Bible further clarifies the matter by stating: “These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God,” not that he was Almighty God. And it meant “Son” in a literal way, as with a natural father and son, not as some mysterious part of a Trinity Godhead.

Sorry if you're shooting yourself in the leg. The term "Son" in reference to Jesus Christ is NOT 'son' in any literal sense as a man sires a son. I can't laugh at the hollow statement you're making here. The word 'Son' in reference to Christ points to a number of things - His Deity, His Glorification after His Resurrection, and as God's Representative in Redemption and Divine Governance. It does not mean at all that He is Son in any literal sense as if God gave birth to Him! Please.

maedan:
Lol @ "plunder" Christians. These are much too strong words. But I can see you feel strongly about this. Good fight, but wrong battle. The way you talk, one would think we Christians were being extorted from by Churches.

Hahaha! "Much too strong words", you say? How about this: Adeboye is a "humble thief"?

And no, missy - that is not a 'wrong battle'; nor am I supposing that Christians are being extorted by Churches. I am particular with one man I found who is stealing in the name of the Lord. He may clasp his hands and perform all the theatricals that draw the crowd, but selling salvation to the masses is some work that would make the devil green with envy!

ogajim:
|| Viaro || Rebirth or you recently took a baseball bat to the head?

It's good to see you on this side bro,

Dude, you know viaro. . . a bit of a rascal between times, but I don't encoura[color=Black]ge bollo[/color]cks. When you guys were all over the place about Adeboye, I was taking my time to read up on him. The guy is a humble thief - that much I know. I may not be too bothered if it was a case of mistaken business pimping, but when someone is selling salvation to the world, I will call him exactly what he is without mincing words: Adeboye is a humble THIEF.

maedan:
Different churches have different modes of operation.
If some can afford it, let it all be free. As for me, I don't see much bad in churches asking for a token in return for one thing or the other.

It is bad when such businesses are conducted in the name of "the Lord", especially when it is not "token" they are asking for. These kinds of excuses being waved in our faces is why many people will "return for one thing or the other" to plunder Christians by all sorts of holy gimmicks.

mabell:
we are not Jesus Christ,
Jesus Christ is a person while Christ is Jesus and the church together,
Jesus is the head of the church while we are His members
We are Christs because we have one life with Him. Paul was contrasting between the christian and umbelievers, he called the Christian Christ,

And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
2 Cor 6:15 (KJV)

@mabell, Paul did not call the Christian 'Christ'. If you carefully follow his teaching with any measure of consistency, you will find that he was always clear by Who he referred to as 'Christ' ~

(a) there were times when he wrote "Christ Jesus" or "Jesus Christ our Lord" (1 Cor. 1:2, KJV)

(b) other times, he simply wrote "Christ" (1 Cor. 1:6, 13, 17, etc)

(c) when he spoke about "Christ", it is clear that was in reference to the Person of Jesus Himself and not in reference to anyone else; for example - "But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 1:23 & 24).

(d) why is it in 2 Cor. 6:15 that WOF proponents twist "Christ" as a name for Christians? Does that not indicate that something is seriously wrong there and it was an attempt to grasp at thin air to justify their WOF doctrines of making themselves into "Christ"?

(e) the testimony of the apostles could be found in 1 John 2:22 - "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son". There is no other Person that is called "Christ" except Jesus the Son of God.

(f) where Paul wanted us to know what he was inspired to call Christians, he left no ambiguities and was clear in 1 Cor. 12:27 - "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular". There is a vast difference between being called "the Body of Christ" and "Christ" - that Christians are not called "Christ" is emphatically clear by the fact he stated we are "members in particular".

(g) as Christians, we are called to be 'ambassadors' of Christ (2 Cor. 5:20), but the ambassador is not the very same as the one who sends him - which is why Scripture never refers to any Christian as "Christ".

(h) being spiritual in the Christian faith does not warrant us to go out of our way to arrogate claims upon ourselves that God never in any place called upon us. If you consider the testimony of those who boasted themselves of being "deity" or "Christ" because of some verses in Scripture that they twisted, you often find that Psalm 82:7 is fulfilled in their lives.

Deep Sight:
Deluded brain-washed slaves of the white man

Lol, and this is the same dude who would be waving the victim's card when viaro smarts him up, no?

karo93:
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.

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.

I realised that if we are going to get anywhere we should stick with 'divine sayings' such as those said by jesus, God or heavenly revealation.cos we cant fully trust men.[pls argue this on another thread]

Please let us know what versions or translations you're quoting. It seems to me you're twisting quotes to suit your own preconceptions - so let's have the versions to read for ourselves. An example below:

Acts 20:28 - 'Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood' (ESV - English Standard Version)

Phil. 2:6 - 'who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped' (ESV - English Standard Version).

TrueSeeker:
That is how some trinitarian try to add to 1 John 5: 7. Apostle John who wrote the Book of Revelation and Gospel of John says at John 20: 31, "But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, YOU may have life by means of his name." He clear say the purpose of his gospel. If Jesus is Almighty God Bible would have reveal it in clear terms.

Jesus is God - that much you cannot controvert. What then does that mean to you?

It is a known fact that teaching of trinity was introduce to christianity after the death of apostles, that alone has knock it out has a genuine bible teaching.

Although the first use of the word Trinity was by Theophilus of Antioch in AD 170, yet Tertullian used it to explain that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "one in essence—not one in Person". He was not writing a new testament of his own, but pointing to what the apostles had taught long before either Theophilus or Tertullian came on the scene.

Jesus says at John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent".

Read 1 John 5:20 - you will find that Jesus is also called "the true God".

Jesus once asked his followers: Who am I?
His disciple answered: You are Christ (Christ means anointed one) the son of living God.
He did not refute that statement but he commend them for it. (Matthew 16: 16,17)

So also Jesus did not refute Thomas calling Jesus "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28).

Christian and true Bible teaching is not just about argument and ego but humbling oneself like a babe, no wonder Jesus told his listeners: “Truly I say to YOU, Unless YOU turn around and become as young children, YOU will by no means enter into the kingdom of the heavens" Matthew 18:3

True humility is not blinding oneself to what the Bible teaches under the guide of being 'babes' or 'children'.

maedan:
@ viaro I'm certainly not going to stay up all night arguing with you. All I know is that it is numerically impossible for the Church, any church, to give out [b]everything [/b]free. Your friends managed to get saved with free bibles, etc. Lucky them. But many Christians today, rich or poor, see nothing wrong in spending good money on what ever items they feel adds to their spiritual growth. If you want to wait for something to be free before you edify yourself, be my guest. And goodnight.

@maedan, I wasn't expecting or requesting that you stayed up all night arguing with anyone. You were talking as if no one should expect the Gospel to reach people freely, and that was why I had tobring you round what you may not have considered. When the emphasis is on money in any ministry, something is seriously wrong - and we all know that.

inedi:
pastor joe, please dont mind the likes of viaro, he has just fail to understand that what you dont know is biger than you and that and that as far as naira land is concern viaro is history

. . . viaro is a babe.

Thank you. When you're done complaining, please proceed to talk like a grown up.

maedan:
Umm - your bible(s) - did you obtain them free? Your Christian books, inspirational and motivational and yes, devotional, were they shared out gratis to you at church or on the street?

Oh please! Most of my friends were brought to Christ by free distribution of Bibles from various sources and Christian evnagelists. Yes, some of them also received free devotionals (The GoodSeed is one I can remember from Gute Botschaft Verlag, GBV - and these were given to them on the streets of Surulere, Lagos, Nigeria). There are still Christian evangelists that are willing to send seekers Bibles for free - and many others are still giving out Gospel materials for free. Absolutely free. So what's all the talk about "did you obtain them free"??

Let's stop looking for freebie and hand-outs, especially not when it comes to things of God. It cost Him a lot to save you, the least you can do is spend some hard-earned cash on your spiritual well-being.

If the Gospel was committed only to people like Adeboye and those who talk the way you do, I'm sure not many people would hope to be saved. Especially when it comes to the things of God, please read your own Bible - "freely ye have received, freely give" (Matt. 10:8 - is that also emphasised in Adeboye's apps for Blackberry?). If that one does not go down well, please read from a great servant of God -

"What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it" (1 Cor. 9:18).

Is that beyond Adeboye? Why is he not following the same example?

thehomer:
Aah I meant datum then not data. I thought data could be used singly that was why when I referred to it previously, I placed singular behind it.
My bad.

I should have given the example as datum being the non-information not data and information.

It makes no difference - whether data or datum, it still refers to information at its most basic level of abstraction. Neither data nor datum are examples of non-information.

The scientific establishment does not support memetics.

Please search - memetics, even though its is pseudoscience, is still bandied about as a "science".

I wasn't aware he was trying to do that with memetics.

I wonder why he then would have been trying to defend his pseudoscience of memetics when it has been criticised for what it actually is?

Different approaches for different phenomena.

Which is the more reason you should pay attention to the fact that it is not a matter of 'one-size-fits-all'.

Ok what are the examples of what it does here?
If you wish to approach it by logic, it should be amenable to scientific analysis. So go ahead and present your evidence.
I've told you I will approach it scientifically.

You only tell me things, never at one point do you ever show any demonstration. As soon as you tell me how science discusses and investigates the metaphysics, then we begin our discussion. Please do so, and let's discuss.

You're doing it again. You're assuming that it can only be approached metaphysically. I gave you Stenger since you asked for knowledgeable people approaching it scientifically.

I didn't assume anything. You show me what Stenger said about METAPHYSICS and let's take it from there. As far as I'm concerned, he was only preaching to the choir.

tunnytox:
@viaro

I am not going to continue to join issues with you on this matter, you are entitled to your opinion and so am I. I still maintained that whether I have given out 750 naira to anybody have absolutely no correlation with what this thread is all about.
Mind you I have no particular interest in defending anybody I am just not comfortable with ppl opening thread with malicious intention. I have absolutely no interest in knowing the real Pastor Adeboye you know, as far as i'm concerned I listen to his preaching and i am blessed through them. If pastor Adeboye now decides to commit any sin in his closet he only have God to answer to and mind you we'll all be judged by God and it doesn't matter who you are.

That's okay. I was not trying to join issues with you; but what sparked my ten-point question was the way you commented so insensitively about N750. I may be outside Nigeria, but I know that many families in the country are not able to easily dole out such an amount at the snap of the fingers.

this particular issue of selling Open Heaven is okay by me, in life we are all free to make choice. The problem with many ppl is they like to grumble, if you are not comfortable with your church or the pastor or its doctrine you are free to move on. Since i joined RCCG i have left 2 parishes that i am not comfortable with their actvities (mind you this has nothing to do with any financial dealings), I have never sow any unnecessary seed that i am not convinced about.I read my bible and meditate and follow God instructions not any other person's.
RCCG is bigger than pastor Adeboye and any member, all members are convinced before they agree to be members no compulsion of any kind, so i don't know why anyone need to pity any RCCG members. if by your own conviction you believe that Pastor Adeboye is greedy that's fine but as far as i know and i believe this is not the case.

Still no matter at all. I just think that the whole direction to money in RCCG should be checked. It is RCCG's doctrine that one of the requirements for ordination is based on how much money a minister is able to raise monthly from his congregation; and another is the way they preach tithes and all that. Such tendencies are reasons for many people to cry out and say enough is enough with RCCG's exodus to money. It is about time that the G.O and his ministers begin to show themselves both responsible and accountable in public eyes.

On the jet issue I have read all these links before and as far as I'm concerned they are baseless and obsolete the recent news on Thisday clarified how the jet was purchased an who purchased it (unfortunately i do not have the link now)

ThisDay did not rescind on its news article - it only clarified how much was involved (some say it's $10million instead of the initial quoted of $28million) - yet, it is not a news report that is baseless but rather factual.

______
Edit:

(unfortunately i do not have the link now)

this may be the link you have in mind.

MyJoe:
Hello again viaro,
I will leave it at that. As to believing, I'm sorry but I was only doing aproko here. I mean I don't actually toe either line and just wanted to enliven your debate which was becoming one-sided at a point. Seriously, though, I cannot see that Christianity owes its Trinity doctrine to the Bible.

Okay, no worries. I just thought my bit was done on what I came to this thread for: that Jesus is God.

___________________

JeSoul:
Oh but it soooo does. You will not get off the hook this easy taking the humpty dumpty stance and sitting on the fence - even if Viaro excuses you lol. I will open a thread in the not too distant future and you will be cordially invited.

Hehe. . . I could excuse MyJoe, lol. although I look forward as an observer to the proposed thread. I trust you're doing very well. Bless up.

InesQor:
[ducks from viaro's shoe thrown in my direction]

Oh shooks, man! How could I have missed??
Better throw next time, I guess - or rather a swing of my baseball club might be just the thing!!

Lol, how are you doing, InesQor?

tunnytox:
6.    What is next in the line-up of Adeboye's merchandising?

You tell us since you know better than everyone MR KNOW ALL

[table][tr][td]I don't know - but since you're one of his personal amanuensis, I reckon you're in a better position to unveil the next merchandise in his line-up of marketing umbrella. Will that come in Blackberry apps or in BlueRay?? [/td][td][img]http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:gUqeJaoZAvi2jM:http://www.kjbeckett.com/mensfashionblog/uploaded_images/blu-ray-logo-740586.jpg[/img][/td][/tr][/table]

tunnytox:
7.    Why do you guys under his 'merchandising spell' never see through his greed?
Thank you you don't have to pity us for any reason mind your own business

I don't pity folks like you, certainly not. My pity is for others under RCCG that don't have a clue about their G.O.'s greed and the readiness of people like you to defend such greed. Those other folks will struggle with public transport, and yet they have to dole out their money to keep up the G.O.'s "open greed" under the guise of "open heavens" messages.

tunnytox:
8.     How much did it cost Christ to open the heavens for humanity - $4.99 USD??

Read your Bible even in the day of the apostles people sold their possessions and left them at the feet of the apostles, evangelism needs money that is a FACT!!

Lol, the apostles were not taking money from believers to ride ceremonial carriages and chariots in those days - for when resources were laid at the apostles feet, we read that "distribution was made unto every man according as he had need" (Acts 4:35). In the case of those bringing money to Adeboye, distribution goes only to his henchmen - and it is a doctrine of RCCG. If you dare to couch in denial on this point, I will smart you up thoroughly!

tunnytox:
9.     Will Adeboye lose eternal life if he gives his merchandise free and follow Christ?

You call it merchandise but Pastor Adeboye didn't type up this Open heavens neither was he involve with printing some other people are EMPLOYED to do this and they deserve to be PAID!!!

Dude, if RCCG could buy jet for Adeboye, they also can pay any number of "EMPLOYED" goons who sit to type any number of Adeboye's greed. Your excuse is cosmetic - and you cannot claim he does not know what is going on. Why is he known as "overseer" - you think he does not like to "oversee" his business enterprise? Don't kid yourself.

tunnytox:
10.   Who commissioned Adeboye to collect "gate fee" for entrance to heaven?

its called Open heavens DAILY DEVOTIONAL not the gate of heaven if the english prooves too difficult for you to understand

I know what it is called - I was referring to something else. And that something else is the "set fee" Adeboye ensures he collects for himself and his henchmen so that they can keep people in fear and lead them to buy their way to heaven. Was that difficult to understand? Just let me know - and I shall serve you a sample, pronto.