₦airaland Forum

karo93:
@viaro
If you cant answer my questions there is no need to answer with harsh comments and seeing that you know it all you could enlighten me and in case you don't know, i am a christian.

@karo93,
I wasn't being harsh or questioning your relationship with God. Indeed there are some Christians who question the Deity of Christ and argue endlessly against Christ's being God. On closer appraisal, it often shows that they either don't understand the very subject they argue against, or they have not carefully checked through the solid answers that show their flawed reasoning.

For one, it is apparent that when you asked those questions, you had 'Trinity' in mind but were going on and on about tritheism. They are not the same; especially when dealing with metaphysical subjects, it is important to try not to reduce them to physicalistic properties. The Trinity is a mystery that even metaphysics cannot adequately capture in words; but it is easy to discuss tritheism in physicalist probables (such as a=b and b=c and a=c) and end up defeating your own arguments.

Let me give you a few examples from your own post:

[list](a)

karo93:
First of all Jesus never stated that he was God and never mentioned that there was a trinity [the trinity was never mentioned in the bible]

[/list]
[list]^^^^^^[/list]
[list]When people say things like "the word trinity was never mentioned in the Bible", they've destroyed their own arguments before even they began. Do you karo93 find such words as monotheism, incarnation, suicide, atheist, economics, rapture, or even "Bible" in your own Bible anywhere?? You see, the way most "Christians" argue issues saddens me a lot, because such mundane and very childish arguments are best left fo[color=Black]r stup[/color]id folks who don't know what they want to talk about! The word "Trinity" may not have been written in Scripture; but so also is the word "BIBLE" absent as well! Yet, people who argue like you do will be the same folks coming back and saying that they believe that the "BIBLE" is the Word of God! Crass talk![/list]

[list](b)

karo93:
for if these were propounded by Jesus it would have been evident in the new testament-the letters of the apostles and the life of Jesus.

[/list]
[list]^^^^^^[/list]
[list]So, okay. . such words as monotheism, incarnation, suicide, atheist, economics, rapture, or even "Bible" are not found anywhere in your Bible, and yet today you believe in one way or another that they are embedded in the teachings of the prophets and the apostles, not so?[/list]

You see, karo93, you ought to go back and ask yourself a basic question about Christ: Who was He before His Incarnation? If you can understand and answer that question from Scripture, your other enquiries would be sorted out for you. Do that and let's talk some more.

^^ He or she may do so.

^^ You Must Pay Tax, Lagos Tells Pastors, Imams

Should Churches And Mosques Be Taxed?

karo93:
If there was a TRINITY why is there no throne for the Holy Spirit

There is a difference between Tritheism and the Trinity. You don't seem to understand either of them that is why you're asking puerile questions.

^ Dude, no offence. . but you could have used the Search facility of the forum.

A few results from searching might interest you, including (but not limited to) :::::>

:::> Is self-service A Sin Against God?

:::> Born Again Courtships

:::> Pastor Adeboye On intimacy

:::> Is Oral Or super-perversion Permissible In A Christian Marriage?

:::> Oral intimacy: What Does The Bible Say About It?

:::> The [b]Sexual Ac[/b]t And Christian Teaching

:::> Smooching And Petting As Alternatives To Premarital intimacy?


Cheers.

Kgdavid:
what are you talking about? did i say any thing about multiplied threads?

I used the word 'multiplied' in reference to your own 'which have been debated and debated upon' - I was trying to use as few words as possible and not repeat the entire part of your statement. If you go through the Religion Board of this forum, you will find multiplied many threads on the same subjects you want to debate or seek answers for here.

to put things more into perspective i'm talking about comitting these acts within the institution of marriage not outside of marriage. are these acts sins when comitted in[b] marriage[/b]?

Take my advice: there are other threads that have tried to shed light on that same issue. Just search.

why are people getting offended over this

Did I sound like I was gnashing at you in my previous comment?

While you're waiting for answers from the person you addressed your questions to, let me throw in a few notes:

ow11:
- The gifts of God are without repentance, therefore Is it possible to ask for forgiveness in tongues?

The "repentance" in Romans 11:29 is not about conversion but about God's calling and divine gifts - please read it carefully.

- What is your take on the commandment of pastors on sunday morning that everyone gets up and begins to speak in tongues? Is it necessary to take part even if you do not want to?

No. Read 1 Corinthians 14:23 and 27.

Deep Sight:
^^^ I already explained that that controversion is exactly what the "mystery" of the Trinity leads to!

Your explanation evaded the salient point of Arius affirmation - are you missing that yet?

I am doubtful that you read #83 carefully, Viaro.

I did - carefully - and I saw far too many holes, which is why I'm trying to be patient with you. If you are far too reluctant to face up to my single request, please let me know. I don't mean for you to repost anything, rather just attend my request. Thanks.

Kgdavid:
^ to be clear i do not do any of the above. kapish? dunno what your tears are for. there is a raging debate in our youth(singles) fellowship on these issues so i just extended it here. got an opinion? speak

What do you hope to take away from this thread to your youth (singles) fellowship that you have not found in the multiplied threads you say have debated the same things before now?

Punkinmusty:
since i was born i hav neva seen a vague concept like dat of trinity.and yet xtian waste time displayin their dumbness xplainin it.

Please let it be. I still don't see any coherence in someone so dumb as to refer to Christ as "PERFECT GOD" and then saying that He is a 'less God'. That is what I'd like the dumb fellows controverting themselves to sort out before deriding anyone.

^^ Okay then. Perhaps I'll come back to this same point for a particular reason.

^^ No worries, I'll oblige and repost my request.

In response to your rejoinders, I had summed it down thus:

[list]

viaro:
Hello DeepSight,

Yes, I've seen your persuasions and am thankful for excerpting that text for your argument. It still misses the essential points I raised in post #82; and that again is not taking us anywhere.

[/list]

Then my request:
[list]

viaro: In all that Arius could have argued for your sake, please how do you reconcile his affirmation of the Son being "PERFECT GOD" with yet his own controversion of making Him any less than "GOD"?[/list]

. . . then I noted also:
[list]

viaro: You see, Arius leaves a whole lot of gapping holes, which if you yet desire to pursue, may yet bring you back to your initial position of unsustained assertions against the Deity of Christ. I do not want to over-reach myself on that in this reply, but perhaps you might call me out thereto - and I shall be glad to oblige.

[/list]

Deep Sight:
^^^ Please affirm to me if the following is correct or wrong -

----> Light is something

----> Darkness is nothing

This will assist me in understanding you and the OP.

Let's understand you: how do you make 'something' and 'nothing' to be 'eternal'?

Deep Sight:
^^^ What did you make of this -

Deep Sight:
Viaro - And Arius aside: take the following on its own -

Does it not shatter the Trinity doctrine? What explanation would you use to escape this one?

You seem to be deliberately evading my simple request, which is not quite helpful on your part. Please let me know if you're going to attend that request or not. As you can see, I've been online for a while now - because I was patiently waiting to see how you proceed: whether or not you would kindly reconcile your problems and then we proceed with a coherent whole, or you would be given to skipping pertinent issues and wasting our time here. I noted earlier that I would oblige indeed if "perhaps you might call me out" on the Deity of Christ based on what you have sourced. If you're not going to be coherent and consistent, please let me know.

Deep Sight:
^^^ Viaro - you have not read my explanation - #83 on this thread?

I have done so earlier and left you a simple request. Please kindly attend.

Joagbaje:
They have not pointed out any teaching , by Kenyon and Hagin, I am still waiting for it. This matter is beingg blown beyond proportion unnecessarily.

I was going to post a few before you spilled it all out in the other thread for "non-WOF" on Faith - my comments about your 'divinity' is there also.

So its not like the case of Viaro ignorantlly saying joeagbaje will die like men, emeka mba wil die like men

Neither Psalm 82:7 nor Jeremiah 10:11 were penned down in the Bible by viaro. The inspired authors of those verses left you and your ilk a most important warning, which you will do well to heed.

nuclearboy:
Over and over, I get to wondering who Viaro really is - one time, I thought he was Maven. Now it seems he is Toneyb. Very civil conversation between two opposing factions. Now, if only it was DeepSight. Thats the only person its obvious he isn't on NL. All the vitriol is reserved solely for OOI's messiah

toneyb:
So now Viaro is now toneyb?

What would viaro not see on Nairaland again?


@Commander Nuclearboy,
Now that you have 'coughed', I will behave for a while with the messiah of OOI. I don't want to face your tribunal so soon again, so I'll just keep off my carbonated drinks for now.

Now this is an example of what I have been saying:

(a)

Joagbaje:
I create my enviroment with my spoken words ,just like God.

(b)

Joagbaje:
Whatever you think Christ is , I am.

(c)

Joagbaje:
I am one with God, I didnt aspire to be so , he made me so , it is a gift, I am divine, from above, not from this world

Do others (fyneguy, mba emeka, jaffi) see what viaro has been saying? It's not the pretentious talk of 'I am a "small g" god' anymore, but the real WOF lingo I have been consistently pointing out specifically about their use of "Deity" and "Divinity". I laugh in semantic creole. . . when fyneguy was trying to buy time with his games of "define" this and that, he should have waited for his mentor to spew it all out.

When WOF proponents cannot defend their heresies from God's Word, they say non-WOF can't handle "strong meat". Whether it is mecury or aluminium you're chewing, Psalm 82:7 and Jeremiah 10:11 still stand to warn you.

Hi again, MyJoe. . I didn't ignore your contribution but had logged out to attend to an urgent call. Thanks for your effort, and I shall now consider it.

MyJoe:
I am bringing in this because you said in an earlier post that your beliefs in this matter are based on the Bible. So I guess we can skip Arius a bit.

Yes, I'm willing to skip Arius for a bit and focus on the Bible for this subject.

My view is that -

The divinity of Christ has biblical anchor.

The deity of Christ? Depends on what you mean.

I should have concluded it all for DeepSight on that summary, because the affirmation that the Divinity of Christ has Biblical anchor is the very core concerns that he has argued against acridly and repeatedly on this forum.

Even if he does not understand 'Deity', what about "Divinity"? I don't remember DeepSight before now affirming the Divinity of Christ the Son of God; for that same point has been his deepest problem, whereby he'd always regarded Christ as nothing other than human. When he remarks that your entry was "brilliant", was DeepSight trying to tell us that he afterall concedes to Christ being more than a mere man?? If he yet was not doing so as such, what really is his problem on this profound subject?

However, there's more to mere affirmations of the Divinity of Christ. I shall yet come back to make a full reply to yours (especially on the points of such terms as 'begotten', etc). Some of the points you raised in yours are important nonetheless; but I don't see how that affects the Person of Christ in His essential Being as Deity.

Deep Sight:
Viaro - i have extracted the relevant text and i reproduce it below -


I hope you can see what i meant by the relevance of the arian heresy to the affirmation and development of doctrine. . . also note Arius' general views on this matter in refernce to the arguments i set forward in my last post.

Hello DeepSight,

Yes, I've seen your persuasions and am thankful for excerpting that text for your argument. It still misses the essential points I raised in post #82; and that again is not taking us anywhere. In all that Arius could have argued for your sake, please how do you reconcile his affirmation of the Son being "PERFECT GOD" with yet his own controversion of making Him any less than "GOD"?

I shall yet come back to that same point in subsequent replies; but in fairness, let me reproduce Arius' letter oft-quoted, which I found from another online source, The Ecole Initiative:

[list]

[center]Arius' Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia[/center]
[center]c 319 CE [/center]
[center](from Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, I, IV. LPNF, ser. 2, vol. 3, 41.)[/center]

To his very dear lord, the man of God, the faithful and orthodox Eusebius, Arius, unjustly persecuted by Alexander the Pope, on account of that all conquering truth of which you also are a champion, sendeth greeting in the Lord.

Ammonius, my father, being about to depart for Nicomedia, I considered myself bound to salute you by him, and withal to inform that natural affection which you bear towards the brethern for the sake of God and His Christ, that the bishop greatly wastes and persecutes us, and leaves no stone unturned against us. He has driven us out of the city as atheists, because we do not concur in what he publicly preaches, namely, God always, the Son always; as the Father so the Son; the Son co-exists unbegotten with the God; He is everlasting; neither by thought nor by any interval does God precede the Son; always God, always Son; he is begotten of the unbegotten; the Son is of God Himself. Eusebius, your brother bishop of Caesarea, Theodotus, Paulinus, Athanasius, Gregorius, Aetius, and all the bishops of the East, have been condemned because they say that God had an existence prior to that of his Son; except Philogonius, Hellanicus, and Macarius, who are unlearned men, and who have embraced heretical opinions. Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that He is a production, others the He is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten; and that He does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, ot established, He was not. For He was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning. This is the cause of our persecution, and likewise, because we say that He is of the non-existent. And this we say, because He is neither part of God, nor of any essential being. For this are we persecuted; the rest you know. I bid thee farewell in the Lord, remembering our afflictions, my fellow-Lucianist, and true Eusebius.

[/list]

You see, Arius leaves a whole lot of gapping holes, which if you yet desire to pursue, may yet bring you back to your initial position of unsustained assertions against the Deity of Christ. I do not want to over-reach myself on that in this reply, but perhaps you might call me out thereto - and I shall be glad to oblige.

^^ No worries. . . I'm looking through my library to see if I could access the hard copy and use it in my replies with DeepSight later on. Thanks nonetheless.

Krayola:
Arius: "There was when he was not"

http://books.google.ca/books?id=QVYOagUrvcgC&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=faith+seeking+understanding+arius+nicea&source=bl&ots=HywRSbQt3z&sig=rEVCn-2mrTTGxQ1FKaJ4F13JE3c&hl=en&ei=-z-FS_OJHMOI8QaA3vHGAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Krayo, thanks for that link. I could not access the page directly from the browser on my PC just now, but I'm aware of that book by theologian Daniel L. Migliore (?). That people lean over to Arius ideas still begs the basic question at the core of my enquiry: what would Arius have seen within Scripture to have affirmed that the Son is "PERFECT GOD"? I do not yet find anyone addressing that point - and it seems that ignoring this most crucial point is not really taking us forward. All the same, thanks again.

Joagbaje:
The dominion over death is part of our heritage. Death cant take me, I reign over death. Immortality is at work in me.

Does this make you a Deity?

Paul had enough trouble communicating deep truth to corinthians that were filled with the spirit. How much more those who cant define faith and understand simple truth about authority of the believeres

In all of Paul's communications, he did not call any Christian a 'God' - go and read again his simple, faith-filled declarations in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 that has been quoted too many times.

Joagbaje:
Everybody is born dead in sin. A man has to be born righteous also.

Does this make you a Deity?

^^

Deep Sight:
Why is it that you refuse to read that which you yourself quote?  ?  ?

I read far much more than that, my friend - I did.

Your problem, however, is that (true to your fundamentalist appetite) you're prone to reading half-statements and running with them as the totality of any subject you come across. On my part, I often call your attention to the fact that my approach to issues is holistic - that's why when you brokered the Arian Heresy to bail you out of your mysery on the Deity of Christ, it made me come to the conclusion that you're toast.

Can you not see the bolded? What does it suggest to you? ? ?

Nothing more than Arius was an illiterate heretic - which is the legacy he left you.

If you want me to elaborate, no worries - here then:

(a)  Arius caused himself his own great problem by championing his own cacophony between two diametrically opposed axioms:

       ~~   that the Son had subsisted as perfect God before time and before ages
       ~~   that the Son (even as PERFECT GOD) yet had a "beginning"
       ~~   that even though 'God is without beginning', yet the "perfect God" had a beginning

(b)  If there was any acclamation more idiotic than these contradictory assertions of Arius, why don't you DeepSight post your defence of any coherence you might find in them? How is the "PERFECT GOD" the same Being that would yet have had a beginning and still be called "GOD" by any means?

(c)  The problem is not mine - but yours, in so far that between us, you're the very same dude who tried to wave the Arian Heresy initially for what you can't sustain. On my part, I have maintained and continue to maintain that I do not take Arius with even a grain of seriousness, because reading his cacophony may well appeal to twerps (or, in your case, fundamentalists), but it makes absolutely no dent on viaro's skin.

The main point is not whether or not The Son had a "beginning"; rather, whether or not Arius could identify any "beginning" for the Son, he yet affirmed that the same Being he identified as the Son had subsisted before time and before ages as. . . as what? . . as PERFECT GOD!

Now tell me:

(d)  How would any Being be described as "perfect GOD" and yet still be anything less than GOD?

(e)  How do you make sense of any Being subsisting BEFORE TIME and BEFORE AGES as the same Being who yet had a "beginning"? When is that "beginning" that could be identified before TIME?

You see, DeepSight, not only do you continue to shine through as the fundamentalist of this thread (a befitting epitaph), you just make me feel very sorry for you with each passing day. Please reconcile your cacophony on behalf of your mentor Arius by answering those simple questions above.

aletheia:
@Joagbaje
Heresy compounded upon heresy.
The word begotten is used in scripture for Jesus of Nazareth, never for any believer in relation to God.The word monogenēs occurs 16 times in the bible and is no where used in reference to believers. Scripture is quite clear that we are "adopted" not begotten. There is a world of difference there. monogenēs is different from uihothesia (occurs in the KJV, Rom 8:15, Rom 8:23, Eph 1:4-5 (3), Gal 4:5)

^^^ I like your style - simple, succinct and packed with a punch.

In the other thread I also tried to point out the same thing about 'monogenēs' ('only begotten') and prōtotokos ('firstborn') and have the same persuasions as you: monogenēs is no where used in reference to believers.  Thanks also for the one I missed: uihothesia (adoption).

fyneguy:
Viaro,

First, you were the one doing the dribbling. God is immortal. I'm not immortal yet.

What quibbling is this? So when you become 'immortal' you then arrive at being 'God', no? Please stop this dribbling prevarication in trying to impress yourself - it is the most infantile drivel anyone could spew after all your empty talk about 'definitions', and it shows you have not been reading your own Bible.

Romans 2:6-7 declares that God will render immortality to those who continue in well doing, but it doesn't declare that such people would become 'God' in anywise. 1 Corinthians 15:52-57 tell us that this mortal shall put on immortality at the last trump when death is swallowed up in victory - yet nowhere does the apostle declare that men would be made 'gods' because of that. The doxology to the only wise God in 1 Tim. 1:17 that includes 'immortal', does not say that any Christian is thereby a 'God' on earth. Likewise, 2 Tim. 1:10 states that our Saviour Jesus Christ brought life and immortality to light, but does not thereby turn men into 'Gods' on earth or anywhere else in the cosmos.

Interestingly, 1 Tim. 6:14-16 highlights the attributes of Christ in His Divinity as being "the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto" - even in that, it states nowhere that any Christian thereby becomes a 'God' or a 'Potentate' on the attribute of being made 'immortal'.

You're simply deceiving yourself if you think the term 'immortal' makes you a 'God' anywhere in the universe.

God receives worship, I don't. If that's what makes God a Deity, then I'm not a Deity. However, I'm a god on earth. That settles it for me!

I'm sorry to note that you've been simply quibbling. Right from post #2 on this thread, my statement was simple enough for any genuine Christian to understand that no Christian is God - I used the specific words that WOF teachers are known to use for themselves (Deity and Divinity). What did you do? You played games so many times in twisting and turning about on 'definitions': not even when I'd outlined the definitions you sought did it bring you to the simple point that has already been shown in post #2. Tell me if you were not championing your dribbling.

God is immortal, but that does not make you or anybody 'God' - whether on earth or in heaven, nor in eternity. The one thing I agree with you on is your confession that you're not a Deity. That simple confession would have sorted it all out from the onset just as I stated in my first reply. What was all your dribbling about? 'Define Deity/Divinity' . . . and after all your quibbling, you still had to come by and state you're not a Deity. So, what in your world is the difference between 'God', 'Deity' and 'Divinity'? You're a 'God', but you're not a 'Deity'. . dude, you need to know God for Who He is and not your quibbling about on your own semantics.

It is not only worship that defines 'God' - rather, it is Who He is in Himself. Satan has those who worship him as the 'god of this world' (2 Cor. 4:4), yet he is not deity in any sense. You're neither transcendent nor preternatural; and claiming to be a god on earth is tantamount to speaking the dialect of the devil. This is why WOF teachers who are proclaiming themselves to be 'God' in the same way as God is known, are leaving behind testimonies of their disgraceful deaths in just the same way as Psalm 82:7 and Jeremiah 10:11 declare. These are not secret events - go and read about their end.

Now, back to the topic, can you please explain Hebrews 11 vs 1, using scriptural examples, and how it's relevant to us today.

I look forward to your explicit and straightforward response. Thank you sir

I think others ("non-WOF believers" have done a finer job on that than I could - and it would be needless for me to reharsh or rephrase the salient points that appear in their posts. Examples, yes we can highlight some; do let me know what specific areas you might need for me to point out.

Cheers.

^^

mba emeka:
@ fynguy

dont bother with this lot. they've been dribbling through the whole issue all along. they dont have faith-because they dont know what it is and now they're trying to make many like themselves.

Are you happy now in patting yourself with that false statement? How many times did I clearly state and define my terms and offered answers to questions and fyneguy kept dribbling round?

@viaro answer the simple question! what is FAITH?

Is Hebrews 11:1 no longer in your Bible?

mba emeka:
Why so religious? Did anybody say the Christian is God almighty?

The WOF message of claiming divinity for Christians continues to subtly filter through the teaching of WOF proponents. Sometimes when we ask these folks specific questions about their claims to deity or divinity, they will play games and forever be dodgy. Anyone who cares to know should see an example in Copeland's webpage advertising Bill Winston's book ~

"Understanding Our Divinity, Part III – Kingdom Mentality"

This is why I have been careful to ask questions specifically using the same terms - Deity and Divinity - that WOF teachers use to call themselves 'gods'.

There are other examples I could show in vids, audio clips and electronic publications where the specific term they use is "deity" and "divinity". When I ask questions with these same words, many WOF proponents play games and dribble round the question. Do we take such evasions to be indicative of the fact that they know that teaching is a heresy that has poisoned their faith?

^^ when you answer your role call.

^^ that's not "empirical evidence". Please provide me with "peer review"!