₦airaland Forum

@fyneguy,

Thank you for now setting up the thread. In due course, I'd post a few things about faith, but let me quickly answer this part of your question:

fyneguy:
*What can't Faith achieve, if any?

Something that faith cannot achieve: it cannot make you or any other Christian become a deity.

There's a simple question I would like to ask those inclined to the teachings of WOF movement:

@fyneguy
@jaffi
@mba emeka
@Joagbaje
@. . and others :::

When WOF teachers say "I am a God" or "I am a god" or "we are gods", are you saying that makes you a DEITY?

That is as simply as I can put it, and your answers will help us keep this thread neat and free from unnecessary distrations. Thank you.

@fyneguy,

fyneguy:
lol Bro Viaro,

I think you are still given to semantics, afterall.

How is that so? BTW, when are you going to open that thread of yours?

First, Holiness is a subset of the divine nature. Hence, we are partakers of holiness because we are partakers of divine nature.

Does that make you a deity? Please answer that question, thank you.

Now, divine nature refers to the nature of God Himself! (see 2 Peter 1v4 CEV or the New century version)

I checked that verse in so many other versions as well: the question still is - does that verse say that Christians have thereby become deity? Why are you folks not answering that question?

Now what makes God, God, is His nature.

And how we know which 'God' we're speaking about is the essential attribute that He alone possesses - Deity.

Being born again, has to do with the supplanting of the human nature by God's nature. That's why the product of that process is called ''a New creature''. What makes us ''gods'' is because our nature is His.

In other words, what makes you a 'god' is because you're Deity as well, no? Please answer that simple question, if you may.

Your argument on divinity and deity is as misplaced as that of those debating trinity. Perhaps, Jesus could not have been the son of God and at the same time God?

Oh brother, you have no clue. I've learnt to not argue the Trinity with just about anybody on Nairaland; but that does not mean I ever denied the Deity of the Son of God. In just the same way, that Jesus the Son of the Living God is at the same time God (deity, theos) does not mean that those who believe in Him automatically become God (deity, theos) - otherwise, that would mean that there is more than one God in your Christianity.

Did you know that Jesus never called his disciples ''Brethren'' until he had resurrected? They were servants until He did. (strong meat? )

Uhm, excuse me bro . . . are you reading a pamphlet instead of your Bible? Perhaps you got that quip straight out of the mouth of one of 'em WOF teachers, but it is not true. Rather, Jesus called His disciples "Brethren" before His resurrection. Look carefully -

[list]Matthew 12:49
"And He stretched forth His hand toward His disciples, and said, Behold My mother and My brethren!"[/list]

[list]Mark 3:35
"For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is My brother, and my sister, and mother."[/list]

These are examples of the Lord Jesus Christ calling His disciples "Brethren"; but He did not by that mean that whoever was His brother was also a deity, did He?

When He resurrected, Jesus ceased being ''the only begotten son''. He became the firstborn among many others who are born of God.

First, did you notice that only one of the Gospels refers to Jesus as the "only begotten" Son of God? Neither Matthew, Mark nor Luke ever used that term for Him, while you find it was only John who specifically was inspired to so describe Him - and throughout Scripture, Jesus is the only Person ever so described as the "only begotten Son" of God. That term ('monogenēs' - 'only begotten') is used in reference to His Deity and has no reference to anyone being 'born again' or regenerated.

Second, the term "firstborn" (prōtotokos - also translated 'firstbegotten' in KJV) is used for Christ both before His Incarnation and after His resurrection; and in these two epochs, He is "firstborn" (or "firstbegotten" in reference to creation, redemption and glorification. Further, it is not only in reference to Christians that He is 'firstborn', but rather in reference to the entire creation of God. Let me show you:

[list]* Romans 8:29 - we are predestinated to be conformed to the image of God's Son, that He might be the 'firstborn' among many brethren.[/list]

[list]* Colossians 1:15 - being the image of the invisible God, He is also the 'firstborn' of every creature[/list]

[list]* Colossians 1:18 - in redemption, He is the 'firstborn' from the dead (see also Rev. 1:5 where He is called 'the first begotten of the dead')[/list]

[list]* but even before His crucifixion, Jesus is also called the 'firstbegotten' (prōtotokos) in Heb. 1:6 ~ "when He bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him."[/list]

The point in all these is to show you that the fact that Christ is called "only begotten" and "firstbegotten" does not make any Christian into a deity! Many times, WOF teachers just tear these verses out of context to gull their listeners, and not many people listening to them ever take the time to check what those terms might have been referring to. When you don't check, you make yourself an easy candidate for the heresies of WOF teachers.

Bros, I really think you are just being religious.

What does that mean? I was being 'religious' for not falling an easy target for any WOF teaching?

I'm sure you would be wondering why Jesus said what he said in John 17 vs 21 and 22 - afterall God will never share his glory with man abi?

Even John 17:21 & 22 does not teach that any Christian is a deity.

_____________

fyneguy:
lol Viaro,

I'm trying so hard not to say you cant handle strong meat of God's word

Okay, no worries. My chill pill has worn off now.

Bro, you need to grow up o.

Yes sir.

Read 1 Corithians 3 Vs 4 and tell me if you (a supposed christian) are supposed to be human.

I read 1 Corinthians 3:4 this morning in my devotion ~ "For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?" How does that say that I am supposed to deny my humanity?

Okay, bro funeguy. . initially I wanted to take a chill pill for a very long period, but it seems you're calling me out to discuss.

fyneguy:
Can you divorce divinity from ''Partakers of divine nature''?, if yes, I rest my case

In what sense do you mean by divorcing between 'divinity' and 'partakers of the divine nature'? I'm aware of what the apostle meant by 'partakers of the divine nature' in 2 Pet. 1:4; but does that warrant the specific case of any Christian claiming to be deity/divinity such as the WOF proponents have repeatedly been declaring of themselves?

Let's be clear here: we know that when we refer to 'God' in our faith, we're speaking in terms of Deity - and in that sense, there's none other that we know as 'Deity' than God Himself. However, it is in this very sense of 'deity' that WOF proponents and teachers are claiming that they are 'gods'. They don't mean it in any other way than 'deity' and 'divinity' (even though some are speaking from both sides of their mouths with all sorts of pretentious language to hide the fact).

Here is a sampling of the WOF's 'i am a "small g" god' (pay attention to the implications of what they teach in claiminb 'deity' for themselves) ~

Sounds familiar?

[list][table]
[tr][td][flash=300,250]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZimpS_PKjI&hl=en_US&fs=1&[/flash][/td][td][list](a) Paula White:
'you are a little elohim; you are a little God'
but she immediately tries to deny that same thing ~~
'I'm not saying you're God, . . .'
but again she asserts that ~~
'. .  but your spirit is God! God!'[/list][/td][/tr][/table][/list]


[list][table][tr][td][flash=300,250]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp1iHYOyHkk&hl=en_US&fs=1&[/flash][/td][td].[/td]
[td][list](b) Benny Hinn:
~ 'Quit your nonsense. . . what else are you? Is He God? Are you His offspring? Are you His children? You can't be human!'
(c) Kenneth Copeland:
'. . . he was not a little like God; he was not almost like God; he was not. .uhm. . subordinate to God even. . . and Adam was as much like God as you could get! . . . and I want you to know something: Adam was God manifested in the flesh!'[/list][/td][/tr][/table][/list]

Should we need to post the audio and video clips of other WOF teachers on the doctrine of 'small g' gods ~ Creflo Dollar? Paul Crouch? Kenneth Hagin? Earl Paulk? Charles Capps? Joyce Meyer? etc??  Okay, you get the gist.

The implications are clearly spelt out:

[list][table][tr][td][img]http://kingsbridesforum.files./2009/11/wolf20-20sheep2.jpg?w=150&h=91[/img][/td][td].[/td][td]1.   the idea that 'you can't be human' (ala Benny Hinn)
2.   Adam was the incarnate God in Eden (ala Kenneth Copeland)
3.   you are 'God!' (ala Paula White)
4.   the only part of you that's human is your physical body (ala Creflo Dollar)[/td][/tr]
[/table][/list]

My dear bro, if these are not already setting off your alarm bells, nothing else would wake you up! When you read viaro making clear that these folks have been caliming 'deity' for themselves in the 'i-am-a-little-god' WOF theology, you're asking me about divorcing what from what?

This was why I asked mabell earlier: how many Deities do you know in your own life as a Christian? [i]For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth — as there are many "gods" and many "lords" — yet for us there is one God (1 Corinthians 8:5-6).

fyneguy:
I'm thinking of opening a thread and ask the ''non-WOF'' (whatever WOF means to them) to preach about FAITH using the scriptures to back it up.

That's fine - please be encouraged to do so, and I'm sure that a few interested folks would do better than I could in that thread.

mba emeka:
Jesus was never offended when anybody treated him as God almighty, we know the people who were: the pharisees, sadducees and the scribes.
They would always resort to name calling and its sort.

For one, viaro is more concerned with discussing issues and not name-calling anybody in this thread.

CAN THEY PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION FYNGUY PUT UP?

Yes, if you want us to do so; otherwise, I for one was reluctant to engage in "unprofitable semantics to becloud biblical connotations".   But just take it easy, I shall try to answer your concerns.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A PARTAKER OF THE DIVINE NATURE?

Whatever it may mean, it certainly does not mean that human beings become deities (or 'gods'). Have you ever read Hebrews 12:10 - it also speaks of our being "partakers of his holiness" without meaning that we automatically become gods/deities. However, to be a "partaker of His divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4) is to walk in godliness, to put it simply. Read it from verse 3 - it does not say that Christians become deities/gods  because of the 'exceeding great and precious promises' which God has given us - nobody becomes divinity simply because he received any promises from God, otherwise you would have to explain why Abraham who had God's promises was never addressed as a 'god' in Scripture.

REMEMBER JOHN THE BELOVED WAS ALSO CALLED JOHN THE DIVINE, WAS GOD OFFENDED?

Sorry, bro - John was called an apostle (Matt. 10:2); but there is no verse in the Bible calling him 'John the Divine', for that is just a matter of description used by publishers in printing presses, in the same manner that they sometimes referred to him as 'John of Patmos' or 'John the Theologian'. Nowhere did God's Word ever refer to him as John the Divine - and we should not be driven by fanciful things we can't show from Scripture.

Deep Sight:
The dates are not at issue Viaro – the content and interpretation are.

Dates are as important to me as much as the contents and interpretations that may be derived from any subject. You should not make any pretences here in anywise as though you of all people would be oblivious of that fact!

For if indeed accepted scripture was clear on the deity of Christ, then what was the source of the Arian Heresy?

You mean. . . you. . you, of all people, are so completely confused about this? To be sure, the Arian Heresy had no effect on prophetic writings; nor was it during the time of Arius in the 3rd to 4th century that Christians knew about and affirmed the Deity of Christ. Arius' doubts about Christ's Deity does not therefore mean that prior to the 3rd century Christians had no clue about the Deity of God's Son!

Why did that heresy become important enough for the powers that be to convene a Diet targeted at addressing principally that heresy?

I don't know, for viaro was not invited to sit at that august Council. I also understand all the while that you have been using the piffling heresies of Arianism to argue against the Deity of Christ, especially on His statement in John 14:28 (nevermind, Muslims also confuse themselves with such selective readings to argue against the Deity of Christ).

However, although you may not agree that Arius was a heretic who achieved more for his confusion than anything else, I wonder if you are aware that he affirmed the Deity of Christ while denying that same thing?? Are you aware that, whatever denials of Christ's Deity may be found in Arianism, Arius himself is purported to have written that Jesus Christ had "subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God"??

I'm least bothered by his tomes of controverted christology arguing his denials of the Deity of Christ; but from that quote above we find three things he yet affirmed about Christ:

           *  that Christ had subsisted before time

           *  that Christ had subsisted before all ages

           *  and that Christ had subsisted as perfect God!

           (see Arius' letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, cited by Edward Peters in
           Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, p. 41;
           University of Pennsylvania Press, 1980)

           https://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/511oElqrh6L._SL500_AA240_.jpg

So, whatever cacophony you may find most appealing in Arianism, it just perfectly suits me fine that even the heretic Arius could not deny, but rather confessed, that the Son of God had subsisted before time and before ages as "perfect God". You can interprete that any which way you want to; but please don't amuse me with your fundamentalism on this issue - you often make me pity you with your anxieties over what you have not carefully considered.

That is what you need to reflect on.

Yea, thanks - like I was completely oblivious, and need Deep Sight to come bore me with his profoundly cosmetic erudition on matters he least understands! Oh please!

You cannot deny that the resolutions at the Council have largely shaped church doctrine up till this day in respect of this matter. For the influence of the Nicene Creed on literally all Christian sects existing today can scarcely be denied.

Please stop whimpering - you're almost reading like someone with whooping cough! The Deity of Christ is not a new doctrine that was birthed at the Nicene Council; nor did Biblical Christianity begin or end with whatever cacophony the heretic Arius was campaigning.

But I expect that you will deny it.

Like you had anything that was news-worthy in the first place. Please pack yourself one corner, lost son of a dead OOI.

Deep Sight:
Out with the truth abeg! DO NOT LIE – IF ANYBODY TOLD YOU THAT HE THOUGHT A COW IS GOD YOU WOULD THINK THAT TO BE C.RAP.

Do you need once again to show your frustration with all caps? Truth is I have never once derided any Hindu for that text in their scripture. If you find me deriding a Hindu for that, please quote me here as truthfully as you can, thank you.

Just as surely as I am entitled to regard your belief that a late Jewish Rabbi is the Creator God as . . .well, you know. . .B.S!!!

I'm a Christian who adheres to what the Bible reveals about Jesus Christ. You cannot hang your deism on any page of the Bible, I sympathize, so I can understand your frustration.

Yep; I concede that it is EXTREMELY HARD to explain a belief that the man living next door is almighty God. . .

The difficulty in explanations does not therefore mean that you ought to go out of your way to act like the 'fundamentalist' piece of tissue paper you are. No matter how many times one has to try to reason with a fundamentalist, he never gets it - and should I be surprised at all that you're confirming it once again? Hardly. You're just a total stranger to reason, which is why I don't try any more to contain your shallow IQ.

I deride no one: I deride dogma only.

You truly do not understand what a dogma is - any idiot could deride 'dogma' because he thinks it is necessarily the 'evil word'. Please, go back to school and do some true reading. . . I'm beginning to have more respect for Abuzo-lala than the goon called Deep Sight. When you eventually vomit your 'essential deism', I shall help you deride your own 'dogma' - let me read how you cough when I do so.

Especially the dogma which seeks to get me to bow down to a Jewish Rabbi and call him almighty God . . .

This is where you shine as a confirmed and consummate knucklehead! Who in deism is asking you to bow down to Jesus Christ? The problem is that your deism has been too busy stealing concepts from other worldviews so that even at this point you're not even sure what to make of your confused claptrap. Christians who have believed know that Jesus Christ is their Lord - "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am" (John 13:13). They do not need for any goon called DeepSight to push his deistic fundamentalism to the fore and complaining that anyone is asking you to bow down to Him when you're not even a Christian to begin with! This is what happens when you keep stealing from various religions to add up to your illiterate 'onness of infinity' - you just end up all the more confused. Funny that no Christian is grovelling about bowing down to your dead OOI, hehe . . . because we just don't need to borrow anything from your irregular singularities that has long collapsed into a blackhole!

If the Council of Nicea had denounced the pagan trinity doctrine, you would be here tremulously and passionately arguing against the trinity. . .wake up and think for yourself!

You're a dunce! The Bible was not written at the Council of Nicea - and if anyone ought to have known that fact, you should! I have not been arguing my Christian convictions from the Bible with you from the late-comers of the 4th century, hellooo?? It would be as stu[color=Black]pid for an[/color]yone to argue that Deism is predicated on the illiterate arguments of that fraudster, Thomas Paine! This is why you remain the most illiterate braincell on Nairaland! I pity you.

That Cows or Guru Maharaji are God is also beyond my grasp!

I'm not committing suicide over that, so you can as well swallow a rhino on that!

mabell:
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
John 10:34-35 (KJV)

1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet
Ex 7:1 (KJV) (moses was referred to as a god by God self him)

@Viaro, i have read your reference scipture, that was a message sent to the chaldeans concerning their idolatry. God was saying that both they and their worshippers will be destroyed; and idolatry shall finally be destroyed from the earth; and the heavens shall look no more on so great an abomination committed by them. SO LET THEM CALL THEMSELVES GODS, THEY ARE ONLY WALKING ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES!
THIS MESSAGE IS FROM ONE( A GOD)

maybe you should study more and with other translations and referenced bibles too

@mabell,

Thank you so much for that highlight - I deeply appreciate it. Let me reassure you that I've tried to go through every reference in Scripture on this subject (I'm not laying claim of a super-scholarship); and I didn't ignore the Exodus 7:1 reference in my study - I could give you several more if you want, but I forebear.

Go back to Exodus 4:15-16, and you may then understand Ex. 7:1. In the former (ch. 4:16) we read: "and thou shalt be to him instead of God", which presents to us how God Himself gave the meaning of His calling Moses a 'god' in ch. 7:1.  In calling Moses a 'god', the LORD never meant that Moses was therefore deity or divinity, or even a supernatural being. Not a single translation of the Bible or study tools claim 'deity' for Moses. NOT ONE.

Exodus 7:1 does not teach the tenet of the WOF movement. When WOF proponents claim to be 'gods', they go so far as to claim to be just the same as God - that is, Deity and Divinvity. I guess that's where jaffi got his idea of "our place of divinity-gods".

However, rather than deity or divinity, Exodus 7:1 presents Moses as a representative under his Pancrator, the LORD, when the former stands in the presence of Pharoah. This 'representative' is in the capacity of what we today know as a vicegerent/viceroy or liege-lord. This representative in such a capacity is NOT a deity or divinity - not a single Bible translation or version argues otherwise. If you know any Bible translation that presents Moses as deity or divinity, please share with us (I'm very much in need of meat so I can get done with my Cow&Gate milk).

However, when we speak about these matters, our concerns are informed by WOF proponents teaching that there is no difference between them and God - in other words, they see themselves as Deity and/or Divinity. If that is what you think either Psalm 82 or John 10:34-35 was trying to teach us (that a Christian is a deity or divinity), could I ask you a personal question: how many Deities do you know in your own life as a Christian?

This is why Jeremiah 10:11 still stands: any Christian (WOF or others) claiming 'deity' or 'divinity' for himself or herself is playing with something worse than 'trouble'. I commend this to you in love.

^^ You just took that right out of my mouth!

davidylan:
poor deep sight . . . the guy must have a flu.

^^ what are you talking about??. . . please hang on, let me peep:

Deep Sight:
You folks need to show some respect. Have you forgotten that i am the only begotten son of the Oneness of Infinity sent to Nairaland to be persecuted for your sins? ? ?

Bow down and worship. . .! ! !

[list]Now thou speakest plainly. . and viaro quivers -
The thunders of OOI resonating in thee
thy mount of 'transfiguration' would melt our livers
if only, besought, t'were better we screamed![/list]

[list]We hail! We hail! Though thy 'infinities' be multiplied -
Nairaland's begottens are out-of-hand forgotten!
Ever engraven on 'prose' is thy 'singularity' putrefied:
else, damned we all, are to thy esoterics rotten![/list]

[list]'Respect', cried thee, for 'tis thy sonnet untold -
Thou dost terrify with thy 'ultimate mystery'
shouldest ourselves, as slaves returned unsold
thy glory it is to assuage us with mysery![/list]

Em, DeepSight, here is viaro 'bowing' to your majestic blackhole! I tried to get out of its gravity zone, but no - I'm now at quantum leaps and seeing another dimension!

Deep Sight:
Well in all honesty i realized not everything one apprehends in one's mind can be easily communicated in words.

Spend a few moments deeply reflecting on that statement - especially because it comes from you. Do you realise that such holds even truer when discussing with them about issues you don't understand? There are things I don't understand in other peoples' worldviews - I used the example of the Hindu's 'cows are God'; since I don't understand what the informed Hindu might mean, I would not go about "disdaining" him/her on such things. It were better for me to discuss with such a thinker without trying to run him/her aground when in particularly I'm not a Hindu.

There are issues about the Christian faith that many Christians may not be able to communicate in words to your mind's apprehension. When you appreciate that fact, you won't need to go about with "disdain" at what things you can't grasp in the Christian faith.

This point must be all the more appreciated when dealing with the ultimate mystery: GOD.

There's no problem with dealing with such things as ultimate questions, ultimate realities, or even the 'ultimate Mystery' - GOD. Your problem, however, is that you approach the discussions about the ultimate Mystery with such reckless abandon as to make us wonder if you're bereft of any thread of intelligence. You should be able to respect your own limitations (as I'm always conscious of mine); and where you may not be able to grasp the understanding of others in their concept of GOD, you don't need to go about rabidly deriding them for what they believe on that question! To do so would make one wonder why you're so driven with such attitudes, as if you want to tell the Christian how to believe in 'God' while you don't subscribe to the Christian faith! It is just as if viaro would be telling you how to be a deist and yet not subscribing to deism on my own part!

DeepSight, leave these matters and let others be. The mystery of the Christian faith is beyond your grasp, and expressing 'disdain' for what is beyond you is not an intellectually sound display of any rationality you would like to impress anyone with.

davidylan:
Does deepsight do anything else besides post on his confusions here?

^^ I just wonder!

Deep Sight:
You will have chance to do so shortly: I have been thinking of opening a thread to discuss the Essentials of DEISM - Don't worry, nothing so esoteric as your much hated Oneness of Infinity - Just a chat on Deism.

The 'essentials' of your deism, that is. . . don't have any qualms with that, but I certainly would not be taking that as a one-size-fits-all deisms, sorry.

Hehe, you really don't have a clue, DeepSight - it's not what you would float in a thread of your own that would sort this saga out for you, bro. I'm not impressed by your opening threads here and there and using all cosmetic 'prose' to impress yourself on your small subjects.

And no, viaro does not 'hate' your nebulous 'oneness of infinity'. .  me - "hate"?? Hahaha!! Dude, your OOI is flat-footed, heavily still in the murky swamps of your perennial excuses dressed up as 'prose' - or you would long have progressed that thread, helped it to breathe fresh air so it survives your mathematical 'dark nights' to see a glorious dawn! English translation: your OOI is D-E-A-D.

You just go on and post whatever you wanna post on 'essentials' of your deism - when viaro is ready, he's gonna open a thread by himself and ask you to smart up! Just dress warm until then.

Later today, i think.

Ciao for now ol boy.

No worries my pal, no worries.

JeSoul:
Hehe , bad Viaro, your elders Joagbaje, Jaffi have been munching on some solid goat meat and shaki and cracking chicken bones down to the marrow and you're still on Cowbell milk?

Don't blame me . . . we should have closed down the 'Cow&Gate', SMA and 'CowBell' family of industries so we could all grow up maturely and fit for various munching. Only then (I suppose) would we be fit to chew and masticate anything and everything from dinosaurs' bones to rhinos with keratin and crustaceans/'anthrops' with solid chitin! Our 'elders' are not taking good care of us - otherwise they ought to have let us known these things!

I am well oh. And honestly gaining a new appreciation everyday for your entries. Not to shine your ego here but it takes massive effort to respond to these guys, going deep into muddy posts and responding in detail . . . you and TV do that very well and I salute. Me, I no fit at all, I just shake my head and move on. So multiple kudos and please carry on, like I once told your e-commander Nuclearboy (right title abi? ), don't let my mischeivious comedic drive-bys distract, please carry on!

Glad to know you're doing well. I salute others who handle the Word more maturely (and believe me - Nairaland has opened my eyes to many things). My e-commander is just brilliant . . . he has not disappointed me but knows just how to straighten me out with a slight clearing of his throat!

Much blessings.

fyneguy:
Viaro

lol

You can be sure I won't allow this to degenerate into an unnecessary argument with you. I have only pointed out the mistakes many christians make.

It was on this same religious forum that Kunle Oshob opened a thread that sought to belittle the word ''Born again'', by claiming that the word was not usually used in the bible.

Hehe, what would we not see again in this world? Is it not 'Nairaland' afterall - where else would you find the above??

I don't think we should allow unprofitable semantics to becloud biblical connotations.

That's cool. God bless you.

@ifababa,

ifababa:
FIRST::: WHAT OR WHO IS GOD, WHICH WOULD YOU PREFER TO USE AND WHY, ?

IF YOU KNOW THE TRUTH ,YOU'LD BE WISE ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT GOD IS LIKE A DESTINATION AND THE VARIOUS RELIGION ARE WAYS TO THAT SAME DESTINATION,

Why did you prefer your own definition of 'God' as like a destination to any other from the various religions? To make such a preference while derogating others is simply to talk under the "influence" of your own "filtered" and flawed 'mistake' - as such, you're not in a position to say anything on the subject.

^^ Much obliged, and please keep the thread up - can't wait to read more from you guys.

fyneguy:
Programmed? oh Yeah I'm programed. That's another strong meat for your likes

Hey you! Just leave Jesoul my (and your) sister alone, you hear me?

fyneguy:
Viaro,

Your problem is that the statement is strong meat to you.

You need to understand what he meant by ''God of this world''. If I called my self ''The sibling of Jesus Christ'', I'm sure you would call it heresy, as it would appear there's no direct use of ''sibling'' in the scripture to describe my status.

''God of this world'' refers to one who has the God-sanctioned authority to rule over the world! Adam was in this stead until he lost it to Satan.

Okay, fyneguy, I should not be tedious to you on this one. There's more to say, but I need to take a chill pill and not force a counter-argument upon you. Maybe later we shall come back to discuss more on this, yes?

Blessings.

JeSoul:
Viaro,

you never hear? the meat is too strong for you!

I respect with great honor anyone who "discusses" with these prosperity gospelers. Its like they are robots, they've been programmed to think and respond in a particular way, using a particular set of words, turning a blind eye and deaf ear to any and all scripture that contradicts that flawed, unbiblical gospel.

Now viaro is in deep trouble! I just 'knew' somewhere that I've been drinking too much 'Cow&Gate' (afterall, my e-jailor commander Nuclearboy would not let me back on carbonated drinks!).

How are you doing anyways?

Deep Sight:
Viaro is not a Deist. He is Christian: or better put: he claims to be christian.

It were better you simply left it as that viaro is a Christian. It does not hurt you; nor have I tried to interject that 'DeepSight "claims" to be a deist'.

Indeed we used to be great friends; but somewhere along the line he arrogated to himself the right to muzzle free speech - the fact that i openly vaunt my disdain for Christian dogma annoys him to the extreme - in return he baths me with a steady stream of the most vile abuses ever heard.

I did not arrogate anything to myself in regards to 'free speech'. If you like expressing such caustic lingoes at others for what they believe, then it is also an exercise of my own rights to 'free speech' to express my disgust at your hideous fundamentalist attitude in the multiplied vitriol you have used directly against Christians for what they believe.

Your waving the victim's card here is quite below you; or otherwise scores another feather to your liturgical headdress as a classic hypocrite - if you're pretending to have been 'nice' and all school-boy-tidy in the way you discuss Christian issues. I've not yet examined your shallow deism, and you're whimpering here?? Would we be reading your necrology by the time I waste your illiterate deistic 'oneness of infinity' that has never taken off from the ground with all the dubious prose you garnered for it?

Look, just stop trying to impress yourself with these pity-parties. You played deaf to any objective manner of reasoning with others, not withstanding my calling your attention to it several times - and the 'fundamentalist' that you are, is what this thread is about. Enjoy.

I am not able to mortgage my convictions or my freedom of speech so i guess i must gird my loins and brace up for an eternity of insults from Viaro.

Free yourself - your "convictions" do not include a subscription to deriding Christian beliefs. I didn't register on Nairaland to hound a faceless goon going by the username of 'Deep Sight', so there's no 'eternity of insults' from viaro anywhere. You either learn to amicably discuss what is not your worldview, or keep getting drunk on your miserly cries for help - the choice is yours!

InesQor:
Welcome, viaro. I think Aetiology studies the origins of natures, Eschatology studies the termination of natures, but meta-ethics borrows from the two by considering normative attitudes that evolve in between the origins and terminations of natures. I think they are all intersected.

I don't know, but your thoughts are appreciated. Eschatology studies 'final things', not the termination of natures. Beyond death and final judgement(s), there is an existence that opens before us into another epoch; so eschatology is not about terminations at all, and certainly not about the termination of any 'natures'.

True, meta-ethics borrows from both aetiology and eschatology - but it also enriches itself by drawing from other ideas (teleology, axiology, deontology, etc). Yes, there's a massive web of intersections between them all, and that's why I remarked that it's quite a deep subject in itself.

BTW, your reasoning captures my deepest interests.

Joagbaje:
There is difference between lucifer trying to be like God and Man who God has made in his image. Adam was created in the image and likeness to function like God . As a matter of fact Adam was created to be God of this world.

Where did you read the bold part in Scripture? Do people have to force such falsehoods all in the name of a WOF argument?

If you cannot find any verse in Scripture referring to Adam as 'God', are you not confirming the fact that heresy is at the root of your theology as much as is characteristic of the WOF movement?

jaffi:
. . . that does not mean that we should not take our place of divinity-gods and act like one 'cos the whole waiteth for the manifastionns of the sons of God.

jaffi:
am a god and i reign in this life.Glory be to God.

But wait. .  not so fast, brother. I have one question: did you make the heavens and the earth, yes or no?

If your answer is no, you have no business claiming your 'divinity' - please go read Jeremiah 10:11 again.

This thread and contributions so far intrigue me. The subject of meta-ethics itself may border around an akin one: aetiology. It's deep, but contributions in this thread are interesting.

Hello MyJoe,

I hope you had a brilliant weekend? I did, and glad to read from you again.

MyJoe:
Reading exchanges between Deep Sight and viaro can be as sweet as sitting back on a Sunday morning after breakfast and listening to Tchaikovsky or Pavarotti's renditions of Verdi. (Often, that is. Not all the time. The Reincarnation thread, for instance, was an abortion. It was like listening to that ghastly orchestra from Edinburgh, or where is it? )

Sweetly poetic.

In this thread, while I disagree with viaro as to the main culprits of Ps 14:1, I particularly appreciate the way he has pointed out my failure to include atheists in my op. It reminded me of a case at the high court in Ibadan a few years back. The lawyers wrote a brilliant Brief of Argument but omitted the name of the governor whose governorship was the subject of the suit. When the court ruled against the governor, the man told the world that the judgment was no skin off his nose because it did not mention his name! Most people thought he was being mischievous, of course, since the gist of the ruling was that the process that brought him to power did not comply with the law. But a few thought he had a point and when the lawyers for his opponents were preparing their Respondent's Brief to his appeal, what did they do? They inserted his name in every page where that could be done.

Absolutely intriguing! Well done!

I think he does it like a Harvard professor peer reviewing an article for the journal Nature. Which is perfectly fine, as all it does in essence is to increase the quality of debate. It helps you get a truly complete view of the subject long after you thought you had it all wrapped up.

Like 'a Harvard prof'. .  who - me?? Hehehe. . . I'm not even close to that by any stretch; but you well captured the point about my trying to add quality to the discussion.

MyJoe: No. I never agreed it was offbeat, but I agreed to this:

viaro:
(because that analogy suffered an inferential limitation)

As I already opined, this applies to just about every analogy.

That's perfectly fine with me; and my apologies where I might've misread you.

Although I appreciate your disagreement with my inference, I nonetheless do believe that your HIV/Aids analogy was 'offbeat' - not in the sense that it was 'wrong', but rather that it does not encapsulate the subject about belief in God (hence 'offbeat' because of its inferential limitation). Let me show this:

(a) viaro ~

viaro: The express denial of the existence of God is not the claim of the religious or the theist, however unfaithful he or she might be. Rather, such a denial of His existence is the core of atheism for many atheists, who assert that 'there is no God', and that nothing exists outside of their materialistic and physicalistic worldview. To assert that 'there is no God' is the core of the belief of many atheists which they hold dearly in their hearts, unless other atheists would want to play the hypocrite of asserting something with their mouths which they believe differently from their hearts.

(b) MyJoe ~

MyJoe: The distinction you make is a good point and it is hard to dispute it. I cannot dismiss it out of hand, too. However, it is not one I will attach undue importance to since the concept of God is largely metaphysical. And this is where my HIV/Aids analogy falls short. While viruses are material and can be apprehended objectively, God is not.

So, in post #15 where I'd initially pointed out that your analogy with AIDS was quite 'worrisome', you had no difficulty seeing my point (I suppose), and consequently did not argue airingly against it - but went on to acknowledge that your HIV/Aids analogy "falls short" on account of the dichotomy between the 'material' (virus) and the 'metaphysical' (God). Else, I wonder what you might've meant "this is where my HIV/Aids analogy falls short"??

The 'offbeat' in my summations may highlight 'worrisome' and 'fall short' - not that the analogy was 'wrong' nor 'collapses' your gist altogether, no. I hope this helps clear the air; although I still appreciate your disagreement thereto nonetheless.

Hello jaffi,

It's true that spiritual understanding is most needed in the things of God - and I'm sure several readers would appreciate your sincerity in sharing your convictions. But here is something in yours:

jaffi:
didn;t you read in the book of ACT Apostle paul was refferred to as god in human skin
read that account for yourself.
even sometimes the unsaved/sinner get this stuff faster with no arguement than the saint of God.

The passage you may be referring to is Acts 14, no? Let me quote some verses:

[list]Acts 14

¹¹And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. ¹²And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker. ¹³Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people.[/list]

Now, in reading the above, some in our day might have been inclined to imagine that the apostles Paul and Barnabas would have enjoyed the appellation of gods ascribed to them in the Lycaonian language. Just imagine if it were some of our celebrated WOF televangelists - wouldn't they have been so glad that some Lycaonians called them 'gods'?

But neither Paul nor Barnabas reacted or responded in such a manner. Rather, they showed they were not seeking to present themselves as 'gods' to anyone. The subsequent verses in Acts 14 speak for themselves ~

[list]¹⁴Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, ¹⁵And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein.[/list]

I'm sure the "vanities" in verse 15 being referred to is the notion of ascribing the appellation of 'gods' to the apostles. It is indeed vanity of vanity for Christians (apostles or apostates) to pass themselves off as 'gods'. But if that is not clear, then look again at the apostles' reaction and response to the Lycaonians - "We also are men of like passions with you" {not only were they "men", they were such of "like passions" with those to whom they preached}. Does that suggest at all that the apostles thought the Lycaonians were "gods" as well?

Yet, as we have noted earlier about 'God', so the apostles pointed out Who it is that they preached: "the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein". This is clearly affirming the same thing that the prophet Jeremiah said ~

[list]"Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens" (Jeremiah 10:11).[/list]

Listen to the apostles - it doesn't do us any damage to turn away from the "vanities" of making Christian men into gods (whether of the Lycaonians or Lagosians). To do so (in the manner that WoF has entrenched themselves in) is what the apostles indeed called vanities in Acts 14:15 turn from such.

ilosiwaju:
Reason for my assumption: i dont think the scribes, rabbis, pharisees etc would have doubted:
. . .
3. Resurrection.
4. Waking the dead.
. . .
If only they really witnessed it.

Could they be that cynical not to listen to a carpenter who in their presence performed the above feats? Me doubts it.

Hehehe. . you must be kidding. You never read John 11, no? That is a chapter amongst several that point to 'resurrection' and 'waking the dead'. The same folks you highlighted were not oblivious of Lazarus being raised from the dead (see verses 37 and 44). And what result did this produce in the Jews who witnessed that event? See verse 45 - "Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him".

Not only so, these eye witnesses took the news of that event to the Pharisees (verse 46). However, the very next verse is your answer - for the same Pharisees confessed what they could not deny: "Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles" (verse 47).

Your 'assumption' was misplaced.

Deep Sight:
This is a comical explanation. God saying to a human - "Why callest me good - only God is good."

? ? ? ? ? ?

You just can't live up your trademark anymore of trying to gull the public by misquoting Mark 10:18, no? Sorry, it hasn't worked, does not work, and will not work any duplicity you've been waving up and down the street - not with viaro. You're a serious joke on the internet.

But enough: i have derailed the thread enough. Another day.

Get lost. You often derail threads and there's nothing better you ever do. "Another day" indeed - like you had anything news-worthy in the first place. Lost son of an illiterate 'oneness of infinity'.

akdot:
. . . between we Muslim Brothers and Sisters and to extend it to The Non Muslims and lets see how far and better we can make Nigeria and the whole world in general Move ahead. Hope to read from u guys soon.

Wouldn't that be better served in the Muslim motherboard/section? Please check - there's a Muslim section.

bawomolo:
he he i thought you two were deist buddies. take am easy o

Haha. . . nope, DeepSight can keep his deism as long as he's willing to let others be.

_____________________

[quote author=tpia. link=topic=357052.msg5553523#msg5553523 date=1266701815]^^ that statement of deepsight's has nothing to do with Christian analogy. It's more of a new age/buddhist/far eastern school of thought.[/quote]

bawomolo:
what buddhist school of thought associates femininity with nothingness?

Some deem that would be Theravada Buddhism (I may be wrong, though). I've listened to and read a few Buddhist philosophers argue the 'nothingness of feminity' (or 'feminity-nothingness') from various Buddhist texts; an example being the verse that reads "Women are the stain of the holy life …" - *Samyutta Nikaya, Devaputtasamyutta (135:76).

I'm not saying that I agree with them; but just observing that those I've listened to often refer to that text and from there argue such things as the 'feminity-nothingness' of their discourses. One that I spoke with said I got his gist all wrong and that I should try and think in the Eastern way - so that contrary to the Western philosophy of debasing women to be 'nothing', he was rather seeing 'women as the stain of the holy life' in an esoteric ideal that necessitates the thirst for mankind's salvation. I didn't cough, but just let him be.


* The Samyutta Nikaya ("Connected Discourses" or "Kindred Sayings" is a Buddhist scripture, the third of the five nikayas, or collections, in the Sutta Pitaka, which is one of the "three baskets" that compose the Pali Tipitaka of Theravada Buddhism.

Deep Sight:
Quote from Viaro -

What is this? ? ? A concession that it is rare for intelligent persons with logical minds to accept bizzare Christian spin dogma?

^^ The thread is about Deep Sight's Fundamentalism, not about Dionysius the Areopagite. You only came here yapping because I made reference to my regrets in initially trying to see you as a reasonable fellow, whereas you have turned out to be the most illiterate braincell on Nairaland. Next time I'd look twice thrice before trying to help give your CV a facelift.

It's quite laughable that after apologising for derailing the thread, you would not let up on that. You're a very funny character indeed.

Deep Sight:
1. At the very best that can only serve as a claim to being an eternal being. That is much different from claiming to be the primordial uncaused cause itself.

Please show me an instance of any other "eternal Being" and what it connotes for such a Being to be eternal as different from an "uncaused cause" itself.

2. So what if he said "I AM?" Anybody can say the same: it would not make them God! Guri Maharaji says the same; so does Olumba Olumba Obu and gazillions of cult-like sect leaders thoughout history. Are they all God? Please.

Christ did not deny the fact that many people would come claiming that they were Christs or that they would come in His Name (Matt. 24:5). Funny that Christ did not come claiming that He was Olumba Olumba or Guru whatever, haha! But that any of these folks may be said to have claimed to be Christ or God in the Biblical sense does not qualify them so, in so much that none of them could point to any verse attesting such claims for themselves. We're not on here about your concerns for cults - I earlier noted that you were close to that very thing in the manner you argue this issue.

3. If that was his intention then please explain why he dliberately misguided a simple fellow who called him "good teacher" - rushing to immediately state that such an appellation cannot apply to him and must be reserved for God. Care to also explain at whose right hand he is said to rise to be sitted at in heaven? Care to explain why he states that he is not omniscient, whereas God is? I could go on.

He did not misguide any fellow. The verse you quoted does not read what you wanted it to read:
(a) yours: {"Mark 10:18: “Do not call me good, only God is good.”}
(b) KJV: {"Mark 10:18: "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."}

In that verse, Jesus was not asserting that the enquirer should not call Him good; rather, He questioned the enquirer: "Why do you call me good". Nor does that verse say that Jesus denied His deity - notice He did not say: 'do not call me God', or you would be again lying through your yellow teeth, sorry.

However, that it was a question is in sync with His manner of highlighting a most pivotal subject. In Luke 6:46, He employed that same linguistic device - "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord," - which is not saying that He was denying His Lordship! In very fact, He affirmed His Lordship to His disciples in John 13:13 - "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am."

Perhaps you ought to be careful when citing verses for what they imply rather than trying to make far fetched implications of what those verses do not say, in your attempt to gull your readers. Mark 10:18 does not read Jesus saying "Do not call me good" - rather, it questioned the enquirer: "Why callest thou me good?" Does He also deny that He was good? No, unless you want to again attempt to gull your readers by ignoring His statements in other passages where Jesus categorically referred to Himself as "good" -

* Matthew 20:15 - 'Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?
Is thine eye evil, because I am good?'

* John 10:14 - 'I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep,
and am known of mine.'

Mark 10:18 does not tell us that Jesus was denying His Deity, sorry.

That was the Jews ignorant presumption. Because Jesus made himself pretty clear on what the statement "I and the Father are one" meant.

Jesus himself explained the term "I and my Father are one" severally. He stated unequivocally that he and his father were one in the same way as we should be one with him. Now are you Jesus? No. But you are one with him in spirit as a christian, yes?

Thus the oneness was a oneness of accord, and not an ontological or existential oneness as an entity.

You need to go over to Revelation where Jesus Himself attested to His Deity on the same basis as the Father. When you do so, then you would begin to understand that your ontological excuses are best left to small minds - which was prolly why you could be so comical as to have referred to His statements in John 5:23 as "his delusions". When the pie suits your gull, you frantically quote it; but when other verses from the same Bible begin to waste your arguments, you turn round and try to write off the direct statements of Jesus as "delusions", no?

Its abundantly clear that its a spiritual and not ontological or existential oneness. There. That's Bible proof.

Spiritually and ontologically, no where does Jesus deny His deity. That He affirmed His Humanity is undoubted; but we are yet to see any verses where He had categorically denied His Deity.