₦airaland Forum

Garri going for almost 200 in 1989 was quite expensive

Orinal agbaya
Please spell words correctly when you post

Today discuss presents a detailed analysis of the development of early Christian Christology, contrasting the "exaltation" view (where Jesus becomes divine after his resurrection) with the "incarnation" view (where Jesus is a pre-existent divine being who becomes human).

If you read Matthew and Luke carefully—where you read about the virgin birth story—there is no hint that Jesus existed before the virgin birth. In Matthew and Luke, read them carefully, it’s not that a pre-existent Divine Being, the Christ, has become incarnate through the Virgin Mary. Jesus comes into existence with the Virgin Mary when God makes her pregnant. In Matthew and Luke, that’s how it’s presented.

But as people thought about it more, they thought: he must have been the Son of God from eternity past. And so they started developing a different view—a view which is not an exaltation view, not a view where a human becomes a divine being. They started developing a view of Incarnation. The word Incarnation means something like “having come in the flesh.”

An incarnation view is the view that Christ came into the world having existed before in the heavenly realm. Christ was a divine being who became a human being. This is not the view of Mark. It’s not the view of Matthew or Luke. It is the view of the Gospel of John.

In the Gospel of John, Christ is not born of a virgin. In John, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and apart from him nothing came into being that came into being. In him was life, and his life was the light of humans. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

The Word-become-flesh is Jesus Christ. The Gospel of John understands that Christ was a pre-existent divine being who became a human being. That’s an incarnation Christology, as opposed to the exaltation Christology you get in other early Christians.

Once Christians started thinking more widely that Jesus had been a pre-existent divine being, they started debating: In what sense was he a divine being? And if he was a divine being, how is he a human being—or was he a human being? And if he’s a divine being, and God’s a divine being, you have two divine beings. Don’t you have two gods? Or do you have only one God?

—“No, we have one God.”
—“Is Jesus God?”
—“Yes.”
—“Is God the Father God?”
—“Yes.”
—“So you’ve got two gods?”
—“No, we have one God.”
—“Okay, so there’s one—then Jesus is not God?”
—“No, he is God.”
—“Well, then you’ve got two gods.”

And so the debates continue.

There were people who thought that in fact Christ was God—because he was fully God, he was God who appeared to be a human being. God can’t be a captain. God can’t really be a human being any more than a human being can really be a rock. These are different things.

So, a view called docetism comes from a Greek word dokeō, which means to seem or to appear. There were Christians in the second and third Christian centuries who said: Christ was God, and he only seemed to be a human. He only looked like you.

I’ve got to say, most of my students probably think this. I think most of my students think that Christ—since Christ is God—he couldn’t really be a human being. And so he was fully omnipotent and omniscient as an infant. So, you know, as a two-week-old, Jesus could have spoken Swahili if he wanted to, because he’s God, he could do anything, right?

Well, this view lost out, because Christian theologians said: if Christ wasn’t human, he couldn’t die for the sins of the world. If he didn’t really have blood, he couldn’t shed his blood. Salvation requires that he not only be divine but he also be human. And so this docetic view lost out.

There are other Christians who wanted to say—in the second and third Christian centuries, so I’m talking about 100–200 years after the Gospels, before Arius—there were Christians who said, actually, Christ is both human and divine. But it’s because of this: there was a man, Jesus, who was a very righteous man, who at some point in his life—say, his baptism—was entered into by a divine being from heaven.

Christ was a divine being who entered into the man Jesus, so that Jesus Christ is both human and divine because he has a human part and he has a divine part. And so there’s two of him. And then when the man Jesus died, the Christ went up to heaven.

I call this a separationist view, because it separates between Jesus and the Christ. That was another view that was declared a heresy. Because if Jesus isn’t completely human, and if he isn’t completely God at one and the same time, then you’re not dealing with one person, you’re dealing with two persons. But Jesus Christ is one person, not two persons. God is one, and Christ is one. The church is one. There’s one faith, one Lord, one baptism. There’s one—there’s not two.

This view ended up losing.

A more interesting view in some ways is a view that scholars have called modalism. This, for a long time, was the standard view in Christianity—even its opponents said most people held to this view. Even the leaders of the Church of Rome held to this view at the end of the second century.

It’s called modalism because it says that God exists in three modes. Now just like I, myself—Bart Ehrman—just like I, myself personally, I am at one and the same time: I am the son to my father, I am the brother to my sister, and I’m the father to my children. I am a son, a brother, and a father at the same time. And God’s like that. God is three persons: Father, Son, and Spirit—but there’s only one of him. There’s not three of him.

I’m not three different persons—I’m one person: I’m son, brother, father. God is three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So this is a view called modalism, because God exists in three modes of existence.

This view ended up losing out too—even though it was very popular a long time, and possibly people today still hold some view like this—but it ended up losing out. It ended up losing out because surely the Father and the Son are different from one another. If you’re the Father of a Son, you can’t be the Son that you’re the Father of—they’d have to be different. And you know, when Jesus was on earth, he sometimes would pray to God the Father—he wasn’t just talking to himself.

And so this view ended up being seen as problematic as well. This modalist view, especially, was the view of the bishops of Rome—people who would have later become the Popes. And eventually, then, it was turned back by people who held to a different view: the Trinity.

It was in the context of arguing about modalism that one of the Church Fathers, a man named Tertullian, devised the term Trinity. The Trinity refers to the three persons who are separate persons, individual persons, who are all God.

Now I should say that Arius held to a doctrine of the Trinity. Arius believed in the God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—but he thought the Son and the Holy Spirit were inferior to God the Father. Because you can’t have two things that are Almighty—because if two things are Almighty, neither one of them is Almighty. They share might, and so only one can be almighty.

And by the way, that was the view Tertullian too, who devised the term Trinity. He thought that the Son was subordinate to God the Father.

But eventually this view went away. Eventually, this view was superseded by the view that there is a Trinity of three beings who are all God. They’re equally God. They’re equally powerful, equally all-knowledgeable, equally eternal. They’ve all existed forever. There are three of them: Father, Son, and Spirit—and yet there’s only one God.

—“There’s one God manifest in three persons.”
—“Well, but if you’ve got three of them, there are three gods, right?”
—“No, there’s only one.”
—“Okay, there’s one, then there’s not three, right?”
—“No, there are three.”
—”…Well, that doesn’t make any sense.”

Right. If it made any sense, it wouldn’t be a mystery. The Trinity is a mystery, which means you cannot understand it. And if you think you understand it, you misunderstand it.

This became the traditional view of Christianity. All four of these views—docetism, separationism, modalism, and the Trinity—all four of those are logical outworkings of the view that Christ is God while God is God. They have different logics that are driving them, but all four of them are logical. They all make sense. It’s just that one of those views ended up becoming the Orthodox view: that there are three persons, all of whom are God.

My point is: the early Christians did not think this. You will not find this doctrine in the New Testament. This doctrine is a later doctrine that developed out of earlier views.

The earliest Christians came to believe that Jesus had been exalted to God’s right hand at his resurrection—and they thought that therefore God had made him a divine being. Three hundred years later, they were saying that Jesus had always existed, that he was co-eternal with the Father, he was co-omnipotent with the Father, and that he, in fact, was God Almighty Himself, the Creator of all things.
Shalom

Good one for Tems
Afrobeats to the world
Here we again

Lol
Please post all threads in the right section, and don't derail threads by posting off topic

Indoctrination
That’s how religion has survived over centuries

Lol warmonger
Not enough original content
Please take a moment to write a quality post with at least 40 characters

Irony1:
But Tinubu and APC did worse against GEJ. A coffin was made for him, or do you want to pretend you didn't see it? Obi only criticised the government, what is happening is just APC having guilty conscience and trying to prevent people from criticising them.

Still enough justification to continue in that direction

I’ve been saying this for a while now it’s really sad that it seems some are praying for bad thunder Ayo happen so that they came come out of the sewers with all forms tone deaf criticism

Chelshit in the gutter
20 quasillion spent with nothing to show for it

Lol
Nigerian politics is just pure vibes and cruise
I’ve never taken any of them seriously

Lol that road has always been bad for Al long as I can remember
So it had to take the visit of the president to get any attention to it lol

I don’t know the type of education you can get in a third world country that Nigeria is milled ahead in every indices of education

Let’s goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Nice one
But really poorly thought out headline

What here for us to really digest
I see a nothingburger

Stop using people’s tragedies to play politics.
It is despicable

If there’s one thing this president likes, it’s two-week deadlines.
Three and a half weeks ago, Trump said that Russia had two weeks to demonstrate a willingness to end the war in Ukraine or face new economic sanctions. He has yet to announce his decision.
A week ago, Trump said that in about two weeks the US would be sending letters out informing America’s trading partners of their new tariff levels. Back in May, he set a similar “two to three weeks” timeframe for new import duties only for the mark to pass without action.
Back in 2020, the president said he would unveil a “full and complete health care plan” in two weeks. No such plan was ever released.
It was just one of a grab bag of two-week policy deadlines Trump set and then discarded during his first presidential term - on issues ranging from infrastructure to taxes to withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord.
Trump eventually followed through on some of these – and decisions on war and peace are some of the most consequential ones a president can make. But history suggests that for Trump a two-week deadline is seldom set in stone.

DenreleDave:
how can they be easily eradicated especially that slim one?

Larvicides And total Annihilation of all breeding hubs

Commendation initiative as most Nigerians know next to nothing about credit ratings.
Meanwhile Americans buy almost everything on credit from homes(mortgage), iPhone from carriers to cars from car dealerships

Been a while I saw both
There can be easily eradicated

Completely spiraling into a poor man game of nutcracker

So many chest beating and nonsensical comments from left and right
America is now a glorified reality show

Hope he’s also getting pay his royalties too

This back and forth is benign and unnecessary to pay any ounce of attention to

bfn1:
In recent times, I've mistaken a lot of AI-generated videos for real until someone either corrects me or I get Twitter/X community notification.
Now, I look at some clips & tell myself "It could be AI...". I'm already getting desensitized that much.

I understand how frustrating it can be but there are always telltale signs AI generated images, JUST examine the background of said image or video for anything unusual or out of place or misalignment

Introduction to the Bible
Who Wrote the Bible? Well, I’ve titled it Introduction To The Bible From An Academic Point of View because not only do I cover who wrote each book and when, but I also cover how the whole thing is structured and how the Bible’s development is connected to the history of the Ancient Near East. So, let’s get started.
Basic Terminology
A lot of people think of the Bible as being exclusively a Christian book. They think that Christians have the Bible, Muslims have the Quran, and Jews have the Torah. But this is not quite correct. Jews also have a Bible. They call it the Tanakh, but it is also simply known as the Jewish Bible.
Christians divide their Bible into the Old Testament and New Testament. What Christians call the Old Testament is actually the exact same book as what Jews simply know as the Jewish Bible or Tanakh.
What about the Torah?
Christians call the first five books of the Old Testament the “Pentateuch” (meaning the five scrolls). These are Genesis through Deuteronomy. For Jews, these same five books are called the Torah. So, the Torah is simply the name for the first five books of the Tanakh, which happen to be the exact same five books as the first five books of the Christian Old Testament. Whether you pick up a Jewish Bible or a Christian Bible, other than some minor translation differences, the first five books are going to be exactly the same.
The Talmud
There’s a third Jewish book you might have heard of that starts with a “T”: the Talmud. But the Talmud is not actually considered part of the Jewish Bible. It’s an entirely different book comprised of oral traditions and commentary on those traditions, written by rabbis.
Who Wrote the Torah?
From a traditional point of view, the answer to “Who wrote this part of the Bible?” is easy: Moses. For some Orthodox Jews and evangelical Christians, there is simply no questioning that. But for the majority of Jews today and Bible scholars (like myself) and most Christians, the answer is not so simple.
From a historian’s point of view, Moses is more of a legendary character, and the stories about him include many literary elements. It’s also clear to language experts that the Torah is not the work of a single author. Rather, it consists of many layers pieced together over time. This makes sense, considering that the Torah deals with events initially passed down orally, leading to multiple versions of the same story.
For example, there are two separate creation accounts, two stories of Abraham lying about his wife Sarah, two accounts of God changing Jacob’s name to Israel, and so on. There are about 30 examples of these “doublets” in the Torah.
Theories About the Torah’s Authorship
Scholars agree that several distinct authors were involved, but they don’t agree on who those authors were or the order they contributed. Here are three major theories:
The Documentary Hypothesis
Proposed in the 1800s, this theory suggests the Torah was pieced together from four sources:
J (Jahwist): Uses the name Yahweh for God.
E (Elohist): Uses Elohim for God.
D (Deuteronomist): Focuses on Deuteronomy.
P (Priestly): Emphasizes rituals and laws.
Traditionally, J was dated to Solomon’s reign, E to the Northern Kingdom, D to King Josiah’s reign, and P after the Babylonian exile.
Modern variations combine J and E or adjust the timing of P.
The Supplementary Hypothesis
An updated version of the Documentary Hypothesis.
Suggests Deuteronomy (D) was the original core, written during King Josiah’s reign.
J and E are seen as supplementary material added during the Babylonian exile.
P is additional material added by priests during the Second Temple period.
A final redactor (R) combined everything.
The Dual Origins Theory
Proposes that the Israelites had two separate origin myths:
One involving the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob).
One involving Moses and the Exodus.
These traditions developed independently and were combined during the Second Temple period by priests.
Explains abrupt transitions (e.g., Genesis to Exodus) and chronological issues.
The Development of the Bible
The Bible’s development reflects Israel’s history. Originally, Israel was two separate kingdoms (Israel in the north, Judah in the south). After the fall of the Northern Kingdom (722 BCE), refugees fled south, merging the two traditions. Monotheism likely solidified during this time.
The Torah was compiled during the Second Temple period, combining earlier sources. The rest of the Tanakh (Prophets and Writings) was added over centuries, with the final canonization occurring much later.

Structure of the Jewish Tanakh vs. Christian Old Testament
Jewish Tanakh (24 books):
Torah (5 books): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.
Nevi’im (Prophets, 8 books): Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve.
Ketuvim (Writings, 11 books): Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles.
Christian Old Testament (39 books):
Reorders the books and splits some (e.g., Samuel, Kings, Chronicles into two books each).
Adds deuterocanonical books (e.g., Tobit, Maccabees) in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles.

The New Testament
The New Testament tells the story of Jesus and the early church. Key sections:
Gospels (4 books): Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.
Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) share similar content.
John is distinct, with more theological focus.
Acts of the Apostles: Chronicles the early church.
Epistles (Letters):
Pauline Epistles (e.g., Romans, Corinthians).
General Epistles (e.g., James, Peter).
Revelation: Apocalyptic vision of the end times.

Key Takeaways
The Bible is a collection of texts written over centuries by multiple authors.
Its structure reflects the history and theology of ancient Israel and early Christianity.
Understanding its composition helps appreciate its literary and historical depth.
I’ll be covering the New Testament more extensively next

At this point anyone not AI savvy enough to tell an AI generated content from reality is on his own

El presidenté le mes de version pur dior lol

This is peak comedy once again lol
Political zigzagging

One party state loading