₦airaland Forum

Ruin people's lives in the name of getting a quick buck

This is a very sad one
Once again failure of our institutions

bassdow:
no forget say there's been lots of reports say a lot of them are wasting away in various showRooms.
and say people no really dey buy. So where exactly is the money coming from ?

But then again, He's got other things including the SPACE and AI

Well most persons don't understand is that there is no 1 trillion anywhere to pay him. His payment package is mostly tied to stock options, if he meets the targets the stock price will go up thereby arriving at the trillion dollar valuation. Meanwhile Space X and XaI isn't even worth upwards of 6000 billion combined

Tesla board is more focused on the CEO rather than the shareholders.....
Tesla has not released any innovative new product in decades
Except for the commercial flop that is The Cybertruck

Newton first law of motion is at play

Good riddance
Enough of all these

TheWolfen:
He won't.
It's not even a secret.

Wait for the backlash to hit
Then watch him shift grounds to claiming that his statement was taken out of context

Oluwa burna the global super star

Lol 🤣🤣🤣
I bet in a couple of days he's going to denounce this statement

Reminds me of only fans model who say they've "repented"

Same old same old

Angelfrost:
That's because your continent is very much stuck in the dark ages of corruption, ethnicity, and illiteracy.

If you have the opportunity or privilege to relocate abroad, you'll understand how futuristic they are.

Like I said there's nothing futuristic about those courses because futuristic is usually used to describe something so new and unfamiliar that it looks like it could come from the future....
And none mentioned fit the description... You can say there are a bit Niche, yes 😉
And my advice not to study the mentioned fields in the continent has more to do with infrastructural deficit and nothing to do with [s]corruption, ethnicity, and illiteracy.
[/s]

Their culture their business

Nothing futuristic about any of this fields....
Study then in Africa at your own peril

Essential this is a non story akin to bear parlour analysis

Sell out !
Thought it was a state sponsored gig

Clear case of tax avoidance strategy

Reshaping Rebranding Revitalizing

Still just an opinion made after outside observation

that punch made him fold like a yoga mat
men that was the sensational highlight ko of the year for me

helinues:
Except if you are not creative that's when you will be worried about others using your work..

It should even be a grace self. Those who you are competing with are copying your work

lol that's a very fallacious assertion. wonder why you guys are just so ok with a rotten society of dishonest or unprincipled people.
and then when you get the short end of the stick yourself you'll suddenly become a philosophical fault-finder

helinues:
Bro, you have passed this stage. Don't go that lane...

Really . Both of you are doing good musically, so what's al this for

i bet you won't say the same thing if somebody stole your hard work and is profiting from it without any form of acknowledgement or remorse

nice one
NCC through USPF has been bringing IT infrastructure to most parts of nigeria

lol some people will die over what doesn't even concern them

lol

this gotta to some peak trolling from the feds

lol
Please spell words correctly when you post, and try to use perfect grammar and punctuation. Don't ask Nairaland members for contact details (email, phone, bbpin) or investments.

well there you have it
cho cho cho cho like a running like a broken faucet

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