The dark golden disk of the sun had since crept below the horizon, darkness fleeing into the world in its wake. On the hills of Golgotha, the man shivered and gasped as the weight of his body pulled down his torn arms more firmly through the nails the soldiers had hammered through his frail wrists. He could barely breathe, and the sweat and blood had become a dry clam all over his body.

A soft breeze pulled its way from the west, and the man was grateful for it, for his insides had become a humid boiling oven. . . he knew that Death was close.

Kneeling at the base of the stake, his grieving mother choked on her tears, the searing pain of the barbarous torment of her dying son forming an indelible scar on the tapestry of her eternity.

Huddled about her were the man’s siblings, and his friends in their mournful wait to receive the remains of the soon to be departed teacher. . .

The man cast one final sorrowful look at the group about the stake, breathed his last, and departed the world.



Years passed.

Then centuries.

He didn’t know what happened at the moment of death. Somehow, he felt himself hovering over the clouds. . . he could neither move upwards or down.

More centuries passed.


Now he could see the world clearly. Everywhere, people called his name. In great temples far and wide, people worshipped him. And there he was. . . held fast and motionless, in a timeless place above the clouds. . .

At length the clouds began to light, a strong and heady scent filled the air, and the Angel Gabriel floated silently to his side.

“Jesus,” whispered the angel. The name was called with soul moving tenderness. “You belong above. They have held you fast with their prayers, they imprison you with their worship. . .”

The man was astounded. “Worship me. . .?” he muttered, his brows furrowed in deep confusion. . . “But I told them to worship only God. . . I told them not to call me good. . . I told them only God is good. . .[Mark 10:18].

Silent, Gabriel regarded the scene below. The worship of the sons of men drifted upwards in various brightly coloured threads and coiled around the spirit of Jesus of Nazereth, holding him fast in limbo, as his delicate soul was not made for worship. . .

The man shook his head and tried to clear his memory.
“I told them” he insisted. “I said it several times. I told them through Paul that there is only one God, and that I was only a mediator [1Timothy 2:5].

I told them the Father is much greater than I am [John 14:28].

I told them not to hold on to me, because I too have a God, I told them clearly that I worship God, and that I would ascend to my GOD [John 20:17].

I told them to know God only, and that God merely sent me [John 17:3].

Why on earth would they call me God, when I said all these things!??”

Restless, but immovable, he continued his thoughts – “Did I not tell tem clearly that I do not know all things, and that only the Father knows all things [Mark 13:32]?

Did Cephas not write that I have a God and Father who I worship [1st Peter 1:3].

Did Luke not tell them that I was only a mere man accredited by God [Acts 2:22]

Gabriel remained silent by his side. He seemed helpless and dejected. “They also hold on to your death as their salvation.” He whispered mournfully.

“I can’t believe this” the man said. “Did they not record that I prayed to God to avert the cross? Surely they know my prayers in Gethsemane” [Luke 22:42]

“It seems they misunderstood everything” Gabriel offered.

“But how could they?” The man was still perplexed. They heard me complain about their plans to kill me simply because of the words God sent me to give them [John 8:40].

They heard me ask on the stake that God forgive their act of Killing me [Luke 23.34].

They heard me tell the parable of the Vineyard also. That parable should have made it clear!” [Mathew 21: 33-46].

Jesus and the great angel were silent for a while.

“I feel like my time there was wasted” Jesus said after a few moments.

“Don’t worry,” said the Angel, “Your God, the Living Light, will right the wrong, HE is sending the Comforter to teach them your words aright. . .”

“Don’t worry, dear Jesus. . don’t worry. . .”

_{Davidylan – Please can you address the biblical quotes above and explain them to me so I can be clearer on these. If you can help it, I want a discussion based on the Bible, and no insults, if you can help that too. Thanks.}

This write up is no longer a surprise. For a careful looking beyond the subtly crafted words lie the very same sentiment that has its roots from the garden of Eden - and ye shall become as gods!
Beyond the eloquence are the subtle lies, the carefully omitted truths specifically designed to strip the cross of its real significance.

The article describes the death of Christ NOT as God's fore-ordained plan for the redemption of man but as a regular punishment for heretics.

Can you notice the wide gaping hole here?

The man cast one final sorrowful look at the group about the stake, breathed his last, and departed the world.

[size=13pt]----------->[/size]

Years passed.

Then centuries.

But where is the glorious resurrection and eventual accension to heaven witnessed by over 500, described in the gospels and the very book of acts that the author references? Did the man Jesus merely breath His last and depart this world like a common thief? Was this death AND RESURRECTION not the fulfillment of the prophecy long foretold by Moses, David and even Christ Himself? Why has the author deceptively omitted to remind us of the reaction of one of those who crucified Christ on the cross? [size=13pt]Mark 15:39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.[/size]

What did this man see to come to such a monumental conclusion and why has the author of this satanic article chosen to bury so many facts in a volume of meaningless verbosity?

Again our author LIES so shamelessly . . .

He didn’t know what happened at the moment of death. Somehow, he felt himself hovering over the clouds. . . he could neither move upwards or down.

How can the author tell us that Christ didnt know what happened at the moment of His death when we have multiple quotations from that same bible were Christ Himself foretells His death?

The author quoted Acts 2:22 . . . did he perhaps forget to read [size=13pt]Acts 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.[/size]

How could he then tell us Christ could neither move upward or down for centuries? where did he get this information from?

Gabriel remained silent by his side. He seemed helpless and dejected. “They also hold on to your death as their salvation.” He whispered mournfully.

“I can’t believe this” the man said. “Did they not record that I prayed to God to avert the cross? Surely they know my prayers in Gethsemane” [Luke 22:42]

Now we begin to see the satanic mind of the writer of this article in clearer light . . . his is NOT a quest for knowledge but a desperate attempt to destroy the purpose of redemption through the cross . . . has the author forgotten so this so soon?

Matthew 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

If Christ did not want the death of the cross why then did He rebuke Peter instead of asking them to be a militia to protect Him?

Matthew 26:50b Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus and took him.
51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. 52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. 53 [size=14pt]Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?[/size]

Where did the author of this article get the idea that the cross was so abhorrent to Christ?

David - in case you didn't notice, the authour is me.

I am a writer, and i'm into "Faction" - a genre that mixes fact with fiction.

Don't suppose that my tale was intended as reality - it is not. I merely used it as a platform for bringing up the various verses i quoted.

So far you have addressed only one verse.

Please i would like you to address all trhe verses, one at a time, if you can.

Cheers.

Deep Sight:

David - in case you didn't notice, the authour is me.

I am a writer, and i'm into "Faction" - a genre that mixes fact with fiction.

Don't suppose that my tale was intended as reality - it is not. I merely used it as a platform for bringing up the various verses i quoted.

So far you have addressed only one verse.

Please i would like you to address all trhe verses, one at a time, if you can.

Cheers.

You did not mix fact with fiction, you simply took facts and distorted them to suit your own warped and fleshly desires.

Secondly, i dont think you need all the other verses addressed. You practically mangled them and omitted large portions of the rest that do not sit with your own pre-concieved ideas.

Besides i have a simple question - John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

How did the Jews understand perfectly what the term "Son of God" meant and we pretend not to?

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 (if you quit your rude ways that is) as a christian, yes?

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

This verse elucidates and proves the point:

John 17:20-23: “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”

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

So go ahead now and address the several verses i quoted in the opening post ! ! !

Deep Sight:

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 (if you quit your rude ways that is) as a christian, yes?

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

This verse elucidates and proves the point:

John 17:20-23: “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”

[size=18pt]Its abundantly clear that its a spiritual and not ontological or existential oneness. There. That's Bible proof.[/size]

So go ahead now and address the several verses i quoted in the opening post ! ! !

[size=13pt]John 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.[/size]

The above still proves the oneness of accord, and if you will look closely, you will see that you are helping to argue my own point, because he is stating that seeing him amounts to seeing the father BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT HE IS IN THE FATHER AND THE FATHER IS IN HIM.

He explained what that meant when he stated: that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

This is pretty clear, David. The part where it says - "may they also be in us" - would you suggest that once you are "in God" in the context meant here, then you, David, are God? No, please let's absorb his meaning clearly.

Also remember that when the Jews accused him of making himsef equal with God, he responded saying that even men are called "gods"!

So moving along now, since you are avoiding the verses i quoted, let's address them and flog them out one by one.

The first one is Mark 10:18 - "Do not call me good, only God is good." Address that David.

Deep Sight:

So moving along now, since you are avoiding the verses i quoted, let's address them and flog them out one by one.

I will start from here, please i detest with every fibre of my being, the hypocritical and false allegation that i "avoid the verses" you quote. What is obvious here is that you have DELIBERATELY AVOIDED the fact that i pointed out several glaring and DELIBERATE OMISSIONS in your article. It is funny you prefer to side-step them rather bawling about how i have "avoided" your own verses.

Deep Sight:

The above still proves the oneness of accord, and if you will look closely, you will see that you are helping to argue my own point, because he is stating that seeing him amounts to seeing the father BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT HE IS IN THE FATHER AND THE FATHER IS IN HIM.

He explained what that meant when he stated: that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

This is pretty clear, David. The part where it says - "may they also be in us" - would you suggest that once you are "in God" in the context meant here, then you, David, are God? No, please let's absorb his meaning clearly.

Also remember that when the Jews accused him of making himsef equal with God, he responded saying that even men are called "gods"!

Again you are mangling verses together to force your own point of view and not that supported by the scriptures itself. From Acts and beyond . . . ALL THE DISCIPLES, including those who walked physically with Christ acknowledged Christ AS GOD!

Lets start first with the prophecy of Isaiah - [size=13pt]Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be on his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.[/size]

What on earth was Isaiah saying here? Calling a mere "man" born of a woman the "Mighty God"?

John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

Huh . . . what was brother John talking about here? Surely he cant be more knowledgeable than Dr. Deep Sight?

Its interesting how a lot of these unintelligent blowhards simply ignore these blatant verses only to pitch their tents on deliberately distorted portions of the bible and start demanding arrogantly for "explanation". Perhaps if they didnt stop running away from "explaining" their own vapid claims we would be inclined to do so too.

Deep Sight:


. . . in case you didn't notice, the authour is me.

I am a writer, and i'm into "Faction" - a genre that mixes fact with fiction . . .

Davidylan responding back to Deep Sight :


You did not mix fact with fiction, you simply took facts and distorted them to suit your own warped and fleshly desires . . .

. . . dare I say a Dan Brown wannabe

Recognise:

. . . dare I say a Dan Brown wannabe

Dan Brown is slightly worse, sometimes he outrightly lies.

davidylan:

I will start from here, please i detest with every fibre of my being, the hypocritical and false allegation that i "avoid the verses" you quote. What is obvious here is that you have DELIBERATELY AVOIDED the fact that i pointed out several glaring and DELIBERATE OMISSIONS in your article. It is funny you prefer to side-step them rather bawling about how i have "avoided" your own verses.

Again you are mangling verses together to force your own point of view and not that supported by the scriptures itself. From Acts and beyond . . . ALL THE DISCIPLES, including those who walked physically with Christ acknowledged Christ AS GOD!

Lets start first with the prophecy of Isaiah - [size=13pt]Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be on his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.[/size]

What on earth was Isaiah saying here? Calling a mere "man" born of a woman the "Mighty God"?

John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

Huh . . . what was brother John talking about here? Surely he cant be more knowledgeable than Dr. Deep Sight?

Its interesting how a lot of these unintelligent blowhards simply ignore these blatant verses only to pitch their tents on deliberately distorted portions of the bible and start demanding arrogantly for "explanation". Perhaps if they didnt stop running away from "explaining" their own vapid claims we would be inclined to do so too.

All right David. Still dodging explaining my verses?

Ok, I will humour you. Since you demand explanations of your verses, I will do so straight away.

On Isaiah – NOTICE that he says that the child born will be called “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father”. I ask you – is Jesus the Father? No – he is the son, and he made it very clear that he is not the Father in two statements –

“The father is greater than I” – John 14:28 and -

“Of that day no one knows, not the angels, n[b]or the son[/b], but only the Father”. Mark 13:32.

THEREFORE it is clear that when Isaiah calls him “Everlasting Father”, it is meant in a representative fashion: to wit – He represents the Father. Thus “Mighty God” must be understood in the same way: he represents God. This is clear because you cannot deny that Jesus is not the father. That much he himself made clear in the two quotes above. So Isaiah’s statement is representative. Please read the Bible with a compound approach.

On John 1:1; I will go into the Greek words that were used originally, so you will see that John 1:1 is a mistranslation. I am reaching for my exhaustive Bible Concordance.

Yes, I got it; the word “theos” translated as “God” there means, and I quote now from my copy of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. The word appears as: ό٩эӨ  -

This word is “Theos” which means – (I quote) “Godly, godward.” It states that the “theos” used in that verse is of uncertain affinity, and figuratively refers like a “magistrate”. Thus a correct translation should have read “the word was godly” or “the word was divine.” This would have been in tandem with the next verse, which you should note, contradicts the first verse by stating that the word was WITH God.

We will come back to this if you want.

Now, I have indulged you and answered your verses in clear and succinct terms backed by Bible reference. I have shown I do not run away or avoid questions.

Please stand up now and address my own verses, at least I have addressed yours:

Again, we start with the first verse I quoted:

Mark 10:18 – “Do not call me good, only God is good.”

Have at it, David!

I am liking this debate!

Davidylan, are you running away?

The word translated as Mighty God in Isaiah is El Berith. El Berith is also a canaanite diety. It means the God of Might. Maybe it was referring to Yahweh because the Jews used the names of the Canaanite Gods and applied them to Yahweh.

However El Berith is also often mentioned as a pagan God.

46On hearing this, the citizens in the tower of Shechem went into the stronghold of the temple of El-Berith. 47When Abimelech heard that they had assembled there, 48he and all his men went up Mount Zalmon. He took an ax and cut off some branches, which he lifted to his shoulders. He ordered the men with him, “Quick! Do what you have seen me do!” 49So all the men cut branches and followed Abimelech. They piled them against the stronghold and set it on fire over the people inside. So all the people in the tower of Shechem, about a thousand men and women, also died.

Judges 9: 46 - 49

"Other deities worshipped at Ugarit were El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Berith. All of these names are applied to Yahweh by the writers of the Old Testament. What this means is that the Hebrew theologians adopted the titles of the Canaanite gods and attributed them to Yahweh in an effort to eliminate them. If Yahweh is all of these there is no need for the Canaanite gods to exist! This process is known as assimilation." [1]

In his euhemeristic account of the Phoenician deities, Sanchuniathon says:

In their time is born a certain Elioun called "the Most High," and a female named Beruth, and these dwelt in the neighbourhood of Byblos. And from them is born Epigeius or Autochthon, whom they afterwards called Sky; so that from him they named the element above us Sky because of the excellence of its beauty. And he has a sister born of the aforesaid parents, who was called Earth, and from her, he says, because of her beauty, they called the earth by the same name. And their father, the Most High, died in an encounter with wild beasts, and was deified, and his children offered to him libations and sacrifices."
According to Sanchuniathon it is from Sky and Earth that El and various other deities are born, though ancient texts refer to El as creator of heaven and earth. The Hittite theogony knows of a primal god named Alulu who fathered Sky (and possibly Earth) and who was overthrown by his son Sky, Sky then being overthrown by his son Kumarbi. A similar tradition seems to be at the basis of Sanchuniathon's account. As to Beruth who is here the most high's wife, a relationship with Hebrew bərīt 'covenant' or with the city of Beirut have both been suggested.

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Berith_god/id/1930805

Lets start first with the prophecy of Isaiah - Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be on his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

is born is not a future or past event, but a present event, David! For sure Isiah and Jesus were of no same generation, so inferencing that it was Jesus that Isiagh was talking about is ridiculous! Read the "is born" as it means that time, presently! And Jesus did not have any governance, and if you call him son, you also call him father? If you do, then know that what you said happened to him on earth also happened to father. No? Prince of peace who brought about "war and not peace?"

What on earth was Isaiah saying here? Calling a mere "man" born of a woman the "Mighty God"?

I wonder, too. But was he talking about Jesus, since the phrase "a child is born" killeth the effort to drape it on Jesus, a far away "after" generation.

John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

The above proves that not eerything you find in the Gospel was from Jesus! Verses 6 thru 8 at least speak about "John", then we see other verses advancing the idea that the Maker of the World was in the world. You see the gimmick of peotry, since we dont know who the poet was?

If Jesus said he was not God by verse 29 of Mark 12, and many others, including his many prayers to the Lord, God, etc, can we say that the postulation put forward is correct as indicated above? Afterall, it is reported that no one can see Him and live. It is reported no one has ever seen Him!

olabowale:

is born is not a future or past event, but a present event, David! For sure Isiah and Jesus were of no same generation, so inferencing that it was Jesus that Isiagh was talking about is ridiculous! Read the "is born" as it means that time, presently! And Jesus did not have any governance, and if you call him son, you also call him father? If you do, then know that what you said happened to him on earth also happened to father. No? Prince of peace who brought about "war and not peace?"

I wonder, too. But was he talking about Jesus, since the phrase "a child is born" killeth the effort to drape it on Jesus, a far away "after" generation.

The above proves that not eerything you find in the Gospel was from Jesus! Verses 6 thru 8 at least speak about "John", then we see other verses advancing the idea that the Maker of the World was in the world. You see the gimmick of peotry, since we dont know who the poet was?

If Jesus said he was not God by verse 29 of Mark 12, and many others, including his many prayers to the Lord, God, etc, can we say that the postulation put forward is correct as indicated above? Afterall, it is reported that no one can see Him and live. It is reported no one has ever seen Him!

The above analysis gets my vote for the dumbest comment i have read on nairaland today.

Deep Sight:

Davidylan, are you running away?

I dont live on NL mind you.

^^^^Apologies. But i do hope you will find the time to address my verses. Thanks.

Deep Sight:

All right David. Still dodging explaining my verses?

Ok, I will humour you. Since you demand explanations of your verses, I will do so straight away.

On Isaiah – NOTICE that he says that the child born will be called “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father”. I ask you – is Jesus the Father? No – he is the son, and he made it very clear that he is not the Father in two statements –

“The father is greater than I” – John 14:28 and -

“Of that day no one knows, not the angels, n[b]or the son[/b], but only the Father”. Mark 13:32.

THEREFORE it is clear that when Isaiah calls him “Everlasting Father”, it is meant in a representative fashion: to wit – He represents the Father. Thus “Mighty God” must be understood in the same way: he represents God. This is clear because you cannot deny that Jesus is not the father. That much he himself made clear in the two quotes above. So Isaiah’s statement is representative. Please read the Bible with a compound approach.

On John 1:1; I will go into the Greek words that were used originally, so you will see that John 1:1 is a mistranslation. I am reaching for my exhaustive Bible Concordance.

Yes, I got it; the word “theos” translated as “God” there means, and I quote now from my copy of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. The word appears as: ό٩эӨ -

This word is “Theos” which means – (I quote) “Godly, godward.” It states that the “theos” used in that verse is of uncertain affinity, and figuratively refers like a “magistrate”. Thus a correct translation should have read “the word was godly” or “the word was divine.” This would have been in tandem with the next verse, which you should note, contradicts the first verse by stating that the word was WITH God.

Acts 20: 28 buttresses this point again -

Now, I have indulged you and answered your verses in clear and succinct terms backed by Bible reference. I have shown I do not run away or avoid questions.

Please stand up now and address my own verses, at least I have addressed yours:

Again, we start with the first verse I quoted:

Mark 10:18 – “Do not call me good, only God is good.”

Have at it, David!

You have it all sadly twisted up . . .

I posit just one verse to you - John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

I also should point out a few DELIBERATE FALLACIES in your write up -

You said: On John 1:1; I will go into the Greek words that were used originally, so you will see that John 1:1 is a mistranslation. I am reaching for my exhaustive Bible Concordance.

Yes, I got it; the word “theos” translated as “God” there means, and I quote now from my copy of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. The word appears as: ό٩эӨ -

This word is “Theos” which means – (I quote) “Godly, godward.” It states that the “theos” used in that verse is of uncertain affinity, and figuratively refers like a “magistrate”. Thus a correct translation should have read “the word was godly” or “the word was divine.” This would have been in tandem with the next verse, which you should note, contradicts the first verse by stating that the word was WITH God.

My response: Again you subtly LIE by deliberate and satanic omission. Actually John 1:1 used the greek words "Ho theos" and not merely "theos" as you claim. We know (Matthew 22:32 for example) that in the greek texts, the new testament apostles and christians used the term "Ho theos" to refer EXCLUSIVELY to the ALMIGHTY GOD and not just a figurative uncertain affinity!

Romans 9:5 buttresses this point a bit more - [size=13pt]Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.[/size]

Note here that the commas dont matter as the greek texts did not have punctuations.

Again i reject your false notion that this portion of John 1:1 (and the Word was with God) contradicts the latter portion (and the Word was God). The problem here is that you are forcefully interjecting your own human reasoning into that verse. Humanly speaking it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to be something and be with that same thing at the same time! However such impossibilities DO NOT exist where God is concerned.

Now to address your verse . . . Mark 10:18 – “Do not call me good, only God is good.”

- Firstly i don't see any contradiction with this verse AT ALL. Christ refered to Himself as God openly to the disciples when Phillip asked to be shown the father. I'm sure they would have been super confused at Mark 10:18 if they had absolutely no understanding of its meaning. Christ came in the flesh NOT AS GOD but as man to die on the cross for our sins. In that brief dispensation He was both fully man AND GOD at the same time (again a concept that is humanly impossible), it was thus possible for Him to switch seamlessly between His God-like state and man-like states. For example . . . as a man He was hungry, tired, emotional . . . as God He could walk on water, calm the storm, raise the dead, forgive sin and be a saviour at the same time . . .

Take a look at this . . . Hosea 13:4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

But all of a sudden another saviour appeared from nowhere?
- Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Although i disagree (and i will come back later to that), i must say the above is a fair attempt. Can we carry on the discussion by addressing the other quotes in my write-up. The next ones are -

1 Tim 2: 5

and

John 14: 28.

Thanks.

Deepsight,

It looks to me that for some reason you are not fully convinced about the deity of Christ?

David got it right with his last post, but perhaps I can make it clearer if you let me. A human being is made up of flesh, blood and spirit. God is made up of Holy spirit, Word (Christ) and the Father. The three components are one and agree. It is like saying 1+1+1=1, in real life this is possible if we think in terms of base 3, not our conventional 10. The bible affirms that Christ (John1:1) was not created, his being called a son is in terms of manifestation on earth. That is why him and his father are one. They have duality of existence - exist as spirit and can also exist physically. Clearly the ways of God are different from the ways of men. On earth God takes the form of a human being having in blood, flesh and spirit. The difference between God and a human being is that His spirit is not given to him by measure and that makes him superior. The Godhead can separately manifest on earth. Matter of fact the parable of the wicked husbandmen comfirm the fact that the Son's manifestation will be followed by the manifestation of the Father and the Holy spirit and all the children of God.

Jesus was a man born of the spirit of God, not carnal desires of man. He came to perform a distinct assignment and after that assignment, he took on his divine form. Notice that after his ressurrection he could appear and disappear at will, and he was not recognized by the disciples or Mary except for his voice or when he "opened" their eyes.

The Almighty Father confirmed the deity of the son, please read Hebrew 1: 8.

But I have a problem with some christians who are waiting for him to drop from the sky. That is a result of wrong interepretation of scriptures. Let me stop for now

@Davidlyan

to address your verse . . . Mark 10:18 – “Do not call me good, only God is good.”

- Firstly i don't see any contradiction with this verse AT ALL. Christ refered to Himself as God openly to the disciples when Phillip asked to be shown the father. I'm sure they would have been super confused at Mark 10:18 if they had absolutely no understanding of its meaning. Christ came in the flesh NOT AS GOD but as man to die on the cross for our sins. In that brief dispensation He was both fully man AND GOD at the same time (again a concept that is humanly impossible), it was thus possible for Him to switch seamlessly between His God-like state and man-like states. For example . . . as a man He was hungry, tired, emotional . . . as God He could walk on water, calm the storm, raise the dead, forgive sin and be a saviour at the same time . . .


@Malbron

Deepsight,

It looks to me  that for some reason you are not fully convinced about the deity of Christ?

David got it right with his last post, but perhaps I can make it clearer if you let me. A human being is made up of flesh, blood and spirit. God is made up of Holy spirit, Word (Christ) and the Father. The three components are one and agree. It is like saying 1+1+1=1, in real life this is possible if we think in terms of base 3, not our conventional 10. The bible affirms that Christ (John1:1) was not created, his being called a son is in terms of manifestation on earth. That is why him and his father are one. They have duality of existence - exist as spirit and can also exist physically. Clearly the ways of God are different from the ways of men. On earth God takes the form of a human being having in blood, flesh and spirit. The difference between God and a human being is that His spirit is not given to him by measure and that makes him superior. The Godhead can separately manifest on earth. Matter of fact the parable of the wicked husbandmen comfirm the fact that the Son's manifestation will be followed by the manifestation of the Father and the  Holy spirit and all the children of God.

Jesus was a man born of the spirit of God, not carnal desires of man. He came to perform a distinct assignment and after that assignment, he took on his divine form. Notice that after his ressurrection he could appear and disappear at will, and he was not recognized by the disciples or Mary except for his voice or when he "opened" their eyes.

The Almighty Father confirmed the deity of the son, please read Hebrew 1: 8.

But I have a problem with some christians who are waiting for him to drop from the sky. That is a result of wrong interepretation of scriptures. Let me stop for now

Good points guys. God bless you 

Dr. Shallow Sight has abandoned us again? 

Deep Sight:

Although i disagree (and i will come back later to that), i must say the above is a fair attempt. Can we carry on the discussion by addressing the other quotes in my write-up. The next ones are -

1 Tim 2: 5

and

John 14: 28.

Thanks.

There is basically no point. You're not making ANY ATTEMPT to "discuss" at all, merely throwing up a ton of verses. Have we finished addressing your mutilation of John 1? Why jump to 1 Tim 2:5?

1 Tim 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

What really is the problem here? Brother Paul is writing here to Timothy as regards the purpose of Christ's presence on earth (in the flesh) . . . which was to serve as the mediator between sinful man and a Holy God. It didnt strip Christ of His divinity. I quoted Romans earlier where the very same Paul addresses Christ AS GOD! Could Paul be speaking from both sides of the mouth or was he confused?

As regards John 14:28 . . . it is beyond belief that you skipped the earlier part of the very same John 14 where Phillip asks the very same question - show us the father and it sufficeth us. Read Christ's response.

Ok, Good debates, What is funny here is that both of you are making good points and quoting it from the bible,

DOESN'T THESE MEANS CONTRADICTIONS?

Peace

Abi o, giant contradictions that David will not accept. . . but a comprehensive reading shows emphatically that the bible does not teach that Jesus is God.

Deep Sight:

Abi o, giant contradictions that David will not accept. . . but a comprehensive reading shows emphatically that the bible does not teach that Jesus is God.

what contradictions?
u single out verses and then attempt to reconcile them with ur dogmatic and unChrist-like beliefs/opinions. , . .subsequently contradicting the intents of the bible message.
If there is any attempt at contradiction, thats what ur position on this thread represents. Its however not surprising that David has once again EXPOSED ur IGNORANCE.
I hope this thread educates ur dogmas and ignorance.

@Sharp man: « #15 on: October 29, 2009, 02:02 PM »

Quote from: olabowale on October 29, 2009, 01:48 PM
is born is not a future or past event, but a present event, David! For sure Isiah and Jesus were of no same generation, so inferencing that it was Jesus that Isiagh was talking about is ridiculous! Read the "is born" as it means that time, presently! And Jesus did not have any governance, and if you call him son, you also call him father? If you do, then know that what you said happened to him on earth also happened to father. No? Prince of peace who brought about "war and not peace?"

I wonder, too. But was he talking about Jesus, since the phrase "a child is born" killeth the effort to drape it on Jesus, a far away "after" generation.

The above proves that not eerything you find in the Gospel was from Jesus! Verses 6 thru 8 at least speak about "John", then we see other verses advancing the idea that the Maker of the World was in the world. You see the gimmick of peotry, since we dont know who the poet was?

If Jesus said he was not God by verse 29 of Mark 12, and many others, including his many prayers to the Lord, God, etc, can we say that the postulation put forward is correct as indicated above? Afterall, it is reported that no one can see Him and live. It is reported no one has ever seen Him!




The above analysis gets my vote for the dumbest comment i have read on nairaland today.

Why dont you explain how you arrive at your conclusion? Is it by refusal to lay down and accept " is born" as a future statement rather than what it really means, present in the time of Isiah? What exactly? People who use their biarn (brain" can read between the line. No?!

@Marlbron: « #20 on: October 29, 2009, 08:50 PM »

Deepsight,

It looks to me that for some reason you are not fully convinced about the deity of Christ?

David got it right with his last post, but perhaps I can make it clearer if you let me. A human being is made up of flesh, blood and spirit. God is made up of Holy spirit, Word (Christ) and the Father. The three components are one and agree.

When Human flesh dies, does the blood live on? If the answer is no, then what happened when you said "word" (Christ) died on the cross, to father or ghost/spirit?

It is like saying 1+1+1=1, in real life this is possible if we think in terms of base 3, not our conventional 10.

What kind of math is this? A new math; please expalin how this is possible since 1 is within the same numerical calculation and figures as 1 - 10!

The bible affirms that Christ (John1:1) was not created, his being called a son is in terms of manifestation on earth. That is why him and his father are one. They have duality of existence - exist as spirit and can also exist physically. Clearly the ways of God are different from the ways of men. On earth God takes the form of a human being having in blood, flesh and spirit. The difference between God and a human being is that His spirit is not given to him by measure and that makes him superior. The Godhead can separately manifest on earth. Matter of fact the parable of the wicked husbandmen comfirm the fact that the Son's manifestation will be followed by the manifestation of the Father and the Holy spirit and all the children of God.

This is unreal, since even the bold Moses and his flocks of Israelites said that the Creaytor can not be seen, and whosoever sees Him will surely dies! Is it then possible that He cheapens Himself as Jesus and allowed a slew of people for at least 33 years to see Him as a helpless son of a virgin, and go through human development, including the fear tat his mother and step father had to escape to Egypt to keep him safe and later died such a gruesome death based on what the Bible says? Is this God to you? How evil are those who cheapen the Power of the Creator!

Jesus was a man born of the spirit of God, not carnal desires of man. He came to perform a distinct assignment and after that assignment, he took on his divine form. Notice that after his ressurrection he could appear and disappear at will, and he was not recognized by the disciples or Mary except for his voice or when he "opened" their eyes.

If non carnal knowledge is the only requirement, then Adam, Lady Eve must be such amazing beings! Funny that Jesus had not appeared and disappeared in the past 2,000 years he was lifted by his Lord, his Creator!

The Almighty Father confirmed the deity of the son, please read Hebrew 1: 8.

And the speaker here is no less a johnnie comes lately "Paul and co!" How is God the Father of a creation, a developed egg from Mary? Is He the One who mount the woman by coming upon her and overshadowing her? I say thats sex, or try it with your wife, and see when she gets pregnant, deny sleeping with her, and ask if this was a miracle because all you did was come upon and over shadow her? She will remind you of sex and sex you had with her at coming upon and overshadowing time and place.

@Davidylan: « #22 on: October 30, 2009, 03:04 PM »

There is basically no point. You're not making ANY ATTEMPT to "discuss" at all, merely throwing up a ton of verses. Have we finished addressing your mutilation of John 1? Why jump to 1 Tim 2:5?

1 Tim 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

What really is the problem here? Brother Paul is writing here to Timothy as regards the purpose of Christ's presence on earth (in the flesh) . . . which was to serve as the mediator between sinful man and a Holy God. It didnt strip Christ of His divinity. I quoted Romans earlier where the very same Paul addresses Christ AS GOD! Could Paul be speaking from both sides of the mouth or was he confused?

Arent you shy to be arguing for Paul, who was neither a disciple nor an eyewitness, yet his statement is being taking as the "truth" on everything Jesus, when we see that what he says is critically opposite to what Jesus said about himself?

As regards John 14:28 . . . it is beyond belief that you skipped the earlier part of the very same John 14 where Phillip asks the very same question - show us the father and it sufficeth us. Read Christ's response.

Jesus knows that God will remain unseen, and he laughed or quitely ridiculed his ignorant companions, whom he said that their mind and faith is not mature enough to handle "strong religious process", which the "another Comforter" must come to educate the "generation" that will be able to handle it and pass it on. Never in your spiritual life confuse Jesus with God, because that will be wrong, the reason that I say you are a disbeliever!

Deep Sight:

Abi o, giant contradictions that David will not accept. . . but a comprehensive reading shows emphatically that the bible does not teach that Jesus is God.

Which is why you cant point to a single one of them in the last 2 days? You started this thread, why have you fled like the ignorant coward you truly are?

olabowale:

What kind of math is this? A new math; please expalin how this is possible since 1 is within the same numerical calculation and figures as 1 - 10!

Hasn't he explained already? Did you conveniently skip over the fact that he mentioned the base of his conclusion?

1+1+1=10 in base 3. It doesn't equal 1.