@Mushin

Let me give you a simple illustration in human term perhaps you may get the picture or otherwise.Let's assume someone cut off one of your fingers(God forbid). The first thing that happens is that,all part of your body feels the pain.But does that make you a dead man? Absolutely No. You are still Mushin.The whole part of your body feels the pain as soon as your finger was cut off but with the new technology in place, your finger will be perfectly restored and after some time, gradually, it heals and you feel better. However, the scar remains.

The above scenario was exactly what happened in the spiritual context when Jesus Christ died on the cross of calvary. Being part of God, he was cut off from God because of his love for the human race and his acceptance to substitute himself as sacrifice for our sins in order to save us. Being part of God, God felt the pain (like you will do if your finger was cut off). But, our sins(darkness) on Jesus was unbearable for God to bear not because Jesus was condemned but because of our sins and Jesus was abandoned/forsaken by God on the cross. That's why Jesus cried on the cross and said, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani!' That is to say,  My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?" he was on his own from that point till he ascended back  to God.

In relation to the above scenario, does Jesus crucifixion made God dead? Absolutely No. God remains God.After Jesus's resurrection,he ascended back to God in order to be re-united with God as before, just like your finger was restored back to you in the above scenario.However, the scar on his body still remains.This proofs that truthfully, he suffered all the pain of the crucifixion. And he's at right hand of God now supplicating on ourbehalf by showing God the scars on his body whenever Satan come to accuse of sins.

Read the following major events that took place during Jesus crucifixion, resurrection and ascension;

Darkness at mid-day
Jesus’ crucifixion began around 9 am (Mk. 15:25). For the next three hours, Jesus’ enemies mocked him (read

Matt. 27:39-44). And then at noon, something remarkable happened (read Mt. 27:45). For three hours (noon to

3 pm), “darkness fell upon all the land.”

The torn temple curtain

Read Matt. 27:50-51. Immediately after Jesus died, the curtain of the temple was “torn in two from top to

bottom.”

The temple curtain was no ordinary curtain (60 feet long, 30 feet high, and about 4 inches thick; composed of 72

squares sewn together; so heavy that it required 300 men to lift it). For it to be torn suddenly from top to bottom

(rather than gradually fraying from bottom to top) would indeed be a noteworthy event-especially for Jewish

people.

The earthquake & emptied tombs

But Jesus’ death accomplished even more for us and this is indicated by the final dramatic event. Read Matthew

27:51-53.

This earthquake was no ordinary earthquake. It occurred immediately after Jesus' death, and it opened certain

rock tombs near Golgotha-the tombs of believers (probably people came to faith in Jesus as the Messiah during

his public ministry). 36 hours later, after Jesus had been resurrected, they emerged from the cemetery and

appeared to people in Jerusalem who had known them-not as zombies, but as people who had been delivered

from death!

After the resurrection Jesus was able to eat (Luke 24:42-43). 

He showed people His hands and feet, with the nail prints in them (Luke 24:51; John 20:27), and people even

grabbed His feet and worshipped Him (Matt. 28:9).  If Jesus' body had not risen, then He would not have feet

and hands with the same holes of the nails of the crucifixion.  It is obvious that Jesus was raised in the same

body in which He died, with the same holes in His hands and feet. We see that Jesus proclaimed He had flesh

and bones. Does a "spirit body" consist of flesh and bones?  Not at all.

Finally, 1 John 2:22-23 "Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist,

the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who

confesses the Son has the Father also."

My answer to your question as a christian is that, Jesus came in human flesh and while on earth, he was worshipped by men and women and he accepted their worships. For instance, check the following:

"And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean." -Matthew 8:2

"While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live." -Matthew 9:18

"Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God." -Matthew 14:33

"Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me." -Matthew 15:25

"Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him." -Matthew 20:20

"And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him." -Matthew 28:9

"And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." -Matthew 28:17

"And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean(evil) spirit, But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him" -Mark 5:2, 6 (Note this verse pls.If Jesus was just a prophet, he won't be respected or worshipped by evil spirit like some fake prophets). All these shows that Jesus is God the son.

But now, according to the above scenario, Jesus Christ(God the son) is back with God so how do we worship God? God wants us to worship Him in spirit and in truth.In order to do this, we need to know the truth as provided by the Bible instead of following our own direction.

What is the TRUTH? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me-John14:6. In order words, because of the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross, there's no other way to worship God but through Jesus. No direct access. If you call God without through the Name of Jesus, the Name above every other name, then your worship will be in vain.Please read the ff verses for proof. Peace

Philipians 2:5-11

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

6Who, being in very naturea God,

did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

7but made himself nothing,

taking the very natureb of a servant,

being made in human likeness.

8And being found in appearance as a man,

he humbled himself

and became obedient to death—

even death on a cross!

9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place

and gave him the name that is above every name,

10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,

in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,

to the glory of God the Father.

@Kolaxy: « #32 on: Today at 03:24:59 AM »

@Mushin
Let me give you a simple illustration in human term perhaps you may get the picture or otherwise.Let's assume someone cut off one of your fingers(God forbid). The first thing that happens is that,all part of your body feels the pain.But does that make you a dead man? Absolutely No. You are still Mushin.The whole part of your body feels the pain as soon as your finger was cut off but with the new technology in place, your finger will be perfectly restored and after some time, gradually, it heals and you feel better. However, the scar remains.

Lets just accept that the finger was not crushed so badly or the tissues were dead before the reattachment operation began, since we see that some limbs are still lost even today with all the technologies in Medicine! But can the patient be scarless after the cut and the reattachment, and is your god ever going to be the same unscarrred, whole as if Jesus did not die, according to you?

The above scenario was exactly what happened in the spiritual context when Jesus Christ died on the cross of calvary. Being part of God, he was cut off from God because of his love for the human race and his acceptance to substitute himself as sacrifice for our sins in order to save us. Being part of God, God felt the pain (like you will do if your finger was cut off). But, our sins(darkness) on Jesus was unbearable for God to bear not because Jesus was condemned but because of our sins and Jesus was abandoned/forsaken by God on the cross. That's why Jesus cried on the cross and said, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani!' That is to say, My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?" he was on his own from that point till he ascended back to God.

What an explanation! What a God you have! Should we now blame the Christian God Who did not have a perfect plan or did not execute the plan, perfectly, not knowing the weakness to Jesus when it comes to pain? Is there not a better way to forgive humans, cancelling the sins without having to kill a man who couldnt handle pain? The expalantion about cheapen your collection or group of Gods, and raise more question to their authority than their mercy and kindness. Jesus seemed to stoop next to his effort in trying to help you out of sin. He did not execute his duty properly, and the effect of his death has not helped you from fornication or adultery or stealling or interest consumption, each a deadly sin plus the fact that you do not have a singularly Completely perfect God, without extensions, sometimes cut-off like what you have said above about Jesus!

In relation to the above scenario, does Jesus crucifixion made God dead? Absolutely No. God remains God.After Jesus's resurrection,he ascended back to God in order to be re-united with God as before, just like your finger was restored back to you in the above scenario.However, the scar on his body still remains.This proofs that truthfully, he suffered all the pain of the crucifixion. And he's at right hand of God now supplicating on ourbehalf by showing God the scars on his body whenever Satan come to accuse of sins.

Some thinking! Who should have the scar if you use the same analogy as in the finger and he man, to be similar to Jesus and God? Jesus will be the finger, detached according to you, hence the scar should be on the one Jesus cut from and not Jesus. So tell us who has the scar, before you are playing both ends, Jesus or the one who he was detached from and now reattached, on the left of Jesus? I want you to mention name!

Read the following major events that took place during Jesus crucifixion, resurrection and ascension;
Darkness at mid-day
Jesus’ crucifixion began around 9 am (Mk. 15:25). For the next three hours, Jesus’ enemies mocked him (read
Matt. 27:39-44). And then at noon, something remarkable happened (read Mt. 27:45). For three hours (noon to
3 pm), “darkness fell upon all the land.”
The torn temple curtain
Read Matt. 27:50-51. Immediately after Jesus died, the curtain of the temple was “torn in two from top to
bottom.”
The temple curtain was no ordinary curtain (60 feet long, 30 feet high, and about 4 inches thick; composed of 72
squares sewn together; so heavy that it required 300 men to lift it). For it to be torn suddenly from top to bottom
(rather than gradually fraying from bottom to top) would indeed be a noteworthy event-especially for Jewish
people.
The earthquake & emptied tombs
But Jesus’ death accomplished even more for us and this is indicated by the final dramatic event. Read Matthew
27:51-53.
This earthquake was no ordinary earthquake. It occurred immediately after Jesus' death, and it opened certain
rock tombs near Golgotha-the tombs of believers (probably people came to faith in Jesus as the Messiah during
his public ministry). 36 hours later, after Jesus had been resurrected, they emerged from the cemetery and
appeared to people in Jerusalem who had known them-not as zombies, but as people who had been delivered
from death!

Funny story teller. Crucifixion is not when a person was seized, but begins when he was impailed or nailed! The torment prior to it can not be counted, hence a criminal will claim that he begins serving his prison sentence from the moment he was arrested, bailed out or not!

Two things happened here in your statemet above, while the jews were killing your human god, if their "4 inches Thick" curtain in the synagogue got torned (I wonder how a yarn could be sponned to be 4 Inches thick?) they will say its because of the killing of the man they hated, yet they rejected him? Are you for real, since the Jews would have accepte him if they believed him to be more than a mere Rabbi. Read your Bible again, for the Jews said we persecute you because you said you are "god!".

And what is so interesting about the above as well is that you are saying an earthquake occurred, because Jesus died? How many people died, how much was the collateral damages; properties and lives? Even in the todays USA, earthquakes still a thing that is not a footnote as you made this one in the Bible to be! I will ignore the zombie (ressurrection thing) because I am certain you dont know anything about the Jews! You are swallowing every unreasonable most obvious tales.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Viaro: « #28 on: Today at 09:42:31 PM » And this is your best argument about God, and then the Trinity, making Jesus more important than what he really was?

Lol, did you even take the time to think at all? My comments were not the best argument about God - I was not responding to an atheistic argument about God or any deity. Sometimes it pays to look carefully at what people are saying and not interject with your own polarisations. As for the question of the Trinity, I already hinted Deep Sight that I would invite him to consider some of my views in an amicable discussion. I really don't see what sense your tales are bearing other than making illations that are far removed from my comments.

Who would know Jesus better, you or Jesus?

He knows better than anyone, and Muhammad has no clue.

@Deep Sight,

Lol, I sense some impatience in your response. .  but a friend sometimes needs to be attended. I already said that I would invite you to a discussion on this subject in detail at some point in the futute, but only posted some observations about the way you drew your conclusions on "rationalizations". Be that as it may, I'll make a few comments to respond to your rejoinder.

Deep Sight:

So don't worry about my articulation of God: as far as this discussion is concerned, we may limit ourselves to the foregoing: namely that he is perfect; but if that is disputed; then let us at least say he is great: much greater in every respect than any human being. Happy? We proceed!

Slow down, dude!   Don't cheat with such inconsequentials in as much as I was not arguing the perfection or greatness of God. If I was looking at those properties, at least they were not drawn from your previous comments - and that would be discussion for another day, in so far as both properties are relative. Neither perfection nor greatness stand on their own without some reference to other standards against which you measure such ideas. So, I'll just tuck it away for another day.

Don't worry about the word "rationalize." You seem to be placing too much emphasis on that word.

Okay, if you say so. However, I wasn't placing that much emphasis on that word; at least, it wasn't intentional. I zeroed in on that word specifically because that is the foundation of your comments - for if thou did not try to "rationalize" anything thereto, your inferences would not be factored around comments of His being "capable" of the courage you sought in Him that you envisaged in humanity. So again, I shall be happy to contain your request to play down on your "rationalize".

I simply meant in general terms that which seems to approach common sense, or the obvious. For example, if Mr. X were to state: "that goat in my yard is almighty-God in goat-form" - i might reply - "can anybody rationalize the almighty as an animal - less than a human being?". There would be no need to fly down on the word - "rationalize" here, because the hardened anti-rationalist can easily argue: God is omni-potent - accordingly he may take the form of a goat if he pleases."

Lol, you're still circling around the drama of "rationalizations", dear amico mio. If you may, I could take up that idea with you at another time and show you what you're essentially missing. Suffice to say here that your analogy is stretching things too far. Some cultures indeed believe that divinity permeates all things, including bovines - in which case the cow is held sacred in Hinduism. I don't have a firsthand knowledge of their scriptures, but secondhand sources have quoted the ancient Hindu scriptures in Rig Veda 6:28 as saying, "Cows are God they seem to me to be Indra, the God of Heaven". On that grounds, you may apply your "hardened anti-rationalist" argument without any concerns to draw forth any comments from me. What you should understand here is that, while you are unable to envisage Christ as God (which is what pertains to the Christian faith), there are other religions that see bovines as God - that is where your analogy should apply its argument, and not transferring allusions of Hinduism to Christianity.

It is for this reason of the Hindu example that I'm not quite confident that this part of your quote is balanced:

One thing which is per force agreed among all persons and institutions who sucscibe to the idea of God, is that He is very great indeed - certainly much greater than human beings in all respects - yes?

I would have let that pass without a comment; but Deep Sight amico mio, you may not have reasoned out your premise quite well. What would you have said, therefore, to the Hindu who reads the statement in Rig Veda 6:28 that "Cows are God" and still has no qualms holding that the idea of God's greatness? Between the human being and the cows, you may have deep troubles with the Incarnation of Christ who the Biblical prophets declare to be God; but you might as well scratch your head for a while and lambaste the Hindus for declaring a bovine to be God - either position does not evade the idea of the "perfection" and "greatness" of God in making such statements, even where they are in strict disagreement in their distinct world views and belief systems.

Your problem, dear Deep Sight, as I said previously, is that you're trying to define who 'God' should be for other people in their belief structures; whereby if their views hold differently from yours at any point, your own belief system receives a vibration.

In such issues, my attitude is sometimes the one I recommended to you earlier: "you may hold your silence and observe without trying to define for them what they should believe, especially where you're not inclined to holding the very axioms about the Almighty that you might grant unto others." This was the very reason why I didn't want to take you to task on the singularity that you defined sometime as your own 'God' - an idea that I could so very easily waste in minutes and consign to the waste bin of Nairaland!

However, my soft-ball approach towards your 'singularity' god was to let you hold your own views if they make you happy, without flogging you into my own belief system through the back door. I would much rather invite you (and I'm actually inviting you) to consider embracing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which by far is more signal and rational than any 'singularity' project that you might betake yourself to.

It is not as if your arguments make for substance that could be sustained if I were to call you out to discuss your own 'God/god'. It is far easier to trounce the beliefs of other people, than to talk about and rationally defend yours. This kind of religious game-tweezers are often used to draw out unnecessary arguments in the Religion Board, and there's hardly anyone who has not used it at one time or another - Theists (Muslims, Christians, Grail Messengers, etc), Deists, Orientalists, Agnostics, Atheists. . or self-acclaimed satanists. And should that same tweezer be used to pluck your deism apart, you might be surprised to find it was all feather and no flesh. That is something I shy away from doing. . unless you'd be thirsty enough to see your cherished beliefs thoroughly excoriated and reprobated. Viaro is at hand to help do that very thing _{but he is not willing to go there . .  at least, not now}.

So please leave off on the word 'rationalize" - as an aside i can tell you that my perception of God is via intuition and the Spiritual: i "rationalize" only for the purpose of discussion and philosophy.

But can you ever do anything else? Whether for the purpose of a discussion ([b]p[/b]olitical, [b]p[/b]hilosophical, [b]p[/b]arabolical, [b]p[/b]aradoxical, or any other [b]p[/b]aradigm that comes to mind) or otherwise merely making statements, you can't seem to help yourself to 'rationalize' - but there, I acquiesce to let off on that word, never mind that I've tried to show why I used it to help you there.

I have no idea if i can endure such. However I know very well that throughout history men have endured even worse forms of barbaric and inhumane torture when trying to protect their families or loved ones, without asking anyone to "let the cup pass" over their heads.

There again, you're trailing off on assumptions. You may wish to qualify the set of "worse forms of barbaric and inhumane torture", but what do you understand by the "cup" that Christ spoke of? You assume that was a lack of "courage", no? Deep Sight, you're making me feel sorry for you.

If you will study in particular the mental aspects of the oriental marshall arts, you will find that it has long been considered a thing of honour to endure pain and death for an honorable cause. There have been many hundreds of thousands of human beings throughout history who have endured such unflinchingly; certain of their cause, and the purpose for which they fight. There have been others who have volunteerd outright for such, as opposed to seeking for a "cup to pass over" their heads.

There's NONE I have ever come across who understood what the "cup" meant and stood unflinching in the face of the torture they were to endure. Please, amico. . try and define for yourself what that "cup" actually was, before making irrational assumptions about others in history. I know, you might come back asking me to do so. . but no, I would rather request that you do so yourself and let's discuss further, since you already are drawing conclusions about the "cup" as to suppose that there have been "have been many hundreds of thousands of human beings" who endured the "cup" unflinchingly! Christ was well-aware of the physical sufferings that many people have had to endure before that point of His Cross, and also how many more would have to go through more severe physical sufferings. He knew all that, and yet had spoken of His death as something He looked forward to, not one that He lacked courage to endure.

Let us in this briefly and sincerely return to the first point i made - namely that God is perfect, or very great indeed.

Phew! Could I ask that we save this interesting bit until another time, huh? Not that I'm shying away from discussing it; but more because I may not have the time during the next few months to do so and keep up with it. Besides, the "perfection" and "very great" you're assuming do not mean that every world view cannot preserve these two properties in however and whatever way they speak about 'God' in their world views - I gave the example of the cow/bovine in Hinduism. But I shall only grant you a few comments thereto in my subsequent reply.

Viaro, i apologize in advance for this remark: but it seems you are employing unpardonable double standards here.

Maybe, maybe not - and my apologies if that is how you assume my comments. Friends who are honest can tell us the grey areas in our ideas, and that is what I appreciate. So no offences there.

Here is my reason. Under Christian doctrine, Jesus was unblemished: without sin - and therefore perfect. This perfection streams from his very divinity - the fact that he is God HIMSELF in human form. God is not capable of sin; and accordingly Jesus could not sin.

The above sentence shows one thing: namely that the attributes of Jesus spring from his nature as God - his divinity, which is perfect. Thus he does not sin because he is God.

Er, Deep Sight, my understanding has always brought me into deep trouble with my Christian brethren - many times. I'm not one who is a 'traditionalist', in the sense of holding on to the calcified interpretations of many theologians. However, I do not draw my understanding of Jesus' perfection on the summations you gave above:

* His very divinity

* the idea that He (Christ in flesh) could not sin (ie., incapable of sin)

No, that is not how I see things - for the Bible does not teach me so. The factors you mentioned (unblemished, without sin, and could not sin) are all matters of His Humanity, not His Divinity/Deity.

Not many people realise this, but there was a question asked long ago in Job 14:4 - "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one." The doctrine of the Biblical prophets is that humanity was held captive in sin - 'we are all as an unclean thing,' says Isaiah 64:6; and many other instances of the same truth. The question here is that those qualities (unblemished, without sin, and could not sin) are issues which point to the Humanity of Christ, issues which hold their merit and veracity in the life and demonstration of His Humanity.

If they were a question of His Divinity/Deity, we could not speak about them while looking at Him in His Humanity. On the one hand, it is said that 'God cannot be tempted with evil,' James 1:13. Sin is not the same as being tempted; the latter (tempted) is a necessary factor for the former (sin) to occur - see James 1:15 ('when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin'). Now, if the "sin" you're speaking of was a matter of His Divinity, then you would have to deal with the first equation ('God cannot be tempted with evil') before going on to talk about the resultant effect - 'blemish'.

But how do the prophets speak about these qualities in Christ - in His Divinity or His Humanity? I think as you search the Bible, you will find that such are spoken of as regarding His Humanity - He was tempted in the flesh:

* For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched
with the feeling of our infirmities;
but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Hebrews 4:15

It was not a matter of His Deity by which one could argue that He was without sin; for as regarding His Deity, 'God cannot be tempted with evil'; but only in the flesh could it be said that He was "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin". What was the point of recording the fact that He was actually tempted if not to show that such an experience was only possible in His Humanity? It was in His Humanity that He was "touched with the feeling of our infirmities"; it was in His Humanity that it could be said that He was "without blemish" (1 Pet. 1:19).

In all of this, the idea of the "perfection" which you assumed upon His Divinity is a non-starter, because those factors are spoken of on the basis of His Humanity. It would be practically impossible from a theological perspective to assume that He was "unblemished" if that quality had not been demonstrated in His Humanity - just as well it would be useless to speak of His "temptation" if it was not predicated on His Humanity. It was in His Humanity that Job asked the question: "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one"; and it is in His Humanity that Christ answered that very pivotal question.

I hope you can already see where i am going with this. You accept the above proposition: but when it comes to other patterns of his bahaviour you conveniently flip the table.

I do not accept your proposition, and consequently did not flip the tables. As shown above, one has to view issues of His life on the basis of His Humanity, and not misconstrue matters which are not founded upon Divinity to then make unjustified inferences.

You are happy to ascribe the prayer in Gethsemane to his "human" fear - hello - why can we not also conclude that since he was "human" then he could sin?

I knew that's where you were going - and I anticipated you well enough to explain just above that you're making illations that confuse between His Deity and Humanity. It was in His Humanity that He could experience "temptation"; in His Humanity He was "touched with the feeling of our infirmities"; in His Humanity He was "without blemish"; in His Humanity He was "without sin". I have just walked you through your assumptions, and hope you can easily decipher where you got it all skewed in your arguments.

The truth is this: your line of reasoning, if followed, should also apply to such attributes as fear: namely - he is God, and as such can know no fear. He is perfect, and as such will be stout hearted in facing the sacrifice necessary to redeem his creatures. And if not perfect, he is at least greater than all men, and as such, would not make a request which mere mortals have in many instances risen above.

For the very reason that your own reasoning is without substance, I cannot answer roll-calls on your behalf. If anything in my reasoning, I have shown how issues are presented by the Biblical prophets between His Deity/Divinity and Humanity. You can choose to disagree and put words in their mouth, no consequences to me at all, as long as you cannot controvert my reasoning by your misapplications.

This is all the more central when you consider the following (christian doctrine) -

  1. He knew the purpose and reason for the sacrifice even before coming into the world

  2. He loved his creatures and wanted to redeem them accordingly

Viaro, if Jesus knew the purpose of the sacrifice, it would be grossly irresponsible and cowardly of him to request that it should not take place. And given the fact that he is supposed to be almighty God himself, such a request becomes both paradoxical and demeaning of his inner nature.

Hahaha, this is the most idiotic assumption I could ever consider from any one of my friends. Now, I'm not calling you an idiot, nor being pejorative against your person; but your assumptions are quite cowardly and not man enough to see that He NEVER at anytime made a "request" that His sacrifice would not take place. If anything, not only did He frequently tell His disciples that such an event was inevitable (Matthew 16:21; 17:21-22; 20:17-18; John 12:24); but also He remonstrated Peter to not prevent this very "cup" from occuring as predetermined - 'Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?' (John 18:11). He also stated: "But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!" (Luke 12:50). No, Deep Sight, you're letting off gas and not substance - Jesus did not that His sacrifice should not take place, else you might have ignored the other verses that showed His willingness to betake Himself to that event.

Besides, what are you arguing now? Because I notice a subtle switch. . was it a matter of His "courage" or rather His "request" about your postulations? However, even if we grant your own persuasions especially about your second point ('He loved his creatures and wanted to redeem them accordingly'), what is stopping you from embracing the finished and accomplished work of His sacrifice? The question is not that it is still pending - no, rather it is accomplished! What are you waiting for?

But your unwillingness to embrace what you acknowledge yourself is what is most pitiful! This was why I said earlier: "you may hold your silence and observe without trying to define for them what they should believe, especially where you're not inclined to holding the very axioms about the Almighty that you might grant unto others." Sure, you are willing to grant unto Christians that Christ both loved and came to redeem us - but even in that acknowledgement, you're not inclined to embracing the very thing that you acquiesce to. Which is why I wonder what fruit you truly expect to have from this religious game tweezers you're playing? I just can't wait to have time enough after the coming months to draw you out to a discussion and trounce your cherished 'singularity god' - however philosophical you may try to be. Patience, the time will come!

The above regardless, most shocking is that you missed the core element of my post:

There it is: the core element of my surmise is not even the fear and courage element: it is the evident dichotomy of will.

And your point still is. . .? Lol, you're trying too hard, Deep Sight bro. . damn too hard! But I shall go it easy with you for now.

If Jesus is truly God, or part of a trinity as you claim, then his oneness with God will cardinally be a oneness of will, even before a oneness in any other respect. It is inconceivable, that we should speak of a divine being who is God, that could have a will different from the will of God. Haba, let's try to be sincere please: i cannot see how his appearance in human form would suddenly destroy his divine will, or the oneness of his will with God.

There is no grounds to assume a dichotomy of 'wills' - if there was, you have not demonstrated such a grounds but are only yapping. I would like to invite you at a set time to discuss why I believe in the Trinity - the time will come. For me, it is not a matter of additions and multiplications, but of subsistence (you can hold me to that statement when the time comes). And yes, in that discussion I will share many matters with you about the divine hypostasis of Christ being both Deity and Human. I shall not preempt it here; but mark my summations until then.

To that i say - give me a break! Almighty God in human form must per force be a cut above ordinary humans! - As is the case with the fact of his being without sin!

You have your deserved break; and yes, He is above "ordinary" human beings - including the question you expressed as regarding His "without sin" which I have discussed. You may not be inclined to what Christians believe. . just as you might find Hinduism repulsive in making cows or bovines into God. I may not find your 'singularity god' repulsive either - but I shall find it hard to resist making your arguments for your own 'god' reprobate when the time comes. Enjoy.

@ Viaro. . . I salute u. U are a bad guy. . . in fact, u are the baddest guy!! 

I would love to discuss certain things with you as I think you are one of the few intellectually honest religionists I have ever come across (outside of my profs and Pastor AIO). But u seem like someone who will not stubbornly deny something that makes sense, but will carefully consider it thoroughly before drawing any conclusions. I respect that very very much. Add that to the fact that u are not full of urself, parading urself as some sort of intellectual heavyweight (ok, maybe sometimes  ) speaks volumes. I bow. 

Hellow kolaxy and all,

Thanks to you for the responses. I'll respond to particularly your reply later, God's willing.

More-over, you all seem to have not noticed the second part of my question, and thats: can Christians produce a single verse from the Bible where Jesus ever claimed to have two natures, or where he claimed to have a divine and human nature all in one, being fully man, and fully God, and where he made such a distinction?

Thanks once again.

@Viaro: « #34 on: Today at 10:37:44 AM »  

@olabowale,
Quote from: olabowale on Yesterday at 11:41:57 PM
@Viaro: « #28 on: Today at 09:42:31 PM »  And this is your best argument about God, and then the Trinity, making Jesus more important than what he really was?

Lol, did you even take the time to think at all? My comments were not the best argument about God - I was not responding to an atheistic argument about God or any deity. Sometimes it pays to look carefully at what people are saying and not interject with your own polarisations. As for the question of the Trinity, I already hinted Deep Sight that I would invite him to consider some of my views in an amicable discussion. I really don't see what sense your tales are bearing other than making illations that are far removed from my comments.

i thought, (i saw) and i responded to your now confessed "not the best argument about God", and the gibbrish that followed! And the tale i weaved made better sense, since it critiqued your thought and assertion of jesus a human being that you magically and I hate magic turn to God! I stand behind mine and you already back tracked from yours! Below was  your statement, which i responded to, noticing that he, Viaro has his own Ideology, subject in every respect: Can Viaro apply his own suggestion to himself? Never!

@Viaro: « #28 on: Today at 09:42:31 PM »  
Quote
Second, there is no need to "rationalize" God Almighty in any form. To have a need to do so is to open up many doors to box Him up in certain ways that may be polarised towards your own ideology as distinct from the persuasions of other people. In this case, you're hoping to set constraints and limitations for the Almighty such that you tend to react to whatever goes beyond the perimeters of your own assumptions concerning those constraints. It's okay to "rationalize" if that helps you - but the results of such would best serve your own constraints and limitations, where nothing else could be possible.




[Quote]He knows better than anyone, and Muhammad has no clue.[/quote]I sure know a human being when I see one. And definitely, it is recorded in the Bible, be it Old or New Testament, since its more than one testament (lol) that no eye can see Jesus and live, a statement buttressed by Jesus begging God at Gashesmane, saying it is God Will that must prevail and not Jesus will. Now open that inner eye and employ some thinking here. Is Jesus and God the same? No! If Muhammad (as) did not know about the Creator, can anyone have believed He is not a dying God, since your proposition about God is that he is dead; check you statement about the "dead Jesus for a badly calculated 3 days from the Jewish understanding!" Again, while you demeaned Jesus as klled by ordinary ragtagged kasock wearing, jews, Muhammad said his Lord prevented him from expiring on the hanging tree so that his soul is not accursed! You dont know about that, do you since you are thinking vert deeply, you need to think deeper so tat understanding may come to you! No? Dont remain ignorant, man.

And if you know enough about Jesus, you would have read him saying he is not God! You are worshipping a fake God, if you worship Jesus!

@Mushin

Hellow kolaxy and all,

Thanks to you for the responses. I'll respond to particularly your reply later, God's willing.

More-over, you all seem to have not noticed the second part of my question, and thats: can Christians produce a single verse from the Bible where Jesus ever claimed to have two natures, or where he claimed to have a divine and human nature all in one, being fully man, and fully God, and where he made such a distinction?

Thanks once again.

Thanks Mushin.

The following chart should help you see the two natures of Jesus "in action":

  As GOD                                                                                        As  MAN 
He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33).                     He worshiped the Father (John 17).
He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8 )                He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5).
He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)                        He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37)
He is prayed to (Acts 7:59).                                      He prayed to the Father (John 17).
He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15).                      He was tempted (Matt. 4:1).
He knows all things (John 21:17).                            He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52).
He gives eternal life (John 10:28).                            He died (Rom. 5:8 ).
All the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9).       He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39).

@olabowale,

Lets just accept that the finger was not crushed so badly or the tissues were dead before the reattachment operation began, since we see that some limbs are still lost even today with all the technologies in Medicine! But can the patient be scarless after the cut and the reattachment, and is your god ever going to be the same unscarrred, whole as if Jesus did not die, according to you?

When we consider the scars on Jesus hands and feet from the nails, and in his side from the spear, we remember the severe pain and suffering Jesus must have gone through. But the story doesn't end there. Much like our scars, Jesus scars also remind us of God's grace. Jesus scars remind us that the grave is not the end but the beginning. God is not just the God of those who still walk on this earth; God is the God of all creation, God is the God of all the saints who have gone on before us.

Jesus scars remind us that even a large stone covering a tomb cannot stop God. When the world said, "It is finished" God said, "Oh no, I've only just begun." "Death does not have the final word, I do."

Jesus scars remind us that you won't find the living among the dead. The open tomb, and resurrected Christ, clearly tells us that nothing, absolutely nothing can separate us from the love and grace of God. Jesus is the truth and the resurrection, and because he lives we will live also.

To God be the glory, for the great things he has done!

@kOLAXY,but what is really needed for the atonement of the sin of humanity,is it both jesus human and jesus god or just simply only jesus human?

[size=13pt]Topic. . .

Jesus was never a devined guy . he's nothing and was as the rest human being before i was sentenced to death. Ok, my question is if really the bible have thought you Jesus is Devine and all source of good names why then he wasn't able to escape death and not even when he call upon God to take away the Cup from him. . . ?. The fact is the Christians have been blind folded with the bible and you know, the authors planed all the many lies inside the book but still yet, they are notice after reading it . Dont you think there's something wrong here?[/size]

Viaro: your extended reply only amounted to one thing; that which i had predicted in my post - that you would resort to the very old defense of Christ's "human part".

I am terribly unimpressed.

I am very sleepy now, and will try to address you later: but i will just say this for now -

I honestly wonder what you presume the Creator of the Universe to be, that, in any form, he should be subject to fear, or request of himself the cancelation of a predestined event. No matter how long your epistles, you will never make sense on this.

And, i cannot resist pointing out that you entirely made it appear as though Christ never asked for the sacrifice to be shelved. HE DID.

Last word: I have noticed, for many years; that it often takes very long essays to attempt to refute simple and obvious truth or logic.

That which is true, need no long words.

We go talk later. Gnite.

And as a slight aside. . .  i do wonder why my every criticism of dogma must be met (by you, Viaro) with odd insinuations regarding my attempts to expound the meaning of the origin of existence, as i see it. Not even the fact that i base such criticisms on quotes from the Bible stops your reversion to my cosmological and abstract postulations.

I would have thought that the one had nothing to do with the other.

[Quote]
The One
The primeval Source of Being is the One and the Infinite, as opposed to the many and the finite [/Quote]

Thank goodness. Can you now find a place and a sense, a reason in that which i had tried to propose: namely: the nature of God as being a oneness of infinity?

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-355867.0.html

Be very well prepared, when you come, Viaro.

@uplawal

@kOLAXY,but what is really needed for the atonement of the sin of humanity,is it both jesus human and jesus god or just simply only jesus human?

Answer: The BLOOD of JESUS

As descendants of Adam and Eve, all people inherit the effects of the Fall. In our fallen state, we are subject to opposition and temptation. When we give in to temptation, we are alienated from God, and if we continue in sin, we experience spiritual death, being separated from His presence. We are all subject to temporal death, which is the death of the physical body.

The only way for us to be saved is for someone else to rescue us. We need someone who can satisfy the demands of justice—standing in our place to assume the burden of the Fall and to pay the price for our sins. Jesus Christ has always been the only one capable of making such a sacrifice.

From before the Creation of the earth, the Saviour has been our only hope for "peace in this world, and eternal life in the world to come".

Only He had the power to lay down His life and take it up again. From His mortal mother, Mary, He inherited the ability to die. From His immortal Father, He inherited the power to overcome death. He declared, "As the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself" (John 5:26).

Only He could redeem us from our sins. God the Father gave Him this power . The Saviour was able to receive this power and carry out the Atonement because He kept Himself free from sin: "He suffered temptations but gave no heed unto them" . Having lived a perfect, sinless life, He was free from the demands of justice. Because He had the power of redemption and because He had no debt to justice, he could pay the debt for those who repent.

muhsin:

Hi all,

Say that Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) is the god and the human at the same time, how can a God feels hungry? Or cry? Or be vulnerable to death? Or crucifixion? See, I am not looking for a long, long argument here, but I feel its hard to digest such a concept for me. So I came to where I might find answer but you guys are running away. Why? Thanks

His flesh houses God's Spirit, you can destroy the house but can never destroy what's inside, the flesh feels hungry, the flesh cried as its 100% human, but the Spirit within Him is 100% divine.
100% human 100% divine romans 1:3 seed of David according to the flesh, 4 Declared to be the Son of God according to the Spirit of Holiness, by the resurrection from the dead(Jesus's resurrection put away all doubts that God was residing in Him)

@Kolaxy,

Will respond to your response shortly, God's willing. I am very busy now. Thanks

Krayola:

@ Viaro. . . I salute u. U are a bad guy. . . in fact, u are the baddest guy!! 

I would love to discuss certain things with you as I think you are one of the few intellectually honest religionists I have ever come across (outside of my profs and Pastor AIO). But u seem like someone who will not stubbornly deny something that makes sense, but will carefully consider it thoroughly before drawing any conclusions. I respect that very very much. Add that to the fact that u are not full of urself, parading urself as some sort of intellectual heavyweight (ok, maybe sometimes  ) speaks volumes. I bow. 

HAHAHA!! Krayola, my p-a-l! I wish mavenbox could see this and understand how we tease each other! "Baddest guy". . lol. But "intellectual"? I haven't come close to that as yet!

Hi again Deep Sight,

Deep Sight:

Viaro: your extended reply only amounted to one thing; that which i had predicted in my post - that you would resort to the very old defense of Christ's "human part".

I am terribly unimpressed.

It was not my intension to either impress or dismay anyone, even my dear friends. But sometimes when we attend to friends, one should be both astute as well gentle to meet pressing needs - the need(?) to call our attention to a balance that is all too frequently taken for granted. In this case, you had taken far too many things for granted as regards the hypostasis of Christ in His Deity and Humanity.

It was not an 'old defense' I'd tried to proffer - but if it be read that way, then perhaps you were all too frequently repeating a perennial non sequitur as regards the Life and Ministry of Christ. With particular reference to the very issues you mentioned (unblemished, without sin, and could not sin), my answers were tailored along those same issues to show how you were arguing away from the very things stated by the Biblical prophets. If no one addresses your bewilderments in these issues, you might hop on the mistaken idea that ipso facto the things you argued away stand "as is".

I am very sleepy now, and will try to address you later: but i will just say this for now -

I honestly wonder what you presume the Creator of the Universe to be, that, in any form, he should be subject to fear, or request of himself the cancelation of a predestined event. No matter how long your epistles, you will never make sense on this.

Let me begin by saying that you're pandering to an old and very unimpressive cop out offered by weak minds. If you have already cemented your mind that no matter what someone says, they won't make sense on that subject, it perhaps indicates that you're not willing to even consider what they say - regardless whether anyone else makes absolute sense from that or not. That is not a healthy way to discuss anything at all.

However, there are quite a load of stuff you're mixing up for yourself, Deep Sight. Please bear with me:

(a) yours: "I honestly wonder what you presume the Creator of the Universe to be"
Lol, if you and I are to discuss the One whom we address as "the Creator of the Universe", it definitely would not lead to the same identity of Being. Nada. Zilch. This is why I often allow other people to hold their own ideas without trying to define for them how they should think about their own belief within their world views. As a Christian, what I presume of the Creator of the universe has very little to add to your position as a Deist. We may share ideas here and there of our concepts of "the Creator"; but when it comes to tenets and fundamental convictions in our world views, our presumptions do not matter at all at the end of the day - in as much as we cannot marry both world views at any altar.

(b) yours: "in any form"
No, let us not stretch simple statements to uncategorized innuendos. The Bible is clear and direct on this one - and the collective statements do not lead to the idea of "any" form; but rather specifically the Incarnation of the Son of God in Humanity. For example, Philippians 2:8 bears the simple testimony that He was "being found in fashion as a man"; and that is what He assumed in His Incarnation. To stretch that declaration to "any form", dear Deep Sight, would be asking us Christians to lose our identity and turn to Hindus who assert in the Scripture that 'cows are God' (no offense intended).

(c) yours: "he should be subject to fear"
He was not subject to 'fear' in the context you're forcing into the texts to draw the discussion towards your turf. I may grant you that He made Himself subject to so many things in human experience; and yes, I've already highlighted one among many in my previous replies: He was "touched with the feeling of our infirmities" (Heb. 4:15). Why? For the very simple reason that He took upon Himself our own humanity that He might experience what we experience - yet be "without sin" in all those experiences (see Heb. 2:16 - it was not the nature of angels He took upon Him, but rather our humanity). However, He was not subject to fear in the sense of becoming "afraid", which I sense has been the problematic pointer for you. Quite simply, it implies 'reverence'.

(d) yours: "request of himself the cancelation of a predestined event"
We could take this one in some depth, if you may. I already offered some preliminary pointers to the fact that His collective statements both before and after His prayer in Gethsemane do not lead to that conclusion. But if you're already made up to be disinclined to consider it, I'll forebear.

And, i cannot resist pointing out that you entirely made it appear as though Christ never asked for the sacrifice to be shelved. HE DID.

Nope, He did not. I asked you to put on your thinking cap and think carefully about the significance of the "cup". You summarily breezed your way around that to surmise that He was "cowardly" and consequently that He requested to have the sacrifice shelved. That, amico mio, is your own world; but shout as loud as you can about it, it gathers no moss!

Last word: I have noticed, for many years; that it often takes very long essays to attempt to refute simple and obvious truth or logic.

That which is true, need no long words.

Hehe, Deep Sight my man! Do you know the hard work it took for others to read some of your own long posts? Are you implying that 'long posts' are synonymous with 'duplicity'? If that's a yes, then translate on yours first!

No, Deep Sight. . sometimes, answers could be brief, comprehensive, or simply reserved (where one gives none, so that they don't waste their time on non-essentials). I like to use the third when some posts are just going nowhere; the first type are appetizers. The comprehensive answers sometimes are necessary to either prod your fellow discussant to look inwards and check themselves for missing clues that they took for granted; or otherwise to help make much needed clarification.

Deep Sight:

And as a slight aside. . .  i do wonder why my every criticism of dogma must be met (by you, Viaro) with odd insinuations regarding my attempts to expound the meaning of the origin of existence, as i see it.

Huh?

Not even the fact that i base such criticisms on quotes from the Bible stops your reversion to my cosmological and abstract postulations.

Huh-huh??

I would have thought that the one had nothing to do with the other.

Okay, I decode now. Plenty apologies.

But hang on mate. . why do you like to join issues with Christians on their world view regarding especially the Deity of Christ and their convictions about God, and yet hope to have your own cherished beliefs enjoy a sort of immunity - like those in a military barracks?

Okay, I'm sorry to have probed your cosmological views and persuasions about 'God' in your own world view. In an open forum (I suppose), the sort of illations you make about "singularity" , "oneness" and "infinity" might cause some internal combustion in many readers who think along the same premise that you claim as grounds for your ideas - that premise being "science/ scientific". You see, when people read whatever anyone says and affirms them to be "scientific", they are bound to step into the threads and challenge what they read there.

I concur that we should not blur the lines: "the one had nothing to do with the other" - agreed. Point is that, when you feel that others don't make sense and therefore you must trounce their convictions, they might step up and ask if you're prepared to have yours in the crucible in the same manner.

[quote]The One
The primeval Source of Being is the One and the Infinite, as opposed to the many and the finite

Thank goodness. Can you now find a place and a sense, a reason in that which i had tried to propose: namely: the nature of God as being a oneness of infinity?

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-355867.0.html

Be very well prepared, when you come, Viaro.[/quote]

Hehehe. . are you serious? Pal, you're begging for some serious surgery. . and my scimitar is not blunt as yet!

Re: Do Christians Worship The Human Or Devine Jesus?

What came about the separation of the two?

Now Viaro, let us go through your response with a fine comb.

My preliminary remarks are these: that you have left much hanging, and regretably appear to be one of the dogmatic lot prepared to sacrifice even the most glaring scripture in favour of dogma created by the church.

Let's have at it -

Deep Sight amico mio, you may not have reasoned out your premise quite well. What would you have said, therefore, to the Hindu who reads the statement in Rig Veda 6:28 that "Cows are God" and still has no qualms holding that the idea of God's greatness? Between the human being and the cows, you may have deep troubles with the Incarnation of Christ who the Biblical prophets declare to be God; but you might as well scratch your head for a while and lambaste the Hindus for declaring a bovine to be God - either position does not evade the idea of the "perfection" and "greatness" of God in making such statements, even where they are in strict disagreement in their distinct world views and belief systems.

I was mildly amused by this. It appears to me that you missed the gamut of the example I was giving. Before saying anything else, let me say this: any religion is free to call whatsoever it pleases ALMIGHTY GOD: Hinduism may call cows God, adherents of the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star may call Olumba Olumba God, and the mainstream (indoctrinated) Christian dogmatist may call Jesus of Nazareth God. None of this was of any concern to my analogy: to wit: that in simple terms, certain things may appear to the neutral observer as being ridiculous. That’s why I used the word “rationalize”, which you so vehemently flew down on. Guess what – if that word gives you sleepless nights (as it well may, clinging as you do to ancient dogma which can stand no rational test; nay – test of sanity) – then, I free you: let’s drop that word entirely, and face the main discourse: that way, freed from irrelevant distractions, you may see what precious little substance is contained in your surmise.

Let’s go. . .

Your problem, dear Deep Sight, as I said previously, is that you're trying to define who 'God' should be for other people in their belief structures; whereby if their views hold differently from yours at any point, your own belief system receives a vibration.

I define God as the primordial uncaused cause and prime mover of all contingent existence: the core egg of all existence: and I definitively challenge you or any other theist to show me why that definition is wrong: if you can do this, I pledge you $1 Million USD in addition to my left testicle.

In such issues, my attitude is sometimes the one I recommended to you earlier: "you may hold your silence and observe without trying to define for them what they should believe

Thus no man may preach? Do not advance the impression that my active propagation of my world-view unhinges you? Free Speech, brother.

It is not as if your arguments make for substance that could be sustained if I were to call you out to discuss your own 'God/god'

I am certain that a philosopher propounding an uncaused cause which is infinite in its nature, and drawing there-from one great harmony to which all living beings should subscribe, in the singular greatness of all things made by God, makes more substance to steady minds free from indoctrination, and is more bestirring of both the intellect and the spirit than the preposterous, bizarre and outlandish commitment of you, an African foreigner, to worship a fellow human being who lived in Israel a while back as almighty GOD. Have you studied the characteristics of cults?

Nevertheless with the foregoing, I merely digress, and stupidly feed my restlessness on some of the rather acerbic but non-rigorous contentions that you set forth.

Let me put such firmly aside: and move speedily and strictly to business.

There again, you're trailing off on assumptions. You may wish to qualify the set of "worse forms of barbaric and inhumane torture", but what do you understand by the "cup" that Christ spoke of? You assume that was a lack of "courage", no? Deep Sight, you're making me feel sorry for you.

There's NONE I have ever come across who understood what the "cup" meant and stood unflinching in the face of the torture they were to endure. Please, amico. . try and define for yourself what that "cup" actually was, before making irrational assumptions about others in history. I know, you might come back asking me to do so. . but no, I would rather request that you do so yourself and let's discuss further, since you already are drawing conclusions about the "cup" as to suppose that there have been "have been many hundreds of thousands of human beings" who endured the "cup" unflinchingly! Christ was well-aware of the physical sufferings that many people have had to endure before that point of His Cross, and also how many more would have to go through more severe physical sufferings. He knew all that, and yet had spoken of His death as something He looked forward to, not one that He lacked courage to endure.

I shall not waste your time on this: let us assume (and in fairness, I actually accept) that the “cup” referred not just to the impending physical torture, but to the imminent spectre of the gruesome burden of sin – or a sinful nature being cast upon a pure divine nature – which is what Christ supposedly was. I am certain that this is the “cup” which you refer to (correct me if I am wrong) and I wholly agree that we can never begin to imagine what an anomaly, what a sacrilege even, and what an incomparable spiritual horror it would be for a pure divine being, perfect, and untouched by impurity, to be saturated with the noxious nature of the hoary sin of all the world. I clearly understand this.

What you glossed over (astonishingly, or perhaps no longer astonishingly) is the fact that this being is said to be God himself. Accordingly in his immutable and perfect divine will, he had determined and concluded the necessary sacrifice of redemption.

I hope you have some understanding of what the divine will I said to be, because if you do, you would immediately see the disastrous and very sad quality of your suggestion that GOD in his divine perfection, would seek at any point in time, or for whatever reason, to detract from his will, shelve it, or cause it not to be made manifest.

I should normally let this point rest as I have stated it, but wary of your escapist gymnastics in this matter, let me go further to elucidate.

Divinity is the core nature and principle of original existence, or original being. It is eternal, infinite, and accordingly an absolute. It thus is not capable of the sort of whims and caprices attributable to imperfect human beings (or to the Abrahamic God).

To draw wisdom from the Bible itself, might I invite you to appreciate that this is the reason why it is stated that God is the same yesterday, today and forever more. The Divine will is inflexible; adamantine. This is also why it is stated that “heaven and earth may pass away, but the word of the lord abideth forever.” I draw these from scripture, in the hope that your escapism will not be so great as to be desirous of evading the unchangeability of God which is something that is enshrined in scripture, aside from being obvious to the deeply philosophical mind.

It is with the foregoing in mind that your response fell way below the mark.

This Christ is said to be God in human form. He thus had a deep knowledge of the purpose and will of God regarding mankind. From time eternal, being divine, he must know very well the adamantine and unchangeable nature of the Godhead: given its perfection – for that which is perfect cannot be changed.

It is in the light of this that you can begin to appreciate just how ludicrous it is to claim that a personage (who is himself ALMIGHTY GOD) and is fully cognisant of –

1. The nature of the Divine Will
2. The Purpose of the redemptive work
3. The absolute necessity of that work for the salvation of his creatures

- would begin to petition himself to avert the divinely willed occurrence.

This can only suggest that he was either not divine, or had a poor grasp of the adamantine and unchangeable nature of the divine will – especially in the context of such a historical act of redemption?

You MUST accept that the foregoing is simply pushing the boundaries of all reason into absolute insanity. If not insanity, it is at the very minimum, evidence of a woefully failed philosophical schooling – nay – it borders on suspected truancy in English Comprehension classes, in earlier stages of the life of anyone who advocates this incomparably outlandish myth.

Viaro – in this, I demand the most exacting sincerity from you: although I know I will not receive it for one reason: dogma is a terrible blindfold.

Already I have a hint of the fading of your sincerity in this matter as you did not hesitate to tell an outright lie in your desperation to deify the Jewish carpenter whom you worship –

Now, I'm not calling you an idiot, nor being pejorative against your person; but your assumptions are quite cowardly and not man enough to see that He NEVER at anytime made a "request" that His sacrifice would not take place.

.

Please retract this shocking falsehood; I needn’t paste the whole of the prayer in Gethsemane here before you accept that you have definitely lied here. Christ DID request that the “cup” should be taken away from him - yes, that "cup" which we have defined above, which AS GOD, he must have known all about.

If anything, not only did He frequently tell His disciples that such an event was inevitable

.

If he knew it was inevitable why in hell would he make that odd prayer in Gethsemane? Was he hoping against the “inevitable?” Just remember that this is almighty God you are referring to.

And given the analysis of divinity and the divine will that I set forth above, that, dear Viaro, positively affirms that he is not GOD, could not be, unless we speak of an inferior god, than that which is divine and unceasing in its perfection.

It was amazing how you also sidestepped the core issue on the evident dichotomy of wills in the statement – “not as I will, but as thou wilt”. You merely stated –

There is no grounds to assume a dichotomy of 'wills' - if there was, you have not demonstrated such a grounds but are only yapping. I would like to invite you at a set time to discuss why I believe in the Trinity - the time will come. For me, it is not a matter of additions and multiplications, but of subsistence (you can hold me to that statement when the time comes). And yes, in that discussion I will share many matters with you about the divine hypostasis of Christ being both Deity and Human. I shall not preempt it here; but mark my summations until then.

- And left it at that! Good grief, again I ask you, you can accept a possible difference of wills within the Godhead, after all Christ’s statements about being “one” with the father, and all ? ? ? ?

I hope it is now not lost on you that beyond attacking my cosmological theories (which have nothing to do with this dogmatic issue) you made absolutely no sense, and not a single valid point at all in all your responses: because you did not address the issues, but evaded them in favour or absurd taunts.

I shudder at the way in which dogmatic Christians such as yourself are happy to debase the perfection of God in order to justify dogma! What is most terrifying is that you are normally a very reasonable man, but once your dogma is fluttered, you are willing to consign all reason and all obvious truth to the waste bin, in a rabid attempt to justify your worship of a fellow human being, which has been handed to you by your colonial master.

But heck, worship the dead Jewish carpenter all you want. . . you are entitled to do so just as surely as the adherents of the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star are entitled to insist that Olumba Olumba Obu is God. And just as surely as Hindus are entitled to worship cows.

and here we go again . . .

davidylan:

and here we go again . . .

Davidski. . . long time. . . how's the thesis coming along?

_{P/S: Don't worry about all this grammar wey we dey blow here: i doubt that God requires from anyone an exact knowledge of such advanced theological matters, but sincerity of heart and simplicity of faith in HIM. . .}

Deep Sight, you tempt me. I had initially said that a time would come in the near future when I would invite you to consider some of my views as regards this simple subject: the Deity of Jesus Christ. However, it seems you're actually confirming my suspicion earlier that there's a sort of impatience (nay, restlessness) in your rejoinders - which I had tried to calmly endure.

That said, allow me to say this simply: you're too busy chasing your own tails. If I had seen anything fresh in yours, I wouldn't have minded closing early from work tomorrow to come spend time (nay, waste time) chatting with you on the same issues. However, like I often said: one needs to attend to friends . . which is why I'd like to play with yours for the moment.

Deep Sight:

My preliminary remarks are these: that you have left much hanging, and regretably appear to be one of the dogmatic lot prepared to sacrifice even the most glaring scripture in favour of dogma created by the church.

If that was what I had been doing all along (to talk less of being 'prepared' to do so), why has it been too difficult for you to make your case simple and stop trying too hard? I said before: viaro is not a "traditionalist" - I do not necessarily pander to calcified age-old interpretations handed down to anyone while excusing my thinking faculty. On that simple note, I've taken the time to show you that your claims are far too strained and cheat common sense as to force your own views upon the Biblical statements upon which you set your arguments. That was why I decided to walk you through those texts as well show what I was saying by pointing to the relevant texts penned by the Biblical prophets.

I was mildly amused by this. It appears to me that you missed the gamut of the example I was giving.

How so?

Before saying anything else, let me say this: any religion is free to call whatsoever it pleases ALMIGHTY GOD:

Hinduism may call cows God,

adherents of the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star may call Olumba Olumba God,

and the mainstream (indoctrinated) Christian dogmatist may call Jesus of Nazareth God.

None of this was of any concern to my analogy: to wit: that in simple terms, certain things may appear to the neutral observer as being ridiculous.

My dear pal, you're not sounding genuine. Not at all. I doubt you mean what you have stated above. If you truly believe that "any religion is free to call whatsoever it pleases ALMIGHTY GOD", what then is your problem with Christians holding to their convictions about the Deity of Christ? You don't seem to have any qualms with Hindus equating bovines to God; but when it comes to the Christian worldview, it must of necessity be coloured with aspersions of "indoctrinated" and "dogmatist" - nevermind that you, my friend, are amusingly as "indoctrinated" and pitifully "dogmatist" as you accuse others.

The one thing that bothers me in attitudes like that is the idea that some people are at liberty to teach others what they should believe in their religion when you are not one of them! Imagine the arrogance of trying to teach you what and what you should believe as a Deist when I am not prepared to deconvert from Christianity to becoming deistic! This, I fear, is the problem I see in the way you discuss with Christians. . and if you can't get your way of swamping them with your own iconoclastic ideas, then you write them off as indoctrinated and dogmatic.

Let me amuse you: yes, Deep Sight, I am a dogmatist . . the only difference is that my flavour of dogmatism is different from yours! If you were not as dogmatic in your calcified ideas that you have been forcing forward, this discussion would have smiled warmly into a thin line and not survived to this moment.

That’s why I used the word “rationalize”, which you so vehemently flew down on.

I did not vehemently fly upon that word: and I have left off pointing to it. If you want to take me up on that word, please open a new thread and let's bleach this risible non-starter out of Nairaland! You may argue far and long in denial, but Deep Sight, whether you like it or not, there is nothing else you did than rationalise and threw that question open.

Guess what – if that word gives you sleepless nights (as it well may, clinging as you do to ancient dogma which can stand no rational test; nay – test of sanity) – then, I free you: let’s drop that word entirely, and face the main discourse: that way, freed from irrelevant distractions, you may see what precious little substance is contained in your surmise.

I'm just waiting to see the professionalism in yours - please impress me! Nothing in yours gives me a blink other than trying to define Christianity through the spectacles of deism. Please let off!

I define God as the primordial uncaused cause and prime mover of all contingent existence: the core egg of all existence: and I definitively challenge you or any other theist to show me why that definition is wrong: if you can do this, I pledge you $1 Million USD in addition to my left testicle.

Haha! I won't even waste my time until I see both your testicles! Allow me to choose . . I like big ones! The $1 million USD is a small price!

Now excuse my french there, but I reckon that you're lifting ideas from others and splashing up here to show off! Nice try, bro. But when the time comes, viaro will waste that laughable fossilized comic out of its illogical grammar. First, Deep Sight, what do you mean by "primordial"? In what context do you want me to read and understand your definition?

Thus no man may preach? Do not advance the impression that my active propagation of my world-view unhinges you? Free Speech, brother.

I love you to have free speech. . and I would be first in line to defend it on your behalf. But that is not to mean that your worldview unhinges me in any way; just as I wonder why you're trying too hard to define what Christians should believe according to your own ideology.

I am certain that a philosopher propounding an uncaused cause which is infinite in its nature, and drawing there-from one great harmony to which all living beings should subscribe, in the singular greatness of all things made by God, makes more substance to steady minds free from indoctrination, and is more bestirring of both the intellect and the spirit than the preposterous, bizarre and outlandish commitment of you, an African foreigner, to worship a fellow human being who lived in Israel a while back as almighty GOD. Have you studied the characteristics of cults?

Yes, I have perused the characteristics of cults and cultism - and you may surprise yourself how steeped you're into that if you're insinuating that upon me or my worldview.

However, both highlighted statement refers:

(a) "to which all living beings should subscribe"
This is where your problem is - making preposterous statements in the idea that "all" living beings should by default subscribe to. And if they don't? Your postulations receive vibrations, no?

Let me leave you something my friends know me for: I do not live my life by another man's definition of the philosophy of life - not yours, neither that of the prescribed philosophers you might have had in mind. Some things 'philosophical' are nice - many are empty. If you drew your own ideas of a 'god' that did not originate from the zeitgeist of Lagos Nigeria at any time, why should I be perturbed that you're concerned about my commitment to the Biblical faiths? Cross a Greek with a Lagosian, what do you get, Deep Sight?

(b) "steady minds free from indoctrination"
Huh? You. . of all people? Puhleease! You have not convinced me in these matters that you either have a steady mind, or a free one, or possessing one completely outside the realms of indoctrination. I'm still trying to figure out (as many people are still doing) what you actually would do if anyone suggests to you to free your mind from the singularity indoctrination that you so passionately like to talk about and yet neither understand nor are able to convince anyone of any sense in what you're saying? You, my friend, have been operating on a queer frequency all along - and no one has been catching your short waves.

Nevertheless with the foregoing, I merely digress, and stupidly feed my restlessness on some of the rather acerbic but non-rigorous contentions that you set forth.

Okay then. . like Macdonalds advert. . 'I'm loving it!' I like to tease my friends between times (Krayola discovered very early). So take no notice of my yapping up there to tease you - it's just me.
_{But I'm still eyeing those balls your pledged alongside the $1 million USD. Deal? Deal.}

I shall not waste your time on this: let us assume (and in fairness, I actually accept) that the “cup” referred not just to the impending physical torture, but to the imminent spectre of the gruesome burden of sin – or a sinful nature being cast upon a pure divine nature – which is what Christ supposedly was. I am certain that this is the “cup” which you refer to (correct me if I am wrong) and I wholly agree that we can never begin to imagine what an anomaly, what a sacrilege even, and what an incomparable spiritual horror it would be for a pure divine being, perfect, and untouched by impurity, to be saturated with the noxious nature of the hoary sin of all the world. I clearly understand this.

You're close.

What you glossed over (astonishingly, or perhaps no longer astonishingly) is the fact that this being is said to be God himself. Accordingly in his immutable and perfect divine will, he had determined and concluded the necessary sacrifice of redemption.

I didn't gloss over that, Deep Sight. Do I have to repeat the lines where I clearly set forth the basis of His sacrifice? Do I have to go back and pluck lines from my previous entries about His Humanity? I have not seen you touch upon that other than endlessly worrying about that point to the point f almost accusing me of laying forth a "very old defense of Christ's human part". You're far too emphatic about His Deity as to arouse a sneaky suspicion that you just live to attack that doctrine. Why has that particular subject kept you so fired up lately? What does it do for Deism?

I hope you have some understanding of what the divine will I said to be, because if you do, you would immediately see the disastrous and very sad quality of your suggestion that GOD in his divine perfection, would seek at any point in time, or for whatever reason, to detract from his will, shelve it, or cause it not to be made manifest.

Say that again? Are you quoting me, or dreaming these wild assertions up from nowhere? Bro, I did not suggest anything disastrous as pointing to God detracting from His will - you have always forced that idea; so why accuse your own misgivings into my post?

I should normally let this point rest as I have stated it, but wary of your escapist gymnastics in this matter, let me go further to elucidate.

Mine was not escapist. What have you actually said about the replies where I pointed to both His Deity and Humanity in clear distinctions? Please tell me that the passages I quoted in reference thereto were not saying what I quoted them as saying? It was for this kind of "escapist" -isms in your replies that I well anticipated you, and thus did not want to just argue blindly without any pointers. Please go back and read them until they sink - and yes, then you can let go and not be bothered any longer by them.

Divinity is the core nature and principle of original existence, or original being. It is eternal, infinite, and accordingly an absolute. It thus is not capable of the sort of whims and caprices attributable to imperfect human beings (or to the Abrahamic God).

What do you understand by the Incarnation and its implication(s)?

You may argue long and hard about divinity - I verily suspect you know not what it actually means in practical terms in your own worldview. Impress me, please.

To draw wisdom from the Bible itself, might I invite you to appreciate that this is the reason why it is stated that God is the same yesterday, today and forever more. The Divine will is inflexible; adamantine. This is also why it is stated that “heaven and earth may pass away, but the word of the lord abideth forever.” I draw these from scripture, in the hope that your escapism will not be so great as to be desirous of evading the unchangeability of God which is something that is enshrined in scripture, aside from being obvious to the deeply philosophical mind.

The fact that God is 'the same yesterday, today and forever' does not mean that He is unable to manifest Himself as He chooses for any occasion. There is a difference between His essence (as regards His Person) and His will (as regards His dealings with creation). Please do not controvert the two. In as much as He is the same throughout in His essence, His divine will is dispensational. Thus, you will find that between the dispensations of the Old and New Testament, there are varied expressions of His will - even though all through all dispensations His essence remains the same.

It is with the foregoing in mind that your response fell way below the mark.

Thank you, sir. The problem here is that my 'prof' in the person od Deep Sight failed his introductory class! Look up there and sort out your confusion, so that you don't make this class difficult either for me, for you, or for readers who are paying the keenest attention.

This Christ is said to be God in human form. He thus had a deep knowledge of the purpose and will of God regarding mankind. From time eternal, being divine, he must know very well the adamantine and unchangeable nature of the Godhead: given its perfection – for that which is perfect cannot be changed.

Careful now, because you're confusing issues and blurring the lines of your arguments. Is it His NATURE ('the nature of the Godhead') that you are focusing on; or rather His divine WILL ('will of God regarding mankind')?? Blurring the lines in such a manner is not the smartest thing to do - and please do play these games and then come back accusing me of being escapist!

It is in the light of this that you can begin to appreciate just how ludicrous it is to claim that a personage (who is himself ALMIGHTY GOD) and is fully cognisant of –

1. The nature of the Divine Will
2. The Purpose of the redemptive work
3. The absolute necessity of that work for the salvation of his creatures

- would begin to petition himself to avert the divinely willed occurrence.

This can only suggest that he was either not divine, or had a poor grasp of the adamantine and unchangeable nature of the divine will – especially in the context of such a historical act of redemption?

Here's my score for your logic: 0/10 (read as 'zero over ten'). Deep Sight, you need (seriously need) to distinguish between His essence (His Person in Himself) and His will (His dealings - which are according to dispensations and thus not the same cloned narrative all through history). You're confusing between both and trailing off to the wrong terminus! If anything is ridiculous, it is the shoddy scholarship you've tried to propose here.

You MUST accept that the foregoing is simply pushing the boundaries of all reason into absolute insanity.

I accept - on condition that such is what you're doing!

If not insanity, it is at the very minimum, evidence of a woefully failed philosophical schooling – nay – it borders on suspected truancy in English Comprehension classes, in earlier stages of the life of anyone who advocates this incomparably outlandish myth.

Yes sir, I concur that is precisely what you have done - given the fact that you have tried to cheat your audience by this puerile and unqualified drivel you're celebrating for yourself up there. M-a-n! You never cease to amaze and amuse me!

Viaro – in this, I demand the most exacting sincerity from you: although I know I will not receive it for one reason: dogma is a terrible blindfold.

Hehehe, amico mio. . I will ever be sincere to you - whether or not you demand it from me. What I cannot offer, however, is my own faculty and capacity to think for myself without being a 'yes man' to every assertion you make; particularly when you're grossly blurring the lines in a simple matter.

Already I have a hint of the fading of your sincerity in this matter as you did not hesitate to tell an outright lie in your desperation to deify the Jewish carpenter whom you worship –

Now, I'm not calling you an idiot, nor being pejorative against your person; but your assumptions are quite cowardly and not man enough to see that He NEVER at anytime made a "request" that His sacrifice would not take place.

How did I lie, Deep Sight?

Please retract this shocking falsehood; I needn’t paste the whole of the prayer in Gethsemane here before you accept that you have definitely lied here.

I will not retract what you call a falsehood; just because you want it to be interpretated so does not mean I should be a Deist wildly accusing people whose doctrines are different from yours! You're not being very clever here, Deep sight, if you hope to just dribble the ground from under yourself and make for an easy slap on this matter! Not particularly so, in the face of the fact that you have often confused issues so grossly and yet not in one instance did I go so far to accuse you of lying. We may see things differently, but being so distastefully assertive is beyond me!

Christ DID request that the “cup” should be taken away from him - yes, that "cup" which we have defined above, which AS GOD, he must have known all about.

Does His prayer then in all intents and purposes mean that He "requested" that the sacrifice not take place? I do not want to belabour you on this matter; but trying so hard to force your own misgivings into the text and draw illations unnecessarily does not present you as a clever chap.

If he knew it was inevitable why in hell would he make that odd prayer in Gethsemane? Was he hoping against the “inevitable?” Just remember that this is almighty God you are referring to.

To be honest, I do not know why He would make that prayer, though it may seem odd to you. However, that He did make that prayer does not therefore detract from His Deity - the very thing you're hard-pressed to attack by all means. Try again, sorry.

And given the analysis of divinity and the divine will that I set forth above, that, dear Viaro, positively affirms that he is not GOD, could not be, unless we speak of an inferior god, than that which is divine and unceasing in its perfection.

What crap are you all about? Where did I "affirm" that He is NOT God? I'm already weary of these childish silly antics of deliberately misreading your misgivings into my post, Deep Sight - perhaps that is what friends do best, and I could do the same when quoting you next time, yes? You're playing far below the level I assumed of your attitude, not nice, my friend, not nice.

It was amazing how you also sidestepped the core issue on the evident dichotomy of wills in the statement – “not as I will, but as thou wilt”. You merely stated –

- And left it at that! Good grief, again I ask you, you can accept a possible difference of wills within the Godhead, after all Christ’s statements about being “one” with the father, and all ? ? ? ?

It is not a "possible difference of wills", as I have stated: and if you can't read before going hay-wire, I could repost that part for you:

There is no grounds to assume a dichotomy of 'wills' - if there was, you have not demonstrated such a grounds but are only yapping. I would like to invite you at a set time to discuss why I believe in the Trinity - the time will come. For me, it is not a matter of additions and multiplications, but of subsistence (you can hold me to that statement when the time comes). And yes, in that discussion I will share many matters with you about the divine hypostasis of Christ being both Deity and Human. I shall not preempt it here; but mark my summations until then.

If that is not helpful (regardless my amicable invitation at a latter date to consider them), I cannot help you further. On the whole, I do not see a dichotomy of wills there; and I shall not preempt here what I had wanted to discuss with you at that time.

I shudder at the way in which dogmatic Christians such as yourself are happy to debase the perfection of God in order to justify dogma!

Okay, that's nice. I already admit my being dogmatic on one condition - as a necessity to showing how dogmatic you are yourself. Just pointing accusing fingers does not mean you possess a free mind like a canvas where anyone can paint their own ideas with airbrush.

What is most terrifying is that you are normally a very reasonable man, but once your dogma is fluttered, you are willing to consign all reason and all obvious truth to the waste bin, in a rabid attempt to justify your worship of a fellow human being, which has been handed to you by your colonial master.

I have tried to be reasonable in discussing with you. Not once do i remember calling you a liar; nor even asserting you're dogmatic until you directly used that several times in your replies; not once did I attempt to define the sort of things you should believe in Deism, just as you're trying to so hard to do for Christians. Not once did I try to recalculate anything for you other than stating the obvious. You have a funny way of pushing forward all this detractions when you can't get your foot into other people's mouths - and that is not a reasonable behaviour to emulate from you, Deep Sight. However, nothing changes here - I shall continue to be as reasonable as I have always been; objective but not gullible; 'dogmatic' in so far as you want to force your own dogmatism to the fore; and gentle when you make room for geniality.

But heck, worship the dead Jewish carpenter all you want. . . you are entitled to do so just as surely as the adherents of the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star are entitled to insist that Olumba Olumba Obu is God. And just as surely as Hindus are entitled to worship cows.

Should that be such a problem to you? I don't want to return the same in accentuating how risible it is for a Deist to talk about a 'god' he does not understand but only hopes to get nods for his fruitless posts under the masks of "singularity" in an acclaimed 'science' that nobody is ware of.

Deep Sight, there should be no basis for looking down on people just because their convictions do not mold unto your own ideologies. To do so is to be pitifully in the grip of a most queer and unqualified arrogance. That is not what I wish for you or any of my friends - and beyond here, we shall see if my hopes will smile.

Viaro - i hope you are still online, i wish to respond shortly, in a few short (i promise this time to be brief) posts.

But first off, once again, your response has dwelt far too long on my personality and approach than upon the debated issues. Go read it again: and you will clearly see this.

On the issue of dichotomy of wills, you keep postponing. Give it to me right now: your answer about dealing with it in a future thread still seems escapist.

Hold, on. . . confirm your presence. . . i am responding in toto shortly.

Now, i respond.

First: let me say this - do not take my scathing words too much to heart; i only try to give you as good as you give me. In this, let me emphaisze that although the deity of christ is one subject that (apologies to say) i unrepentantly view with absolute disdain, i still appreciate you as a person: for your directness, civility, and intellect.

But i will be absolutely unsparing in this matter, so forgive me in advance.

To reiterate; i did not see much within your last responses to merit a rejoinder from me. 98% of your post seemed to dwell on my personality and not the posers i raised. Indeed when i raised the question of God Almighty requesting of himself the alteration of a DIVINELY WILLED event, you merely scored me a 0/10 without giving reasons.

I will address in spiritual, logical and theological terms why your evasion of that question is unacceptable. And you will see no escapism from me.

But before i do that, i wish to address one personal issue: you seem at odds that i stated that you told a lie.

Viaro; I do not, and absolutely will not retract that statement; you told a lie: and lest you beleaguer the point, here is the simple proof –

This is your lie –

He NEVER at anytime made a "request" that His sacrifice would not take place.

.

And here is the truth:

The Gospel of St. Luke 22: 42 –
“Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me. . .”

And what is this, if not a plaintive plea to evade the events to come?

I needn’t even go into the fact that it says – “if thou be willing” – which shows that the will of the father could conceivably differ from the plea of the “son” – . . .“remove this cup. . .”

Boy, you told a lie, you stated a falsehood, and that is that.

Now do not waste my time in trying to cover up that falsehood with extended grammar about what the cup was, etc, because I have already answered you on what exactly the cup was, which you accepted.

Thus I need it to be clear that my fondness for you will not stop me from pointing out an apparent and obviously deliberate falsehood in your surmise.

Now to the core issue.

In all of your response, I was able to discern only ONE point worthy of responding to. In the rest, you seemed to be entertaining yourself, and I cannot be concerned with that.

And the one point I will respond to is – you guessed it – your belabored struggle to separate Christ’s humanity from his Deity.

Perhaps I should at this point, since I promised to be brief, only throw a few posers, and reserve the thesis for a later post.

Here are the posers –

1. Did Christ lose his perfect Divine nature, by becoming human?

2. If he did lose that nature, then the sacrifice was a sacrifice of an imperfect being, and not that of a perfect being, yes? Out-the-window goes all the talk about a “perfect” “unblemished” savior being required, yes?

3. On the other hand, if he did NOT lose the Divine nature, then he perforce remained perfect – thus fully in tandem with the Divine will; such as to make the request in Gethsemane an incongruity and a paradox, yes?

4. Did Christ lose all his knowledge about the DIVINE plan concluded in heaven with his father, about the redemptive work on the cross?

5. If he did not lose such knowledge (as apparently from scripture he did not); then why would he seek, within human form, to change that which he himself as ALMIGHTY GOD had perfected and concluded in heaven?

Man, I hope you see the point clearly; your “hypostasis” on the simultaneous humanity and deity of that carpenter leaves gaping wide holes. 

It surprises me that each time I repeat these obvious facts, you resort to empty platitudes about Christ being “human”, and then promise to deal with the issue in future.

Let’s carry on . . .

You spoke about the “Divine will” being different from the “Divine person”.

OH MY GOD, WHAT A GAFFE; DOES IT NOT OCCUR TO YOU THAT IN STATING THIS, YOU DIRECTLY DENY THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY TRINITY, FOR IN THAT TREASURED DOCTRINE OF YOURS, THEY ARE ALL SAID TO BE ONE!

AS A FOLLOW-UP: HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY YOUR SUMMATION THAT THE WILL IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PERSONAGE, WHEN CHRIST SAID A ZILLION TIMES THAT THAY ALL AGREE AS ONE, AND THAT HE WAS “ONE” WITH THE FATHER, AND THAT THEIR WILL WAS IN ONE ACCORD? THUS HOW COULD THE “PERSONAGE” HAVE A DIFFERENT WILL FROM THE “WILL”? YES, THE LAUGHABLE NATURE OF THIS JOKE OF A DOCTRINE IS BEGINNING TO BECOME CLEAR TO YOU NOW?

I HOPE YOU SEE IT’S BEGINNING TO FALL APART IN SENSELESSNESS FOR YOU VIARO – BUT THAT IS NOT SURPRISING: INCOHERENT DOGMA LIKE THE TRINITY MUST NECESSARILY FALL APART. . .

Christ! (No pun intended).

Deal with the five questions above, and then we may take it from there.

Finally – Although I did not want to do it, I am going to introduce more scripture that suggests clearly that Christ DID NOT want to be crucified, and that the crucifixion was in fact NOT the will of God. Go and read up Jesus’ parable of the Vineyard, and then we will address that.

interestin

^^^ Yes indeed, and the best answer is for the Trintarians to simply state that they accept based on faith and "hold their silence and observe without trying to define for anybody what we should believe (or denounce), especially where they are not inclined to holding the very axioms about the Almighty that they might grant unto others"

It surprises me that any Trinitarian bothers to enter into a rational debate on it, considering how manifestly irrational a dogma it is: intelligence, i would think, in such a SITUATION, in attempting to defend something so magical, would rest in simply stating that it is a question of faith, and then shutting up squarely after that!