^^^ Long story. It always takes long stories to explain away glaring statements made by your own lord.

Maybe repetition will help -

So here we go again -

We will highlight the needful to assist you yet again -

Jesus: "The Father is greater than I" - Jn 14:28

Viaro: "NO! They are equal!"

Who is lying here? Jesus or Viaro? Decide for yourself!

[size=16pt]They CANNOT both be speaking the truth![/size]

The same Jesus stated - 1. That he is not omniscient and 2. He is not omnipotent.

Decide who's the liar.

Jesus or Viaro?

Who is desperate to transform a Jewish man into almighty God? Who will despite this attack others for claiming deity?

Bizzarre, aint it?

^^ DeepSight,

If it takes long stories to explain anything and therefore it becomes a lie, have you not done that same thing so many times? Did TrueSeeker not try to hoodwink you with that same thing by telling long, unfounded stories denying the Deity of Christ?

Why is it that you must demonstrate this idiocy of your hypocrisy all over Nairaland? Take heart, son - viaro is not a deist, and I know that just because I happen to have touched you where it really hurt, that is why you would ever seek to react to anything viaro says. The thing is that, in doing so you demonstrate a further damage to your CV by spouting lies and all sorts of duplicities. Yes, people whose OOI has categorically failed them and crashed with such redundancy often tend to go about repeating their idiocy on the forum.

No worries - I only said that your deism will be exposed again. . . that should not have scared you into reacting with such hypocrisy. But it's your world, if this is all you can show for your legal profession, I'm very, very sorry indeed that you have caused your company a huge loss! I had some hope you would be reasonable, but now the 'Deep Sight' I knew only turns out to be so shallow.

So, go ahead - repeat your idiocy and confirm to readers that you have nothing better to show for your career. When the time does come, no prayers sent to OOI will turn things around to prevent my sending your deism into oblivion. Enjoy.

Deep Sight, if you can take some few hours to ponder on what I said earlier, maybe you will see some light:

1. THAT which God is, Logos is. John 1:1 in an altogether clear translation from the Greek, ignoring case-sensitivity and other possible translation faults. Since Christ is Logos, then Christ is God.

---

That in no way negates the fact that He is God (John 1:1)

You are aware of what the proper Greek interpretation of this verse is.

Deep Sight, this was one of your first questions to me on the thread I opened when I registered on NL. I told you that the correct interpretation is "THAT which God was, the Logos also was". So it's left to you to counter the translation, or else decide what God was/is. And that's what the Logos (Christ) was/is!

---

2. God poured himself out into a tangible form, and it is thus very clear that even though the tangible form can be physically observed, it does NOTHING to reduce his ESSENCE. God would not have reduced, and Christ would be the EXACT SAME GOD.

---

Recall the widow of Zarephath's flask of oil that never ran out? I think that miracle was an expression of an attribute of God: He never runs out no matter how much he pours himself out. And he cannot be taken by surprise! So, tell me, if God poured himself out into a human form, is that one NOT still God, and has God diminished? Or like the never-ending oil, if I pour it out into a pot and the pot gets full BUT the flask of oil is still full, are they not both full AND the EXACT same oil?

---

In the illustration above, the flask will remain full of the PERFECT oil, but the smaller pot will be as well full of the PERFECT OIL (the flask is greater than the pot), it has the same 100% ESSENCE with the exact same physical characteristics! So, because the vessel is smaller, can I conclude that it is not the same content?

Jesus, as God poured out into human form, had the exact same essence as the Father (the unending source from which he was poured out or annexed, not created) even though he had a tangible physical body. It will be naive of anyone to look at the smaller pot, which is accessible to everyone, and conclude that it is just like any other pot of oil, when one only needs to look at "Elijah's  hands" and see the flask from which it was poured, yet non-diminished!

Such views, without proof, would be Stubborn and Naive!!!

viaro:

^^ DeepSight,

If it takes long stories to explain anything and therefore it becomes a lie, have you not done that same thing so many times? Did TrueSeeker not try to hoodwink you with that same thing by telling long, unfounded stories denying the Deity of Christ?

Why is it that you must demonstrate this idiocy of your hypocrisy all over Nairaland? Take heart, son - viaro is not a deist, and I know that just because I happen to have touched you where it really hurt, that is why you would ever seek to react to anything viaro says. The thing is that, in doing so you demonstrate a further damage to your CV by spouting lies and all sorts of duplicities. Yes, people whose OOI has categorically failed them and crashed with such redundancy often tend to go about repeating their idiocy on the forum.

No worries - I only said that your deism will be exposed again. . . that should not have scared you into reacting with such hypocrisy. But it's your world, if this is all you can show for your legal profession, I'm very, very sorry indeed that you have caused your company a huge loss! I had some hope you would be reasonable, but now the 'Deep Sight' I knew only turns out to be so shallow.

So, go ahead - repeat your idiocy and confirm to readers that you have nothing better to show for your career. When the time does come, no prayers sent to OOI will turn things around to prevent my sending your deism into oblivion. Enjoy.

Steady now: focus on the thread; the discerning reader can easily notice WHO is duplicituous and frustrated simply by looking at WHICH POSTER IS RESORTING TO INSULTS AND REFERENCES TO OTHER THREADS WHICH ARE NOT AT ISSUE HERE.

I make no insults: amnd i stick to the topic in what i am saying here: so running about insulting my professional career and my company is your kettle of fish!

I repeat:

We will highlight the needful to assist you yet again -

Jesus: "The Father is greater than I" - Jn 14:28

Viaro: "NO! They are equal!"

Who is lying here? Jesus or Viaro? Decide for yourself!

[size=16pt]They CANNOT both be speaking the truth![/size]

Decide who's the liar.

Jesus or Viaro?

Who is desperate to transform a Jewish man into almighty God? Who will despite this attack others for claiming deity?

Bizzarre, aint it?

Do you need to deprecate me and insult my professional life just because i point out ONE contradiction between you and Jesus that you cannot escape?

InesQor:

Deep Sight, if you can take some few hours to ponder on what I said earlier, maybe you will see some light:

1. THAT which God is, Logos is. John 1:1 in an altogether clear translation from the Greek, ignoring case-sensitivity and other possible translation faults. Since Christ is Logos, then Christ is God.

---

Deep Sight, this was one of your first questions to me on the thread I opened when I registered on NL. I told you that the correct interpretation is "THAT which God was, the Logos also was". So it's left to you to counter the translation, or else decide what God was/is. And that's what the Logos (Christ) was/is!

---

2. God poured himself out into a tangible form, and it is thus very clear that even though the tangible form can be physically observed, it does NOTHING to reduce his ESSENCE. God would not have reduced, and Christ would be the EXACT SAME GOD.

---

---

In the illustration above, the flask will remain full of the PERFECT oil, but the smaller pot will be as well full of the PERFECT OIL (the flask is greater than the pot), it has the same 100% ESSENCE with the exact same physical characteristics! So, because the vessel is smaller, can I conclude that it is not the same content?

Jesus, as God poured out into human form, had the exact same essence as the Father (the unending source from which he was poured out or annexed, not created) even though he had a tangible physical body. It will be naive of anyone to look at the smaller pot, which is accessible to everyone, and conclude that it is just like any other pot of oil, when one only needs to look at "Elijah's hands" and see the flask from which it was poured, yet non-diminished!

Such views, without proof, would be Stubborn and Naive!!!

Your analogy fails simply because Jesus HIMSELF made it clear that he and the Father DO NOT have the same core nature:

GOD IS AN OMNISCIENT BEING.

JESUS PLAINLY STATED THAT HE IS NOT OMNISCIENT.

SO WHAT ARE YOU ON ABOUT?

MUST YOU FORCE THAT POOR LATE JEWSIH RABBI TO BECOME GOD? ? ?

EVEN AGAINST HIS EXPRESS WORDS? ? ?

Does it really matter? All this doctrines and dogmas. Wat matters in religion is morals and not articles of faith. So, wateva way the deity exists it shouldnt be a matter of human enquiry.

dmxqo:

Does it really matter? All this doctrines and dogmas. Wat matters in religion is morals and not articles of faith. So, wateva way the deity exists it shouldnt be a matter of human enquiry.

Bingo! Well said!!!

Wetin consine crayfish with mango tree? ? ?

Wetin consine man pikin with long tori say one Jewish guy na im be Chineke, abi Olodumare?

dmxqo:

Does it really matter? All this doctrines and dogmas. Wat matters in religion is morals and not articles of faith. So, wateva way the deity exists it shouldnt be a matter of human enquiry.

It does matter - absolutely. If it doesn't matter, I guess you can bow down to a faceless illiterate OOI that even its propagandist cannot explicate, no? That is why he was waiting for someone to come up and say that it doesn't matter - since his rogue religion absolutely does not matter.

^^^ Gosh.

Simple childlike saints (such as non-educated but honest people in Haiti or Rwanda for example) are expected by God to have an exact understanding of celestial relationships such as the Trinity otherwise they will go to hell? ? ? ? ?

What really is required for salvation? ? ? ?

Gosh!

Ya gotta luuuuuuuuuv these Christians.

Deep Sight:

^^^ Gosh.

Simple childlike saints (such as non-educated but honest people in Haiti or Rwanda for example) are expected by God to have an exact understanding of celestial relationships such as the Trinity otherwise they will go to hell? ? ? ? ?

Did anyone here say so? You see why you're a hideous arrogant idiot? Why do you go about trying to force words into other people's posts?

Let me ask you: where is your OOI? What does it do for you? How do you worship it? Of what relevance is your OOI to the Haitians or the Rwandans? What has it ever conveyed to anyone here on Nairaland, the Haitians (if they ever heard of such idiocy) or the Rwandans (if they would not laugh loudly at the idea)? Where is your celestial OOI that has continued to be a source of your mathematical suicide and its own prosaic redundancy? Do you miss very much that no one else but you in your 'shallow sight' have forever cried boohoo for your OOI and yet never made any sense at your very best to impress yourself? We know there are other deists on Nairaland and beyond here - but where have they ever tried to steady this faceless OOI of your deism??

DeepSight, your rabid rants are not helping you - that much should be clear by now. It's not about viaro, at least you were doing fine fooling yourself around Nairaland until I joined the forum. So, you can indeed show your duplicity and all else . . . afterall, you've ever tried to steal from all worldviews for your rogue religion.

Ya gotta luuuuuuuuuv these Christians.

You shouldn't be disturbed about that if your OOI has no love to show you for all your propaganda. You must terribly miss 'it'.

viaro:

Did anyone here say so?

Yes SOMEDODY here said so -:

Question was -

dmxqo:

Does it really matter? All this doctrines and dogmas.

YOUR answer:

viaro:

It does matter - absolutely.

So there!

Let me ask you: where is your OOI? What does it do for you? How do you worship it? Of what relevance is your OOI to the Haitians or the Rwandans? What has it ever conveyed to anyone here on Nairaland, the Haitians (if they ever heard of such idiocy) or the Rwandans (if they would not laugh loudly at the idea)? Where is your celestial OOI that has continued to be a source of your mathematical suicide and its own prosaic redundancy? Do you miss very much that no one else but you in your 'shallow sight' have forever cried boohoo for your OOI and yet never made any sense at your very best to impress yourself? We know there are other deists on Nairaland and beyond here - but where have they ever tried to steady this faceless OOI of your deism??

Rabid rants? Me? Just read the foregoing quote of yours.

Why are you so obsessed with OOI? Is it at issue in this thread? Why not simply face the issue and explain exactly why Jesus stated the father to be greater than him? Or why he stated that he is NOT omniscient? Deal with these and leave my "faceless illiterate desim" to one side jaare. . .because that is not the subject of this thread, no?

What does this conversation tell you, son:

Deep Sight  - "Jesus says that the father is greater than him. Viaro says they are Equal."

Viaro:  - (In response)  - "You deep sight, are illiterate, a hypocrite, your faceless illiterate OOI, shallow sighted. . .$%&£!??!$%&!!!! . . .

Rabid rant?

Discussants may like to read this.

The Trinity
Trinity (theology), in Christian theology, doctrine that God exists as three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—who are united in one substance or being. The doctrine is not taught explicitly in the New Testament, where the word God almost invariably refers to the Father; but already Jesus Christ, the Son, is seen as standing in a unique relation to the Father, while the Holy Spirit is also emerging as a distinct divine person.

The term trinitas was first used in the 2nd century, by the Latin theologian Tertullian, but the concept was developed in the course of the debates on the nature of Christ (see Christology). In the 4th century, the doctrine was finally formulated; using terminology still employed by Christian theologians, the doctrine taught the coequality of the persons of the Godhead. In the West, the 4th-century theologian St. Augustine's influential work De Trinitate (On the Trinity, 400-16) compared the three-in-oneness of God with analogous structures in the human mind and suggested that the Holy Spirit may be understood as the mutual love between Father and Son (although this second point seems difficult to reconcile with the belief that the Spirit is a distinct, coequal member of the Trinity). The stress on equality, however, was never understood as detracting from a certain primacy of the Father—from whom the other two persons derive, even if they do so eternally. For an adequate understanding of the trinitarian conception of God, the distinctions among the persons of the Trinity must not become so sharp that there seems to be a plurality of gods, nor may these distinctions be swallowed up in an undifferentiated monism.

The doctrine of the Trinity may be understood on different levels. On one level, it is a means of construing the word God in Christian discourse. God is not a uniquely Christian word, and it needs specific definition in Christian theology. This need for a specifically Christian definition is already apparent in the New Testament, where Paul says, “there are many 'gods' and many 'lords'—yet for us there is one God, the Father , , and one Lord, Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 8:5-6). These words constitute the beginning of a process of clarification and definition, of which the end product is the doctrine of the Trinity. At another level, the doctrine may be seen as a transcript of Christian experience: The God of the Hebrew tradition had become known in a new way, first in the person of Christ, and then in the Spirit that moved in the church. On a third, speculative level of understanding, the doctrine reveals the dynamism of the Christian conception of God—involving notions of a source, a coming forth, and a return (primordial, expressive, and unitive Being). In this sense, the Christian doctrine has parallels both in philosophy (the 19th-century German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's Absolute) and in other religions (the Trimurti of Hinduism).

John Mcquarrie, MA, PhD, DD, former Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, University of Oxford, author of Principles of Christian Theology, 20th Century Religious Thought, The Scope of Dymythologyzing.

Deep Sight:

Did anyone here say so?

Yes SOMEDODY here said so -:

Question was -

Does it really matter? All this doctrines and dogmas.

YOUR answer:

It does matter - absolutely.

So there!

This was what I referred to:

Deep Sight:

Simple childlike saints (such as non-educated but honest people in Haiti or Rwanda for example) are expected by God to have an exact understanding of celestial relationships such as the Trinity otherwise they will go to hell? ? ? ? ?

Now was that what dmxqo had said or implied?? Why are you such a hypocrite? Nobody (as far as I remember) has said anything about the bold in yours - nobody has ever claimed in this thread that people are expected to "have an exact understanding of celestial relationships such as the Trinity otherwise they will go to hell" - between viaro and dmxqo, who has said that precisely?? You're just one serious hypocrite and a very conceited fundamentalist on Nairaland.

Deep Sight:
Rabid rants? Me? Just read the foregoing quote of yours.

Did either viaro or dmxqo ever claim what you are trying deceitfully to force in our post? Yes, you're a rabid hypocrite - and your fundy adventures have been well captured on marble.

Why are you so obsessed with OOI? Is it at issue in this thread? Why not simply face the issue and explain exactly why Jesus stated the father to be greater than him? Or why he stated that he is NOT omniscient? Deal with these and leave my "faceless illiterate desim" to one side jaare. . .because that is not the subject of this thread, no?

Is it bothering you that your OOI is being mentioed in this thread? Oh please. I am not obsessed with your OOI - it is an illiterate doctrine that has long collapsed, and when you say 'God', we don't want anyone to be confused here lest they assume that you're meaning the same thing as Christians do in the Biblical sense. Just so the uninformed reader does not get hoodwinked by your prosaic OOI which you want to dribble here and there for your rogue religion, we should point out the difference. Whatever it is that you're obsessed with about Jesus Christ, at least we know that your deism has no page to hang your 'god' of OOi on.

What does this conversation tell you, son:

Deep Sight  - "Jesus says that the father is greater than him. Viaro says they are Equal."

Viaro:  - (In response)  - "You deep sight, are illiterate, a hypocrite, your faceless illiterate OOI, shallow sighted. . .$%&£!??!$%&!!!! . . .

Rabid rant?

Yes, rabid rant - because I've made my point and you keep repeating the same idiocy like you never saw my replies, and yet reposting the same lunacy all over the place. Did I not note that you would come back repeating the same thing to confirm your idiocy in this thread? And so you have.  So come back yet again and repeat it in confirmation of your incurable malady. Yes?

MyJoe - thanks for the input.

But i need to say it loud enough: GOD is absolutely transcendental and intangible.

I am astonished that people think God could incarnate as a man.

The energy of the proximity of God will shatter whole universes to pieces.

If you cannot stand the proximity of a small star such as our sun, how do you imagine that you will stand the presence of God?

Now this presence is said to have come to the Earth and interacted face to face with human beings?

Wow.

Just wow.

How we be-little God.

MyJoe:

Discussants may like to read this.

For an adequate understanding of the trinitarian conception of God, the distinctions among the persons of the Trinity must not become so sharp that there seems to be a plurality of gods, nor may these distinctions be swallowed up in an undifferentiated monism.
. . . .

Thanks, MyJoe. . . saw it from other sources citing Encarta Encyclopedia.

dmxqo:

Does it really matter? All this doctrines and dogmas. Wat matters in religion is morals and not articles of faith.

Viaro: Note the highlighted? The gentleman was speaking with reference to morals: basically that knowledge of "doctrines and dogmas" is irrelevant. Thus he asked - does it really matter?

Your response -

viaro:

It does matter - absolutely.

Indicates that such knowledge (as distinct from the morals only position) matters!

You thus infer that without such knowledge salvation is impossible.

Logic.

_{Do i really really have to spell every inference out for you? Abeg, i dey Dubai and running late for dinner with a real hottie. later.}

@viaro

Hahaha. .  I was actually waiting for this. Of all things to market on this forum is the NW - the New World Translation of Jehovah Witnesses! I shoulda known. Dude, I'm not a JW, nor do I take my reading from them. There is no basis for them to have twisted either Hebrews 1:8 or Psalm 45:6 to read as they have so twisted it; so if that is where you base your arguments, I'm sorry to note that you already failed to make any substance.

That is your own problem, as far as I'm concerned I do not have any problem with any religion so far they are telling the truth. I as the Trueseeker only seek for where the truth can be found, a lot of scholar do consult NW for clarification and that is not a sin so far it is in accord with the revealed truth, Namely: God is one, God is greater than Jesus, Jesus is Son of God, Jesus is the Messiah and not equal with is father. It is a known fact that KJ has a lot of grave errors, so I don't constrained my self to any Bible translation, I use all, most especially those who are available online. I only point to it to reveal the error in your reference to Heb 1:8, which is alien to the context, and NW conform with that context, likewise at Philippians 2:6.

'But let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, even as it is written: “That you might be proved righteous in your words and might win when you are being judged.”' Romans 3:4

Deep Sight:

dmxqo link=topic=403867.msg5642851#msg5642851 date=1267963062:

Does it really matter? All this doctrines and dogmas. Wat matters in religion is morals and not articles of faith.

Viaro: Note the highlighted? The gentleman was speaking with reference to morals: basically that knowledge of "doctrines and dogmas" is irrelevant. Thus he asked - does it really matter?

Your response -

viaro:

It does matter - absolutely.

Indicates that such knowledge (as distinct from the morals only position) matters!

You thus infer that without such knowledge salvation is impossible.

Logic.

That is not logic at all, but a fallacy at its elementary level.

(a)     First, none of the discussants (apart from you) in this thread has predicated anyone's salvation upon the claim that people "are expected by God to have an exact understanding of celestial relationships such as the Trinity otherwise they will go to hell". Did anyone make such a claim? Has anyone been talking about 'HELL' in this thread so as to predicate the salvation of any soul upon "an exact understanding" of the Trinity? Of course, you know nobody has ever made any such claims - but I don't know what exactly it is that would drive you to such conceited postures as to make that claim and try to hang it upon me.

(b)    However, if anyone has mentioned 'HELL' in this thread, as far as I remember, it should have been ijele who said: "Think deep. St thomas de Aquinas said that ' Faith without reasoning is hell'" - but if you asked the same ijele, does that sound like the same thing YOU had claimed?

(c)     Yet, the far more interesting thing is that the direct question and answer to thise whole drama of yours has been sorted out much, much earlier in this thread.

[list]First, TrueSeeker had categorically posed this question to all readers: "Does belief in trinity necessary for human salvation?" (sic)[/list]

[list]Second, the direct answer to that was proffered by Image123:[/list]
[list]"Actually, I don't 'argue' doctrine cos though important, it's not pivot to salvation. Like for instance, one doesn't on compulsion need to grasp the virgin birth or even the rapture to be saved. Also, one may be 'aware' on issues like lord's supper, trinity, heaven and hell and still not possess eternal life.
So I want it clear that agreeing with Bible doctrine is not what saves us or condemns us."[/list]

That much we know and very well understand. If I disagreed with Image123's answer to TrueSeeker's question to all, then I would very early had tried to counter the former's answers! But because I absolutely agreed with him, there was no need for me to have posted a contrary view.

(d)    So, coming back to fabricate that wicked deceit that you champion on Nairaland to suggest that people  {"are expected by God to have an exact understanding of celestial relationships such as the Trinity otherwise they will go to hell"} and then seek to force-read that idiocy into my post is a very entertaining idiocy on your part! I have since lost all respect for you on account of your penchant to deliberately misread and misquote posters on Nairaland.

You can now take you conceited 'logic' back to your rogue religion and prosaic OOI, thanks. When dubious souls like you prowl public fora looking for where to vomit your stupidity, do you please mind aiming elsewhere and not in an arena where you only show your illiteracy?

Deep Sight:
Do i really really have to spell every inference out for you? Abeg, i dey Dubai and running late for dinner with a real hottie. later.

I don't need you spelling any dramatic and conceited 'inference' you dream up - they are fallacies, and very illiterate and gutlessly shameless at that! Just you take care that 'hottie' does not see your duplicity so she can be your next victim in your stodgy conceit.

TrueSeeker:

@viaro
That is your own problem, as far as I'm concerned I do not have any problem with any religion so far they are telling the truth. I as the Trueseeker only seek for where the truth can be found, a lot of scholar do consult NW for clarification and that is not a sin so far it is in accord with the revealed truth, Namely: God is one, God is greater than Jesus, Jesus is Son of God, Jesus is the Messiah and not equal with is father.

Please mention specific scholars who are part of "a lot of scholar(s)" consulting the NW for "clarification". You think you can just come here and blow smoke in our eyes as if we don't know what scholars of repute do with the NW?? Oh please!

It is a known fact that KJ has a lot of grave errors, so I don't constrained my self to any Bible translation, I use all, most especially those who are available online.

Hahaha! Dude, as far as translations go, there is not a single translation that is entirely free from errors. So that appeal is cosmetic at best. The NW has its own errors as well - loads of errors for which it is regarded as a spurious 'translation' by scholars of repute. Ask, and I'll point you to quite a handful of citations.

I only point to it to reveal the error in your reference to Heb 1:8, which is alien to the context, and NW conform with that context, likewise at Philippians 2:6.

The NW 'translation' is quite erratic - I knew you would somehow return with such excuses, and that was why I gave you reasons for the precise reading of those verses. Deny them if you please and are able to do so: but the NW is known to have twisted those verses, so live with it.

'But let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, even as it is written: “That you might be proved righteous in your words and might win when you are being judged.”' Romans 3:4

Amen. The translators of the NW have been found liars on many fronts, and God's Word remains true.

viaro:

Please mention specific scholars who are part of "a lot of scholar(s)" consulting the NW for "clarification". You think you can just come here and blow smoke in our eyes as if we don't know what scholars of repute do with the NW?? Oh please!

Professor Benjamin Kedar, a Professor of History and Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said in 1989: "In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible."

Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the New Testament in An American Translation, wrote in a letter to the Watch Tower Society: "I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify."

Religion writer and editor Alexander Thomson said of the NWT: "The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing. ,  We heartily recommend the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published in 1950 by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society."

These are just few among many who has seen NW as a good translation. Unlike your prefer translations who are bending the rule to put Jesus into a place he never taught of, namely claiming "equality with God"

At least we have a genuine translation we can use to refute your claim, with reasonableness.

I do not have any religious prejudice to any group or people. If you do that is your choice.

But tell me why did some translators included this statement in 1 John 5:7, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" You can see the extent which trinitarians can go to add to bible in order to support their believe.

If I sense the truth in your argument I will not hesitate to accept it. But on this issue of Jesus Christ being almighty God you are yet to convince me.

"Make sure of all things and hold on to what is fine" 1 Thessalonians. 5: 21

TrueSeeker:

Professor Benjamin Kedar, a Professor of History and Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said in 1989: "In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible."

Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the New Testament in An American Translation, wrote in a letter to the Watch Tower Society: "I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify."

Religion writer and editor Alexander Thomson said of the NWT: "The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing. ,  We heartily recommend the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published in 1950 by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society."

Hehe. .  seems like I gave you some homework - that's good, to know it kpt you busy.

Anyhow, people often run to sources here and there on the net without seeking to engage in critical reasoning for themselves. If you like to make such citations, maybe the following will be helpful as well ~

[list]Ron Rhodes in his book "The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Jehovah's Witness":[/list]

[list][li]Dr. Julius Mantey, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the New World Translation "a shocking mistranslation." (Julius R. Mantey, cited in Erich and Jean Grieshaber, Expose of Jehovah's Witnesses(Tyler:Jean Books, 1982), p.30)[/li][/list]

[list][li]Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, late professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the New World Translation "a frightful mistranslation," "erroneous," "pernicious," and "reprehensible."(Bruce Metzger, Theology Today, April 1953.)[/li][/list]

[list][li]Dr. William Barclay asserted that "the deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translation, It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest." (William Barclay, The Expository Times, November 1953.)[/li][/list]

[list][li]Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek of the New World Translation, concluded that the translation "has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translation, It must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly." (Robert H Countess, The Jehovah's Witness New Testament (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982), p.91.)[/li][/list]

Do you want more? Perhaps you quite didn't want to consider others on their scholarly opinions of the NWT? Why so?

These are just few among many who has seen NW as a good translation. Unlike your prefer translations who are bending the rule to put Jesus into a place he never taught of, namely claiming "equality with God"

Actually, these translations which I cited are not bending the rules. The Jehovah Witnesses scholarship has been found wanting on many fronts - never mind that the translators tried to deceive the world about their true identities and educational background. What would have been responsible for such irresponsible behaviour? If you want more facts to be reposted here from various sources, I could oblige you quite simply.

At least we have a genuine translation we can use to refute your claim, with reasonableness.

And you haven't done so? Why the delay? using what - the NWT?? Oh please - just come forward and let's remove all your cosmetic boasts about that and see what remains! You cannot be using a spurious translation to refute any claim, which prolly explains why you didn't even attempt to.

I do not have any religious prejudice to any group or people. If you do that is your choice.

Did I display such a prejudice against your own group that you didn't see what you have said about others? Please pass. It is this kind of pretentious talk from folks like you that make me shake my head in pity on your behalf.

But tell me why did some translators included this statement in 1 John 5:7, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" You can see the extent which trinitarians can go to add to bible in order to support their believe.

I don't know. I have not used 1 John 5:7 to argue anything with you; and even where that does not occur in the body of my arguments, it changes nothing. Do I suspect you quickly appealed to that as a quick distraction, huh?

If I sense the truth in your argument I will not hesitate to accept it. But on this issue of Jesus Christ being almighty God you are yet to convince me.

My consistent position is that Jesus is God and because He is God that is the reason He is to be worshipped. The question of "Almighty" is qite a subterfuge - I said so before now. Rather, I have simply maintained that Jesus is God.

"Make sure of all things and hold on to what is fine" 1 Thessalonians. 5: 21

Which is why you need to "hold on to what is good" - those NW apologists whose quotes you've been waving in our face are just not going to help you one bit, trust me.

But tell me why did some translators included this statement in 1 John 5:7, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" You can see the extent which trinitarians can go to add to bible in order to support their believe.

Which singularly destroys the credibility of the NT.

Lawd knows what was added before the transcription of the scrolls found in the Dead Sea

@viaro

I don't know. I have not used 1 John 5:7 to argue anything with you; and even where that does not occur in the body of my arguments, it changes nothing. Do I suspect you quickly appealed to that as a quick distraction, huh?

Please make sure you know it.

My consistent position is that Jesus is God and because He is God that is the reason He is to be worshipped. The question of "Almighty" is qite(sic) a subterfuge - I said so before now. Rather, I have simply maintained that Jesus is God.

So you are now saying that Jesus is not Almighty God, but he is a God or more accurately godlike, Case closed. I agree with you. Because he is not equal to his father.

TrueSeeker:

@viaro
Please make sure you know it.

I don't know - and neither do you. Anything you may rush to cite is mere conjecture - and my own conjecture is as good as yours for denying it. So be content that I have only allowed for simple discussion by not appealing to that verse. Rather, I have cited a more direct verse to show the relationship on the basis of worship - John 5:23 - which I don't see any of you deniers ever calmly discussing.

So you are now saying that Jesus is not Almighty God, but he is a God or more accurately godlike, Case closed. I agree with you. Because he is not equal to his father.

Please don't put words in my mouth, thank you. I have simply maintained that Jesus is God - not some idea of "godlike" translation which the NW argues without scholarship. On the other hand, I have said that "the question of whether He is 'Almighty God' is quite a subterfuge". It pays to read what I have said and not do what the JW are known for - duplicity.

In addition, could I remind you of the post I made earlier in response to you in post #223? Please see it again - it seems that you're deliberately ignoring my answers so you could dribble in your own fantasies into my replies. I'd appreciate very much that you don't misquote or misrepresent me, thanks.

viaro:

Please don't put words in my mouth, thank you. I have simply maintained that Jesus is God - not some idea of "godlike" translation which the NW argues without scholarship. On the other hand, I have said that "the question of whether He is 'Almighty God' is quite a subterfuge". It pays to read what I have said and not do what the JW are known for - duplicity.

@TrueSeeker: Let me chip in something here for viaro. The question of being God but not Almighty God is subterfuge because God == Almighty God. Trying to distinguish between God and Almighty God is just plain nonsense. Who is God if not Almighty? 

InesQor:

@TrueSeeker: Let me chip in something here for viaro. The question of being God but not Almighty God is subterfuge because God == Almighty God. Trying to distinguish between God and Almighty God is just plain nonsense. Who is God if not Almighty? 

Hahaha... do you want these deniers to faint? I was only trying to engage them in very simple terms that they can follow, but it seems you're not going to entertain their rubbish anymore!

This whole scenario reminds me (I keep repeating) of Arius of Alexander. I mean, how illiterate could any living being be to assert that Christ the Son of God has subsisted before ages and before time as "perfect God" and yet yapping that Jesus is not 'God'?

viaro
Abeg easy on that Deep S guy o! easy.

@trueseeker
Please may I ask, are those scholars you mentioned elders in your organisation? You no even put Mr. for front of their names apart from the old prof. abi na humility. viaro scholars get ph.D. No even mind me o, I'm just seeking the truth.
sidetalk: that NW translation no get one atom of anointing or inspiration. The writers don't even believe in such. My advice is that you stay away from it.

Viaro, tell me. That Arius guy, was he talking literally? You know, we need to be sure on why one will make such misguided, unguarded utterances.

viaro:

Hahaha... do you want these deniers to faint? I was only trying to engage them in very simple terms that they can follow, but it seems you're not going to entertain their rubbish anymore!

This whole scenario reminds me (I keep repeating) of Arius of Alexander. I mean, how illiterate could any living being be to assert that Christ the Son of God has subsisted before ages and before time as "perfect God" and yet yapping that Jesus is not 'God'?

How $%&!!?@*?!!!! canyou be to directly contradict the words of your rabbi -

He says God is greater.

You say they are equal.

What's happening?

Deep Sight:

How $%&!!?@*?!!!! canyou be to directly contradict the words of your rabbi -

He says God is greater.

You say they are equal.

What's happening?

Whatever. I see you're desperately frustrated at this point. Desperately. Jesus Christ claimed equal worship with the Father in John 5:23, and that is what viaro will comply with. Since there's nothing left for you to steal from here to add to your rogue religion, you could either continue your masquerade dance, or yet display more of your desperation. Your world.

Image123:

viaro
Abeg easy on that Deep S guy o! easy.

Hehe... I haven't even started on him yet.

Viaro, tell me. That Arius guy, was he talking literally? You know, we need to be sure on why one will make such misguided, unguarded utterances.

What can anyone say on his behalf? The controversies surrounding his name even to this day are such a laugh. Arius troubled himself with his own cacophony as all heretics always do. When DeepSight sought to bail out of his confusion by appealing to Arianism, I took him up on it and requested he addressed just one point I left him - up to this day he has not bothered obliging.

Funnier still is that even after appealing to Arianism, DeepSight himself was stupified at Arius' cacophony and then remarked: 'Who in history has ever perceived "Perfect God" as having a beginnning - by reason of having been "begotten"?'  That is one of the highlights I'd been looking forward to Arius' apprentices to reconcile - just how could "PERFECT GOD" have had any beginning when Arius himself asserted (see the Ecole Initiative):

        *  that Christ subsisted before time and before ages

        *  that Christ subsisted as PERFECT GOD

        *  that Christ does not derive His subsistence from any matter

        *  that Christ had subsisted by his own will and counsel

        *  that Christ was of the non-existent

        *  that Christ is neither part of God, nor of any essential being

The same Arius noted that "God is without beginning" - and this despite the fact that he asserted that Christ subsisted by His own will and counsel before time and before ages as "PERFECT GOD". I have long waited for the apprentices of Arianism on Nairaland to please show us the difference between ~

         (a)  'God is without beginning'

                                and

         (b)  Christ who by His own will and counsel had subsisted as 'perfect God'
               before time and before ages, and not deriving His subsistence from any matter??

Just what is the difference between 'God has no beginning' and Christ susbsisted as 'perfect God'??

It so happens that anytime this issue is brought up (on Nairaland and elsewhere), Arius' disciples who deny the Deity of Christ have never been able to defend their discombobulation on the fact that Arius referred to Christ as "perfect God".  Perhaps this was why InesQor saw the 'plain nonsense' of these deniers when I noted that "the question of whether He is 'Almighty God' is quite a subterfuge". How someone in any literal sense of the word 'sanity' would yet deny the Deity of Christ after asserting that He is PERFECT GOD, is just beyond me.

viaro:

Whatever. I see you're desperately frustrated at this point. Desperately. Jesus Christ claimed equal worship with the Father in John 5:23, and that is what viaro will comply with. Since there's nothing left for you to steal from here to add to your rogue religion, you could either continue your masquerade dance, or yet display more of your desperation. Your world.

Is this a reasoned approach?

Jn 14:28 absolutely contradicts your assertion that the son is equal to the father.

Your response - you ignore it entirely and seek refuge in a verse in which he says he should be honoured as the father is.

If your mother demands equal respect as you give your father, does that make her equal to him? Does that make her the head of the house? ? ?

If a Governor of a State demands as much protocol as is accorded the President, does that make him equal to the president?

The clear answer is no; thus your act of ABSOLUTELY IGNORING Jn 14:28 and seeking refuge in the weaker verse which says exactly nothing is at best comical because -

1. Jn 14:28 is stronger and vastly more unequivocal - It states clearly: "The Father is greater than I"

If you assert that this is not true in contradistinction to Jn 5:23 - THEN:

EITHER -

1. You are admitting that the bible contradicts itself.

or

2. You must explain thoroughly and lucidly why both statements remain true and are not contradictory.

I have already shown above why Jn. 5:23 is NOT topical. A request to honour him as the Father is honoured does nothing to detract from the unequivocal declaration in Jn 14:28 regarding his subjugation to the Father.

The fact remains that you have NEVER even once offered an explanation of Jn:1428. Never! You simply IGNORE it and scamper off to Jn. 5:23 - shockingly forgetting that that either exposes a contradiction in the bible which you must resolve OR as i have asserted - shows up blank given that Jn 5:23 says exactly nothing!

So please lucidly address this and stop amusing me with puerile boasts of "dealing" with anybody.

This ain't your high-school play ground you know?

@Deep Sight:

The question you should really ask is "Greater in what respect?"

That was a cool example you mentioned about marriage. A husband and wife will have different roles in a marriage. Wives are to take on the submissive role, but this does not indicate that difference in function requires inferiority of nature. Does the wife have a lesser nature than that of the husband? Of course not. They both are fully human.

"Difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature." - James White

Now I delve into the Greek:

The Greek word translated "greater" (meizon) does not mean greater in the sense of a higher type of being, but rather
1. larger, specifically in AGE, literally or figuratively (AGE here would refer to the instance of Christ's incarnation on earth happening after the beginning)
2. more relevant in the sense of position or authority. (GOD has the choice to select whatever role he so desires. More on roles below.)

Jesus further repeats the phrase, "A servant is not greater than his Master," twice (John 13:16; 15:20).  Meizon is used again in each of these verses.  No one would suggest that a servant is a lesser being than his Master.

A Master is "greater" than a servant because he occupies a position of greater status, dignity, and authority.

Comparing with John 13:16, 15:20 Jesus is saying that the Father is "greater" because the Father's position in Heaven is one of greater dignity and authority than the one the Son occupies on earth.  This is why the disciples should rejoice, because he was returning to his exalted place from which he had stooped to conquer.

The Son was returning to the right hand of the Father, to the glory He had with the Father before His existence on earth (John 17:5), after voluntarily humbling Himself in coming to earth (Philippians 2:6), taking the form of a servant (doulos, the same word Jesus uses in John 13:16 and 15:20).  He was returning to the Father to regain His former glory, where He could accomplish all the wonderful things promised to the disciples in His final discourse.  If the disciples had considered the import of Jesus' words, they would have realized the exaltation that awaited the Son, and would have rejoiced.
THAT was the reason he said the Father is greater than Him.

Jesus' limitations on earth were not as a result of a lesser-than-God nature, they were consequences of a self-imposed submission to pour Himself out in the form of a man, He “emptied Himself” (Philippians 2:7; He “made Himself nothing”—NIV). Unlike Adam and Eve, who attempted to seize equality with God (Genesis 3:5), Jesus, the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:47), humbled Himself, and obediently accepted the role of a servant in human form. He added humanity to his divinity.

Simplifying things about natures, persons and beings, here's an illustration:

There is only one humanity (Being) but many individuals (persons). Individuals share in the Being of humanity, and that does not mean that I am you, and you are me — we are different persons with the same single Being. We have various careers, various roles with various levels of authority, but if an alien from Mars relates to us, we are all humanity. THAT is our being, and none of us is less than any other.

Please note that the above is not suggesting polytheism, it is just an illustration.