@Noetic. . .did jesus refer to himself as "christ", or was that a title used to refer to him, by SOME of his followers, after his death?

olabowale:

And noetic2 is angry that Elohim is a wholesale name for gods or Gods in a particular semitic language. He was not ashamed that he used the same wholesale methology to cheapen what it means by the muslims when they say Allah!

What is shameless about his conscience is that he forgot that Moses spoke Egyptian coptic language and what the medians spoke since thats where he ran to, and the children of Israel in coptic bondage could not have had a language of their own different from what the slave masters used, otherwise they would have used that private language to undermine the masters, the exact same thing that the whites feared about africans who finally lost their languages and cultures and worse their names!

I believe that ur concerns with regards to ELOHIM have been answered.

whats stopping u from opening a new thread to sell islam to me?

Krayola2:

@Noetic. . .did jesus refer to himself as "christ", or was that a title used to refer to him, by SOME of his followers, after his death?

read john 17:3

@Noetic2: « #33 on: Today at 10:43:51 AM »

I believe that your concerns with regards to ELOHIM have been answered.

Youbelieve wrongly, because you did not answer my concerns. If you think you did, they were not good enough for me, because it is not specific to 1 God, but it can be used for god (idol), god (idols) or Gods, in addition to just God! And since you claim to have Triun of dieties/Deities/deity/Deity in trinity, namely the persive Holy Ghost God, human Jesus son God and the throned Jehovah father God, I just cant accept any explanation that you provide unless, it logically agrees the three entities separately, first, since you have it in your belief system that father sent son to earth to die, and when he died father was still in His full Godliness, and so was Holy Ghost in his full Godliness.

This simpy means that the two remaining are independent and separate from the dead son, and their Godliness, individually or collectively, were not compromised. That shows to me that they are not 1 and the son was irrelevant to how the creations were ran! This is the constrictor you need to get off yourself before I address the salvation issue.

whats stopping u from opening a new thread to sell islam to me?

Since you fail so miserably, I will now sell you Islam at the best price, belief/faith in God, without partnership and no animal or human sacrifice needed! Your thrread is now on. And I dismiss this one, your poor salemanship which will bankrupt the best product of any anufacturer, or marketing company.

olabowale:

@Noetic2: « #33 on: Today at 10:43:51 AM » Youbelieve wrongly, because you did not answer my concerns. If you think you did, they were not good enough for me, because it is not specific to 1 God, but it can be used for god (idol), god (idols) or Gods, in addition to just God! And since you claim to have Triun of dieties/Deities/deity/Deity in trinity, namely the persive Holy Ghost God, human Jesus son God and the throned Jehovah father God, I just cant accept any explanation that you provide unless, it logically agrees the three entities separately, first, since you have it in your belief system that father sent son to earth to die, and when he died father was still in His full Godliness, and so was Holy Ghost in his full Godliness.

This simpy means that the two remaining are independent and separate from the dead son, and their Godliness, individually or collectively, were not compromised. That shows to me that they are not 1 and the son was irrelevant to how the creations were ran! This is the constrictor you need to get off yourself before I address the salvation issue.

I cant make a meaning out of the above.

Since you fail so miserably, I will now sell you Islam at the best price, belief/faith in God, without partnership and no animal or human sacrifice needed! Your thrread is now on. And I dismiss this one, your poor salemanship which will bankrupt the best product of any anufacturer, or marketing company.

please open a thread and let me ask u questions about islam.

@Noetic; « #36 on: Today at 11:54:45 AM »

I cant make a meaning out of the above.

Your disbelieving heart and soul will not let you be able to make any meaning of it, since the three gods are opposing one another in your multigod heart! Again I said you failed miserably in trying to sell 3 VW cars to me as a single Lamborghini Melargo, or Koenigsegg CCR!


[Quote]please open a thread and let me ask u questions about islam.[/quote]Its done, already. Ask sensible question even though you may have a headache trying to do it!

olabowale:

@Noetic; « #36 on: Today at 11:54:45 AM » Your disbelieving heart and soul will not let you be able to make any meaning of it, since the three gods are opposing one another in your multigod heart! Again I said you failed miserably in trying to sell 3 VW cars to me as a single Lamborghini Melargo, or Koenigsegg CCR!

I did not expect u to gasp the concept of trinity. . .its too complex for u. , .I understand.

Whats ur next question?

noetic2:

read john 17:3

thanks.

Do u think everything the new testament says happened actually did happen? e.g. That the authors of the Gospels (In the case of John about a century after Jesus) rightly quoted Jesus word for word and never imposed their own beliefs on him. Can u tell this just by reading the bible? Is the Bible infallible (like it's authors and people who compiled it). Just want ur opinion. .

Krayola2:

thanks.

Do u think everything the new testament says happened actually did happen? e.g. That the authors of the Gospels (In the case of John about a century after Jesus) rightly quoted Jesus word for word and never imposed their own beliefs on him. Can u tell this just by reading the bible? Is the Bible infallible (like it's authors and people who compiled it). Just want your opinion. .

The new testament happened just as was recorded. It is the infallible word of God, written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

One can only appreciate the new testament if u attempt to find out why it was written? who the target audience were? and the basis for writing them?
The entire new testament was written to several churches/bodies of believers facing diverse challenges at various times. The new testament was not written for intellectual analysis, historical records or as a basis for debating the existence or non-existence of God.
has the target audience had a problem with the bible? has the church complained about the bible. . .the answer is a NO.
It is only when non members attempt to apply the bible to their primordial dogmatic belief that there is a problem of interpretation of bible.

noetic2:


has the target audience had a problem with the bible? has the church complained about the bible. . .the answer is a NO.
It is only when non members attempt to apply the bible to their primordial dogmatic belief that there is a problem of interpretation of bible.

There have always been disagreement over which Gospels had authority. . .right from the start. Which is why people had to vote on the canon. Even after the vote there were grievances.

Which church do u refer to as having no qualms with the Bible ? The Catholic church, coptic, gnostic etc, or the ones that came about about 1200 years later because of their different understanding of the Bible? Which one(s), in your opinion, have the right interpretation, and why?

Were Nigerians part of the target audience?


In your opinion, who were the target audiences and what message did the authors seek to convey to them?

U said the events in the new testament occured just as recorded, and then go on to say it is not a historical document, i'm not sure what u mean.


Who are the "God-worshippers" mentioned in the new-testament?

Krayola2:

There have always been disagreement over which Gospels had authority. . .right from the start. Which is why people had to vote on the canon. Even after the vote there were grievances.

Which church do u refer to as having no qualms with the Bible ? The Catholic church, coptic, gnostic etc, or the ones that came about about 1200 years later because of their different understanding of the Bible? Which one(s), in your opinion, have the right interpretation, and why?

Were Nigerians part of the target audience?


In your opinion, who were the target audiences and what message did the authors seek to convey to them?

U said the events in the new testament occured just as recorded, and then go on to say it is not a historical document, i'm not sure what u mean.


Who are the "God-worshippers" mentioned in the new-testament?

1. The church refers to the body of Christ. . . , body or believers and NOT a sect or denomination. catholic, RCCG et all are denominations.

2. The body of Christ does not dispute the authenticity of the bible. No true christians have a problem with the bible. true believers are only identified by the manifestation of the holy spirit. . .that was the same spirit that inspired the bible.

3. The God-worshippers, if I understand ur point. . .are those who worship the father (in acknowledgement of the son) in spirit and in truth.

4. the vote or other forms of bible are best understood by analysing the premise for having a different bible. what stops u from conducting ur own research and come up with ur findings?

5. The bible occured as it was written to form a picture of events to the church within the space of time. . . . .it was not written to be a guide to historians.

aight. thanks.

Christians that do not believe it is literally true that trumpets will blow, and some celestial battle with angels, beasts, etc will happen, are not real Christians?

whats their basis for not believing the above?

Some believe it is symbolic. e.g. That it means that good will ultimately triumph over evil, no matter how powerful the evil may appear to be; and not an actual future event that will involve creatures as described in the bible.

noetic2:



3. The God-worshippers, if I understand your point. . .are those who worship the father (in acknowledgement of the son) in spirit and in truth.

SO they are the early Christians, Paul's original converts etc ?

my position on matters like this is to follow literal biblical explanations except for instances where symbols are used in the prophecy. . .then one needs the appropriate knowledge to know the meaning of the symbols before interpreting the prophecy.

noetic2:

my position on matters like this is to follow literal biblical explanations except for instances where symbols are used in the prophecy. . .then one needs the appropriate knowledge to know the meaning of the symbols before interpreting the prophecy.

Aight. But do u think those that don't take it literally are not true christians?

some versions call them "God-fearers". . . who do u think they were?

Krayola2:

Aight. But do u think those that don't take it literally are not true christians?

It all bugs down to the premise. . . their position might be a reflection of their biblical knowledge or an ulterior motive.
The former is cool. . the latter is not Christ-like.

Krayola2:

some versions call them "God-fearers". . . who do u think they were?

I dont think that there is a difference between the two. fearing God goes beyond literal fear.