Happy Birthday Shai !!

Some people you meet, you never forget
some people you miss, you always regret
some people will leave the fondest memories
when you reminisce on yester' glories

Your Birthday is a date to thank you
your birthday is a day to share
your birthday is a day to think on those stories
we shared when life was free and fair

You Are the Object Of My Affection

"I love you with even more passion", He whispered in my heart. I was sitting in a chair speaking to God about the woman I was in love with, when He spoke those words.

Passion?, I thought, what has God to do with passion, that is not an entirely holy subject, but I quietened as He continued, “You love her because she can love you in return, you love her because she is smart and beautiful, but when I loved you, you were formless, you were without any comeliness, void, I did not have any expectations of you, when I loved you, there was nothing you could have given me or added to me, nothing. Some people say Praise, but I have the Angels for that. I did not love you because I wanted praise from you. I loved you because I created you to love you.

I loved you so much I sent my son to die for you, I am you Father I created you to be my very own. I love you so much I have moved heaven and earth because of you. You are the object of my affection, the apple of my eye. I have inscribed your name on my palms; you are constantly on my mind.

My thoughts towards you are of peace. I want to give you much more than you desire of me. You have to understand how very much I love you. I love you with an everlasting love, and nothing can ever change that, you cannot fathom the extent of my love. I want you to understand that you can never deserve my love, you cannot earn it, it is my grace. All you need to do is understand this and accept it; you can only experience this grace when you accept it.

A lot of times you have shied away from my embrace, when I come towards you, you step away backwards, why do you do this... I am your Father, I love you, when I want to hold you, you turn away from me, you think you are too dirty, too filthy...if only you knew that you have been forgiven, because I loved you I forgave you, before you were born I forgave you, before you ever sinned I forgave you, so why do you hide away from me, why do you think I will not accept you. If only you could know the depth, the height and measure of my love, then you will know that I can never leave nor forsake you. Even if a mother can forsake her child, I can never forsake you.

I want you to remember that I created you to love you; I have brought you into my banqueting hall, and have set before you a table of fat things by my right hand. If you will only glimpse into what I have prepared then you will begin to understand the depths and the measure of my love.

I was numb for a few minutes, overwhelmed by the love radiating from his presence and then I began to write, I knew God wanted his entire creation to understand this truth, I knew it was important that I share this with everyone I loved. I am sharing this with you.

Please pass it on...share it with someone you love today.

In His Presence

Again on the Da Vinci Code: In defence of the Christian Faith

(This piece was written in 2006 on the edge of the debate that arose after the release of the best selling fiction by Dan Brown: The Da Vinci Code, at the time i was responding to commentaries running in the Guardian Newspapers in Nigeria)


I have read with interest and fascination the plethora of comments on the above named book authored by Dan Brown which was recently adopted into a movie. My decision to join the commentary is however largely due to the comments on this same topic by Osaro Odache. Mr Odache commenting in the Guardian of Monday July 10, 2006 also referred to comments on the same topic by Mr. Isiekwene (Guardian June 29, 2006), who I am sure had reacted to some earlier commentaries, and so on. I will attempt to answer the Osaro Odache’s of this world because they have challenged the basis on which the Christian faith stands. Dan Brown is an opportunist and does not even warrant a reply, however Mr. Odache has set out to rubbish the foundations of the Faith, and having done so in the public sphere it is appropriate that one replies his accusations in public.

I have watched the said movie, and I am intimately acquainted with the subject matter, that having been said, I doubt if Mr. Osaro has either watched the movie or is in anyway acquainted with the subject matter, i.e. the divinity or otherwise of Christ. Having read his Guardian commentary back to back about 5-6 times I am convinced that Mr Odache is either a rabble rouser or a lay commentator, I do not say this to malign him in any way, and he has my unreserved apologies if I am wrong, I however believe the facts speak for itself. His first attack is levelled at the authenticity of the Bible, so I start my defence from there.

‘For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty, For we received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts; Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.’ (2Peter 1: 16-).

Above I have quoted a transliteration of the eyewitness account of Simon Peter, the apostle of Christ. This account was written sometime around AD 60, however this quote is from the King James Version of the Bible. As some people may not be too comfortable with its ‘high’ English, I will attempt to summarize its content. Apostle Peter in his 2nd epistle was saying that there was no conspiracy amongst them (Christians) to falsify any information or account of the life and ministry of Christ, but they were eyewitnesses of his divinity. Peter along with James and John were privy to the Transfiguration, Jesus took them with him to a mountain to pray, as Jesus prayed the three men slept as we men are wont to do at vigils, and they awoke to find that Jesus’ visage and raiment was white and glistering with light, they noticed also that Moses and Elijah had appeared beside him and were holding a conversation with him. Peter was awestruck, being a bold man he asked that he be allowed to build three boots/ tents so that Jesus and his guests could dwell there and they all could live on the mountain. While he spoke a cloud came down and overshadowed Jesus and the patriarchs, then an audible voice came out of the cloud and said, This is my beloved Son; in whom I am well pleased, hear him (Matt 17:1-8, Mark 9: 2-8, Luke 9: 28 -36). Of course the three disciples are not likely to forget that day ever, but Peter goes on to say that apart from their personal testimonies for which they had no basis to lie, there was a surer way of ascertaining the truth, our hearts. Jesus is standing at the door of our hearts, if by faith we open up and let him in, He will enlighten our darkness and illuminate our minds as to the truth. Peter concludes this famous treatise with the affirmation that there is no prophecy in the scripture that is not God-breathed, and warned against false prophets and teachers who will lead many astray with strange doctrines and practices, even to the point of denying Jesus, the same Jesus that bought them with His precious blood, their immoral lifestyles would cause the Faith to be openly criticized and vilified (in the press for example).

I would rest my case here, but I fear that I may be accused of ‘deliberately avoiding discussing or debating’ the issues, so I proceed. Mr. Odache reasons that the modern day Bible has, ‘inexplicable inconsistencies and contradictions’ that submission in itself would not have raised any eyebrows in that all Mr. Odache need do is get himself a copy of the ancient texts. I personally prefer the King James Version of the Bible, and there are no such inexplicable contradictions in my bible. However the discovery in recent history (1948 - 1952) of the Dead Sea Scrolls put to rest all arguments as to the validity and authenticity of the translations of the Old Testament in modern Bibles. Since I do not have access to all ‘modern-day’ translations of the New Testament, I cannot defend what anyone chooses to translate as he/her own understanding of the original Greek texts. It however suffices to say that the general message, the tenor of scripture; faith, hope and love does not change in whatever translation or language he is reading from, but Mr Odache does not stop there, and therein he reveals the real focus of his attack; the authenticity of Scripture as being God-breathed. What Mr. Odache should do is embark on a careful study of the Word, and not rely on cursory assessments, as this will lead him nowhere, God deserves more than our cursory attention, if it is God breathed or not, only a careful, dedicated study will reveal. For the sake of debate, I will treat the issue of authenticity of the Bible and the myriads of translations in turn.

The Bible is the greatest book ever written. It was written thousands of years ago, over a total time space of about 4 millennia (4 thousand years), yet its theme, message, books, chapters and verses are coherent, interrelated, progressive and relevant most especially in today’s world. It is arguably the most relevant book ever complied. I say arguably because humanity itself is fast losing a cognizance of relevance (the things that really matter); and has since substituted materialism in it’s stead – the popular mantra, ‘there is nothing money cannot buy’ is today the global creed. For those that have realised sadly that money (materialism -the lust for money and power) not only makes the world go round, but has already caused the globe to twirl past its speed limits and is currently spinning faster and faster to self destruction, it may be too late. It is instructive to note that those things that really matter; family life, peace, joy, friendship/ companionship, community life, hope for the future, sense of purpose etc are elusive in today’s highly charged, capitalist, dog eat dog world. Those that have returned to the Scriptures have always found the answers they seek, sadly we wait, like the American’s after 9/11, to reach out for the answers only after personal or national tragedy strikes (Bible sales increased exponentially after the 9/11 attacks). However, how we seek is as important as seeking, for the bible will only provide answers to those who seek with all their hearts, not with sense knowledge, logic or realism but with faith. Here lies the problem, why is it that some have searched the scriptures but find therein contradictions and inconsistencies, whereas others have found in those same pages, joy, peace and life. ‘If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world (Satan) has blinded the minds of them that believe not lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of the God should shine unto them’ (2Corinth 4:3). Those that have sought for truth have never been turned away, but those that have no faith find none in the Scriptures. The bible does not lend itself to intellectualism, it does not open its treasures to the wise of this world, rather it opens its wealth to children, those that would accept it with the faith of little children will inherit its treasures, but this very discourse of faith is anathema to the so-called reasoned literary critiques. They would rather you talk about scientific and empirical knowledge, however the very custodian of reasoning, the originator of the body of scientific knowledge, the All knowing, Omniscient One has declared that you will not see me until you search with the eyes of faith.

The Bible remains relevant because it was inspired by God, men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, hence it is timeless. It was the beginning of man’s civilisation and it will still be around at the end. This book has survived criticism and scorn from every generation living since the re-birth of thinking, the Renaissance. The Bible itself gave birth to the very ‘age of reasoning’ (Renaissance) that sought to discredit it. In fact, a careful look at history reveals that the path of civilisation has been pioneered by the footprints of Gods’ Word. Every history book attests to the fact that ‘modern’ civilisation can be traced from the invention of the printing press in the Christian monasteries, to the spread and translation of the printed Bible (the first book ever printed) to the uttermost parts of the civilised world. Even prior to the invention of the printing press, hear what these two economic historians have to say, (one is a venture capitalist the other an investment banker), ‘The Church was the main source for preserving and transmitting technical knowledge and information. The Church sponsored universities and provided the minimal education that medieval society enjoyed. The Church also provided a mechanism for reproducing books and manuscripts, including almost all contemporary information about farming and husbandry. The scriptoria of the Benedictine monasteries can be understood as an alternative technology to printing presses, which did not yet exist. Costly and inefficient as the scriptoria were, they were practically the only mechanism for reproducing and preserving written knowledge in the feudal period.’ (The Sovereign Individual: Mastering the transition to the Information Age, pg 91, James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg, 1997).

Hence learning and modern education began in monasteries; the only topic learnt was theology, the only textbook the Bible. Later on other subjects of learning began to take root, because the bible itself taught that, ‘the invisible things of the creator are clearly seen, being understood by the things that were created’ (Romans 1: 20), hence the study of nature and all its branches; biology, anatomy, chemistry, anthropology etc. began. The monasteries that survived later on became libraries and universities as learning and scholarship spread all around the civilised world. Ever wondered why as the Good News spread from the East into Europe and later on into the West, civilisation spread with it? Why Africa was the Dark Continent until the missionaries came with the gospel? One may argue. Many do, but no one can ever disprove documented History. It is true that the ‘white men’ brought slavery, disease, mental and national colonisation etc, but they also brought the glorious gospel and that ushered in civilisation and the prosperity that comes with it. The Bible answers these queries, it teaches that in Him (the Word of God) was life and the life was the light (civilisation) of men. Some have argued that afterall it was the self-same Church that opposed scientific theories and discoveries during the Dark Ages in Europe. The Church, yes, organized religion, yes, but not Christianity, Christianity is light. It was organized religion, the Papacy that banned the proliferation of the Bible, and opposed scientific discourse because they did not want anyone enlightened enough to question their extra-canonical doctrines, rulership and lordship, they persecuted Christians more than any other group or sect, but it was Christianity that provoked the Renaissance, the very word renaissance means ‘re-birth’, ‘born-again’. Martin Luther read the Bible carefully and discovered discrepancies between what the Church leaders were saying and what the Bible said, so he declared boldly at the risk of being burnt at the stake, ‘the just shall live by the Faith of the Son of God’ and gave birth to the first of many revivals, as he nailed his 95 theses on the Church door at Wittenberg in 1517, he set in motion the revolution that would unshackle the whole of western civilisation. Christianity has always triumphed over darkness, stagnation, regression and death. The Bible says that darkness cannot comprehend (understand) it. But what makes the Bible authentic is the fact that it the only one of its kind, no other book comes near in breadth of composition and authority, not Plato’s ‘Republic’, nor Homer’s ‘Odyssey’, not Adam Smith’s ‘Wealth of Nations’, nor Karl Max’s ‘Das Kapital’, if it were mere men (using their intellect) that authored the Bible, why haven’t men attempted another such epochal book? It’s the genuine article, the only one of its kind; you can choose to ignore it, criticize it, burn it, defile it, vilify it etc., that will not diminish its worth or its spread. It is still the highest selling book and most translated book in the world ever, everything will fail, every system of man, every network, organisation, association, theory, every man, woman, child, but the Word of God will never fail. It will still be here when we are all gone and will influence countless generations to come.

On the issue of translations. The bible was written to humanity in their generations, ‘it is the power (ability or method) of God unto salvation, to everyone that believes, to the Jews first, and also to the Greek (all of humanity) for therein the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written the just shall live by faith’. (Romans 1:16). However there are two applications of the Bible to humanity: the natural and spiritual. In the natural, the oral traditions of the Jews, the prose, history, poetry, hymns, Passion of Jesus Christ, activities of the early church converts, exhortations on faith and general encouragement in the light of persecution, etc., contained in the Bible all relate to man’s life here on earth, hence humanity has used its’ wisdom to learn how to live life to its fullest. From the books of Moses where God lays down the laws that forms the basis of the legal code of today’s modern societies, to the closing pages where God lays down the final commandment, ‘thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thine heart and all thine soul and thy neighbour as thy self’, humanity has found the answers to life, and in the process of seeking answers to more specific questions, they find the consolation that other men had walked the earth, and trudged the same paths of trials and pain, conquest and ambition, success and fulfilment, joy and happiness, others before them had played their part. As these themes weave the greatest book ever written, other deeper, transcendental themes emerge. Beneath all the prose and poetry, the hymns and dialectics, lie the ‘deep things of God’, these mysteries of God are many-sided, we learn that the Bible holds it’s secrets, we learn that everywhere is layered with symbolic meaning. As we go ahead to enquire, we learn that the Bible is actually a spiritual treatise, and deals rather with transcendental realties: God, Life, Death, Salvation of the Soul and Immortality.

It was written to humanity in their generations, so no one race or generation has exclusive rights. The bible is as relevant to the Efik or Ibibio as it is relevant to the Hebrew or Greek, hence its translation into all known languages. The methodology of translation however becomes imperative to its relevance. In the closing verses of its’ very last chapter, God leaves a stern warning to all would-be translators, ‘if any man shall add unto these things (words of this book), God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book, And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book’ (Rev 22: 18,19). I believe every translator takes this warning literarily. Luckily, God judges the heart (motive) and not the act.

There are two major translation methodologies; there is the method of ‘formal equivalence’, where the translator attempts to render each original Hebrew/ Greek word into the receptors language seeking to preserve the original word order and sentence structure as much as possible, this method is also known as transliteration (literal translation). The second method of translation is the dynamic equivalence or functional equivalence, the goal here is to produce in the receptor language the closet natural equivalence of the message expressed by the original Hebrew/ Greek texts – both in meaning and style, the aim is to have the same impact on modern readers as the original had on its own audience. Which ever method is used, translation presents its difficulties. For example, there are times when words cannot be translated accurately because of the lack of corresponding words in English, for instance in the Greek New Testament, the three words; ‘agape’, ‘philia’, and ‘storge’ all have distinct meanings that seriously affect the proper interpretation of Scripture, but all three words are translated in English as ‘Love', It suffices to say however that despite these language obstacles most of the modern translations of the Bible are literal works of art, and we owe an immeasurable debt to those men that took on the Herculean tacks of translating the ancient texts. So, and as earlier surmised, the difficulties of translating notwithstanding, the general theme of the Bible has not changed, and hence its relevance and authenticity. However, it is instructive to note that in its transcendental capacity, the Bible does not lend itself to literal interpretation, even when read in its original Hebrew/ Greek form. The symbolisms and parables used have many – layered interpretations and only the One who penned can unveil its message. The cheering news is that every true believer that will search with all his/ her heart will find the keys to unveiling its riches. You will only find the hidden truths when you make these truths your priority (seeking first the kingdom and its righteousness).

It is important to note that although the Bible is the Word of God, it is not the only medium through which God speaks (communes) with man, the Bible is however the only standard. Before the Bible was complied men walked with God, and God communed with men. However when Christ, who was the Word personified came into this world, the Bible was complied as a guide to, or compendium of, Christ. It became the standard by which every other book or communication, knowledge or understanding of God would be judged. Any man that writes or speaks anything about God, outside of what has been written in the Bible will have his portion taken from the book of eternal life. Also it is noteworthy that the Bible is after all only a medium, it is not a talisman or an object of awe or worship, it is simply the writings about Jesus, it is a means of gaining Christ or Christ-like-ness. Hence the entire book is pointing us to Him, All the prophets prophesied about Him, and when He came, He re-set the course of History. History itself is His story, After His Death (A.D.) and Before Christ (B.C.) the entirety of time was set by His watch whilst He exists in eternity. No other figure in History has been as controversial and generated as much followership, about a quarter of the worlds population are surnamed after Him, no other figure in History has been so talked about, not Alexander the Great, nor Socrates, not Napoleon or Hitler. He was visible in public life for only 3 1/2 years but millennia’s before His birth prophesies had gone forth, millennia’s after his death and resurrection he is still the most controversial topic on earth, and literary opportunists like Dan Brown, sensationalize occultic texts and fantasies of an artist cum scientist to write about the Enigma that walked the earth well over a millennia before either of them was born. It is cheap and lousy. The book/movie reeks of the occult, especially Illuminati and Masonry themes and most assuredly financial backings. It is offensive that it has received so much attention. The ‘Da Vinci Code’ has been banned from cinema’s in some countries around the world, and has thrown up much passionate comments and arguments; however it is also instructive that no Christian leader has asked for Dan Brown’s head, as redress for his blasphemy or called for mass violent protests against the movie producers. Curiously no other movie production apart from the Passion of the Christ has stirred up so much emotion and controversy in the history of Hollywood. For those still in doubt as to the elaborate misrepresentation of history set out by the author of the ‘Da Vinci Code’, it is helpful to search history books or the internet for the truth, (http://www.priory-of-sion.com/, http://www.rbcdavincicode.org/, or on http://www.google.com/)

Back to the article, Mr. Odache goes on in his article to speak of doctrines of certain adherents of Christian faith, what he should concern himself with is what the Bible says about these so called doctrines and not what some unidentifiable adherents term as doctrines. He starts his conundrum of errors by asserting that the doctrine of Trinity forms the cornerstone on which Christianity stands. Any true Christian knows that the only cornerstone of Christianity is Christ, the revelation of and unwavering faith in Jesus Christ. Christ asked His disciples, ‘what do people say that I am, when they responded variously, He then asked a direct question, ‘who do you say that I am’ only Peter could respond, Peter answered and said, Thou are the Christ (Messiah) the Son of the living God’ –Jesus answered and said, ‘flesh and blood has not revealed this to you only my Father in Heaven, and he continued and said, ‘Upon this rock (foundation) I will build my Church... the foundation there was not Peter (whose name means rock) as many went on to doctrinate for their selfish purposes, but the foundation Jesus referred to was the revelation that Peter had received. Hence the foundation/ cornerstone on which Christianity stands is the revelation of the Identity of Christ. That is why Dan Browns’ depiction of Christ as having had immoral relations with a woman, and having sired a child is at the very crux of the Christian faith. Once the identity of Christ is maligned the basis of Christianity is shaken. Is Christ a fraud? Did he live an exemplary life or was He just a magician that went for wild parties and had a string of girlfriends one of which had a baby for Him? That is the question that ancients and mystics, priests and imams, politicians and poets, young and old alike have struggled to answer in generation after generation, century after century. I will not attempt to answer that question for the answer is in our hearts, what we want to believe and what we discern deep down in our hearts are two different things. One of the best replies to that question however, was given by a blind man that had recently been healed by Jesus, he said, and I surmise, ‘you have seen for yourself what he can do, the evidence is plain for all to examine, why don’t you go an ask him yourself if he is the Christ, as for me all I know is that once I was blind but now I see’ (John 9)

On the doctrine of Trinity, it is useful to note that a Christian doctrine can only be established by Christ himself, It is His teachings and His alone that qualify as Christian doctrines, it is not what a man or sect term as doctrine but what Christ taught. So the rule is simple, if Christ did not teach it, it is not doctrine. Period. I will explain the issue of Trinity for the benefit of those that have read Mr. Odache’s damning report and have become somewhat confused. The misconception (sometimes even within Christian circles) has been that Christians serve three Gods (polytheism) that are one (united) in purpose and essence. This misconception arises because they refer to God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit as separate and distinct entities that make up the Godhead. However this concept does not exist anywhere in the Bible, not in the Old Testament or in the New, it was imported into the Church for reason beyond the scope of this discussion. What the Bible teaches is that there is a God in Heaven (God the Father) He has a Son (Jesus Christ) and is manifest as the Spirit (The Holy Ghost). No where in scripture is it written that there is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. The scripture wrongly quoted but scarcely read is found in 1 John 5:7. There is however a huge difference between one God that chooses to manifest himself in three distinct ways, (apart from the myriad of other ways in which he manifests), and the concept of three Gods that agree as one, or that are in Unity. His three distinct manifestations do not make Him three different individuals because He created man in His likeness. Every human has a body, a spirit and a soul, that does not mean that every human is made up of three separate individuals. Even schizophrenic’s are just one person with different personalities. For any human being to be complete, or rather for any being to be termed human, he must of necessity be manifested in these three realities, the physical, soulish and spiritual realms. So God created man in His own likeness (like himself), a three-pronged man, Spirit, Soul and Body. Hence God reveals Himself in these three manifestations, God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. The Jews walked with God the Father, Yahweh; He was a father over them. He often referred to the nation of Israel as his wife that is why He was known by the children of Israel as Abba (meaning Father). When God wanted to manifest himself to humanity He took the form of a man (coming down to their level) but was known as Emmanuel (meaning God with us) this was closer to man than the Yahweh (Jehovah) that they knew under the Old Covenant, this New Covenant God was accessible, they could talk to Him, laugh with Him, touch Him, beat Him, even hurt Him, make Him suffer, revile Him and crucify Him – why? – because He allowed them, because He wanted to share in humanity, share the human experience, He is humility personified, He humbled himself and took on flesh, what would be the use of taking on flesh if He could not experience pain, hunger, rejection, fear etc. He would have been super-man (the man of steel), not man, God wanted to be man. You presuppose that God could not descend so low, but do we as humans not measure the worth or tenor of a great King by His ability to identify or empathize with the least of the peasants in his kingdom, is it not the worth of a great man, if he can humble himself and relate with men beneath him. God suffered the contradiction of sinners because he wanted to empathize with the poor and lowly, the hungry, the ostracized and rejected, the sick and diseased, the ones who have suffered the loss of a dear one, the ones have been let down by their best friends, the ones that have been let down by their corrupt leaders, He suffered, He felt pain, so He understands... They couldn’t kill Him though, the bible says, ‘and in the ninth hour He gave up the Ghost”, He died, He was not killed, He laid down His life, all the while praying for His tormentors...

Emmanuel walked on the earth for 33 years. He also referred to the Church as His bride. When He was leaving, He told His disciples, I will not leave you comfortless, I will send the Comforter, the Holy Spirit to guide you, to teach you, hence God within us (our inner guide). How could Jesus have told His disciples He would never leave them, nor forsake them, if He was not one and the same person as the Holy Spirit. That they were not separate individuals is self evident in that they were not all on the earth at the same time periods. He was first above us (the High and Lofty One – from antiquity up until Christ), then He came down and walked with us (Emmanuel – for 33 1/2 years) and now He lives on the inside of every believer (The Holy Spirit – for eternity to come). He refers to Himself in the plural, the names the Jews had for Him, were plural; El, Elohim etc. So who are we to question Him who calls himself the I AM, who are we to question His motives, who are we to question the modus operandi of the one who created all modus operandis. He is unquestionable, He can choose to be whatever, whenever, however, just because He can. God can choose to change into the form of fire, or water, or wind, or an angel, or a flower, whatever catches His fancy. He created all things just by saying them into being, all things were created for His pleasure, He doesn’t need our permission to change into any form, or use any form, being or thing He created.

I will give a last exposition on the concept of one God manifesting in three forms. If you are reading this article during the day, the very fact that you can read is because there is sunlight, Light is the natural phenomena that explains the person of Jesus Christ. If you are in a car or in the office you most probably are not feeling the heat because of the air conditioning, that does not presuppose that the sun is not up, just step outdoors and you will feel the heat of the sun, if it’s a real sunny day I bet you can feel it burning into your skin, that is solar energy, a distinct and tangible manifestation apart from sunlight. Solar energy is the natural phenomenon that explains the person of the Holy Spirit, now if you look up into the sky using sunglasses on a cloudless day, you will see a huge ball of fire, representing God the Father. The presence of that ball of fire is distinct from the two previously noted phenomena’s of light and solar energy. They are not mutually exclusive, but they are also not mutually dependent, because when you wake up at dawn, whether or not you see the sun (ball of fire) or feel any solar energy, you know the sun is up because the darkness is receding. So the fact that we can’t see God, but we can see the Light of His Word and feel the presence of His Spirit does not presuppose that they are mutually independent beings, there is a difference in meaning between the words ‘distinct’ and ‘separate’. Just as our Solar system does not have three separate suns, one for light, the other for heat and the last one for hanging in the sky. We have one sun with three manifestations in the natural and one God with three distinct manifestations in the spiritual (‘the invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood by the things that were created’). However Gods manifestations are not limited, He chooses whatever manifestation we desires to accomplish whatever purpose He wishes. End of story.

Again Mr. Odache in his article in the Guardian of July 10, 2006, complicates his misrepresentations by misquoting the bible, the statement ‘in the beginning there was God and the word was with God and the word was God’ is not found in the Old Testament or anywhere in the Holy Bible for that matter, we have to be sure which Bible he is quoting from, there are many bibles in the world, there is the Mormon bible, the Jehovah Witnesses bible, the Satanic bible etc. some of these bibles were not translated from the original Hebrew/Greek texts, those that were have had fundamental changes made to certain parts of the texts to change the intended meanings, certain phrases, words, some even have whole passages removed or added, etc. and inserted their own doctrines, to suit the selfish purposes of their founders. Thankfully these bibles are not for sale on the streets. So if you lay your hand on any everyday bible (King James Version, Living Translation, Good News Bible, NIV, Amplified, etc) you will not find the above said phrase, ‘In the beginning there was God, and the Word was with God...’ However for the sake of debate, I will assume that Mr. Odache meant to quote the gospel of John, it is believed that this book was written sometime around AD 90, hence it is definitely not Old Testament. In the 1st Chapter of his book, John intimates us with a profound revelation, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’ clearly this does not mean the same thing as the previously quoted dubious Old Testament statement that ‘in the beginning there was God…’, except Mr. Odache wanted to quote from Genesis 1, that reads, ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth…’. Either way I do not think engaging in the argument whether God has a beginning is worthwhile, Mr. Odache may want to supply us with information as to the age of God. Rather I want to direct our attention back to Johns’ gospel, ‘In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God, the same was in the beginning with God, All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shined in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light that lighted every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them he gave power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name; Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.’ I don’t believe any writer ancient or modern can put it more succinctly, there it is in black and white, from an eyewitness, none of us were alive 2000 years ago, not Dan Brown, not Leonardo Da Vinci, not even Mr. Odache. So who are we to question not only an eyewitness, but a man that walked, talked, laughed and ate with Jesus for 3 1/2 years. Ancient historians testify to the authenticity of these texts (Eusebius the father of Church History and Josephus the author of the famed, ‘the antiquity of the Jews’), so how come we now rely on an American author for our testimony.

In the article in question, the writer further compounds His own problem by asserting that God is Almighty and is capable of doing all things. I think what he means to say is that God is capable of doing all things apart from being in heaven and on earth at the same time (omnipresence), speaking about himself to himself (soliloquizing) suffering pain, doubt and rejection (sharing in our humanity), living above sin (immaculateness), etc. He goes on to opine in his fifth paragraph that the concept of God begetting a biological son was strange to Jesus’ teaching. Well I don’t know which Jesus he was referring to, since there are false Christ’s everywhere, we even have some in Nigeria here, who claim to be Emmanuel, one in particular caught on that Christians would avoid him like the plague so he changed his name to Joshua, every student of the bible knows that Joshua ( or Yeshau) is simply another name for Jesus (Joshua means ‘Jehovah saves’, or ‘Jehovah our salvation’, Jesus means ‘our saviour’), the Greeks always transliterated Joshua to mean Jesus see Hebrew 4:8. Anyway if Mr, Odache was referring to Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the Jesus that walked the earth 2000 years ago, then what exactly does he mean by purporting that sonship was strange to Jesus’ teaching. The only reason why he was crucified by the religious leaders and learned sects of his day was for heresy/ apostasy. The charge laid against him was simple; ‘He claims equality with God’, He repeatedly called himself the ‘Son of God’, the religious leaders understood loud and clear what Jesus meant and they were inflamed by His blasphemous (so they thought) teachings. Mr. Odache further complicates his quagmire by stating that “it is unity of essence/purpose and not of person’, I bet Mr Odache believes himself to be a man of reason and logic, I hope he understands mathematical logic, because the concept of Unity is a mathematical one. Unity itself has the symbol 1, this means wholeness, to be whole, complete, when equality (=) is introduced then both quantities on either side of the equality sign will arrive at Unity (1) when divided by either of the quantities. The mathematical theory states thus, if two or more quantities/ variables are equal to the same thing, they are therefore equal to one another; (in an absolute sense). If a=y and b=y, then, and in consequence a=b absolutely, and the corollary is that, a=b, if and only if a/b=1. So if one talks about the logic of Unity, then the unity of essence and purpose cannot be different from unity in person/ reality, because every phenomena is made up of certain elements or quantities (its essence), if these elements/ quantities are found in a separate phenomena then these two separate phenomena are actually the same/ equivalents. What one may now say is that Phenomena A is a sub-set of Phenomena B or A is found in B and vice versa. Therefore, if Christ is unity with God in essence and purpose, it follows that He has the right to claim unity with God in person.

On denominations. Jesus knew that divisionism would be the major problem of humanity; more especially He knew that the Church would be divided. Humanity is polarised by religious differences, ethnic and cultural differences, political differences, ideological differences, value and moral differences etc. at every opportunity man has found a reason for disunity. So Christ prayed for His Church, ‘That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them, that they may be one, even as we are one...’ (John 17: 21,22). He prayed, even thou he knew that some men would creep into the fold and cause divisions, men with damnable doctrines. I submit that any church organisation that lays claim to a founder, is plain and simple the church of that founder (be it a man or woman), not the Church of Jesus Christ. I submit that people in every aspect of endeavour will always give reasons for disunity, but all reasons are self serving (selfish).

Space and time will not allow me take up all the arguments raised in Mr. Odaches’ article, (he writes in the second to the last paragraph of his article about Apostle Paul without reading the accounts in Act 9, Acts 22: 3 -21, Galatians 1: 10 – chapter 2: 1- 9, 2 Peter 3: 15-16 to name a few). In defence of my faith I have attempted to clear the dust on some of the issues raised. In conclusion I submit my treatise on Christianity.

Christianity is a way of thinking – as a man thinks in his heart so is he, therefore it is a way of life, a lifestyle. What it is not? It is not a dogma, it is not a religion, nor a set of rites, neither is it an appendage, or a title or emblem, or status, it is not even an activity; it is plain and simple a thought process. A way of thinking. Our thought processes are the sum total of our beliefs (faith), education (experiences, understanding) and our culture, in any order, therefore Christianity is a belief system, it is an education, an enlightenment and it is also a culture, it is all of these because all these are related. The word Christianity derives from the term used to describe the disciples (followers) of Christ. These men and women were called little Christ’s or Christ like, because their lifestyle, culture, language (conversation), way of thinking was reminiscent of their crucified Lord. Christ-like-ness is the phrase that was coined into the word Christianity. A man is not a Christian because he bears the title or surnames himself, or because he carries a bible or heads a church, a man is a Christian simply because he bears a resemblance to Christ in his culture, thought life, general demeanour, world view etc. A man is a Christian because he possesses the ‘mind of Christ’. Hence it is important to first identify who Christ is, and then it becomes possible to identify those that fit into the bill of Christ-like-ness. Many are called, but few are chosen.

Christ was love, He was compassionate, charitable, emphatic, accommodating, long-bearing, long-suffering, Christ was selfless, He was bold, strong, organized, a team player, fun to be with, witty, intelligent, non-conformist, non-discriminatory. He did not own much, but was always willing to part with what he had, Christ lived by example, He served His disciples, paid His taxes, was respectful to authorities, non-violent, loved children, had a respectable profession until the later end of his life, Christ hated organized religion with a passion and continuously criticized hypocrisy. Above all Christ was the epitome of love and selflessness on earth, He was God.