₦airaland Forum

davidinchrist:
Obviously, it's my guess. I honestly don't have deep details. But above all, whether or not he was saved, it doesn't change the great reality of the main subject here to me; without any atom of doubt. You and many others may disagree, it doesn't make any difference.

Thanks, goodbye.

Was Judas Iscariot saved before he betrayed Jesus?

davidinchrist:
I know that Gehazi went after money and got leprosy; just as Judas went after the world from Jesus; Demas from Paul. As a close follower of a great man of God that he was, I'll say yes. However, I hope this question is not to establish some sort of argument. If so, please ignore this. Thanks.


2Tim.4.10 - for Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world, and has departed for Thessalonica--Crescens for Galatia, Titus for Dalmatia.

Hi. I asked about Gehazi alone cos his story is extensive. (The rest you listed aren’t and therefore not necessary). You said he was saved; was it because he was a ‘close follower’ of the man of God?

davidinchrist:
Hebrews 10:26-27,31 KJV
For if we "sin wilfully" after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth NO MORE sacrifice for sins,

[27] But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

[31] It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Was Gehazi ever saved?

MuttleyLaff:
Care to share what you've found out God says about should a believer join any protest, demonstrate or carry placards

I will soon. I’m still studying and meditating. When I’m through, I’ll create a thread.

Alexaonfleek:
Why not?

My Rev fr in church today encouraged youths to speak against any form of injustice in the society.
He talked about this issue of sars harrasing innocent youths,and was totally in support of the protest.
Infact,it's a moral obligation.

Have you read the scriptures to find out what God says?

fineboynl:
in Leviticus 14

The Ritual for Cleansing Healed Lepers

Okay

fineboynl:
not so fast dear, I have been busy.

Let me give you this little piece.


Then during Jesus’ childhood, in Lk.2:41-42, “His parents used to go to Jerusalem every year for the Passover.”  This in obedience to De.16:5-6, “You are not allowed to sacrifice the Passover in any of your towns; but at the place where the Lord chooses to establish His name.”  Later as an adult, Jesus’ disciples made preparation in Mk.14:12 to eat the sacrificial Passover with Him as commanded, “When the Passover was being sacrificed”,in Jerusalem.  Not in Galilee.

In Nu.15:37-39, the Lord commanded Israelite men to wear fringe or tassels on their garment hem.  (ref De.22:12, Zec.8:23.)  This was to help them remember His commandments.  Mt.23:5 scribes & Pharisees pridefully lengthened their tassels, perhaps to show their supposed “rank”.  In Mt.9:20-22, a woman diseased with an issue of blood touched the tassels on Jesus’ garment.  Jesus didn’t disobey this ceremonial tassels requirement.  And He healed the woman (cf. Mt.14:36, Mk.6:56, Lk.8:44).


In Mk.1:40-44, Jesus healed a leper and told the healed leper to “Go show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded.”  This was to obey that which God had instructed Moses in Le.13:1-2, 17, “If the infection has turned white, then the priestshall pronounce him clean.”

We still do not see anything concerning feet washing; let me ask you this: In your response, is there a legislation for the cleansing of leper after he is healed by any means? Please be objective.

fineboynl:
the same way the anointing oil is used. Jesus didn't destroyed the laws. he acknowledged it and fulfilled his on part of washing feet and also anointing of feet.

I take your silence means you haven’t found any part of the law that makes feet washing a legislation. If I am correct, then, you shouldn’t have copied-and-pasted that long article that had nothing to do with any bonafide legislation.

fineboynl:
the same way the anointing oil is used. Jesus didn't destroyed the laws. he acknowledged it and fulfilled his on part of washing feet and also anointing of feet.

All laws are documented. Can you post the section of the law Jesus obeyed, with regards to the feet washing, please?

fineboynl:
why did Jesus washed the disciples foot and anointed them??

Background
The root of this practice appears to be found in the hospitality customs of ancient civilizations, especially where sandals were the chief footwear.

You haven’t finished your article. What would you like me to acknowledge?

MuttleyLaff:
cc: Acehart. Also I just now, a bit earlier, saw you reading that Politics, Bianca thread, abeggy my guy, go sleep nah, lmso

I slept early o. I usually do.

Cc: MuttleyLaff
From your post on https://www.nairaland.com/5885909/im-beginning-reason-jehovah-witness/204

Yes. Promiscuity cuts across all platforms. I’ll make my thoughts and findings in a few moments.

Two set of my neighbours, whom I have known since 1992 are in a SSA relationship, the two pairs of them are two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, ... Whats the point I am making here, there are no occurrence of infidelity between either set of neighbours.

Infidelity is usually a crime against a relationship and not a crime against the community. If your neighbourhood had a situation like Sodom and Gomorrah where the husband of one man or woman could go meet another man (in the same community) and no one would bat an eyelid, then infidelity isn’t infidelity. There is a community in Benue state, it is said, that a man satisfies his visitors by giving his wife to them upon their visitation; in such a land, adultery has a different definition.

In your neighborhood, there may not be another consenting man to any of the unfaithful half, so what the couple have is what they have. This reminds me of a Yoruba adage: the community knows peace until the bastard becomes a grown man; another variation of the adage is: the community knows peace until a bastard comes to dwell there. These adages may well apply to your neighborhood, as there is peace because there is no bastard.

The former Taoiseach (i.e. former prime minister of the Republic of Ireland) ...Enrique Martín Morales better known as Ricky Martin, the Puerto Rican singer, also known as the "King of Latin Pop" and the "Latin Music King" is a proud father to his four children, his partner, Jwan Yosef.

I don’t know much about Elton or the former Tao; but I know Ricky Martin (the last time I heard about him was probably on the E! Channel where he was said to be set to make a movie revealing the last days or years of Versace). I also heard stories of him having an (unconfirmed) affair with Juan Manuel Martino.

I am sure you are clever enough to know that marriage is different to and more than having sexual union, lmso.

Of course the two are different.

Do you hate gay marriage? Do you hate commitment in gay marriage, lmso?

I don’t go about thinking of things relating to homosexuality or same-sex unions. Ah! I just remembered how a well respected pastor in RCCG making a homosexual approach to me many years ago. He was (heterosexually) married with kids. I have said this already: gay and marriage should be used in the same sentence or at worse, be separated by a keyboard ‘space’.

Did Jesus say SSA couple shouldn't marry? If your answer is yes, I sincerely hope you have the corroborating scripture to back your answer up with it.

The Bible defines marriage in Genesis 2:24 as a union between one man and one woman. Jesus Christ upholds this definition of marriage in Matthew 19:5, as does the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 5:31. Any and all sexual activity which takes place outside of this context is treated as sinful, what Jesus calls ‘sexual immorality’ in Mark 7:21.

For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries.

The word “fornication”, porneuō in Greek, means to act the harlot, that is, (literally) indulge unlawful lust (of either sex). My main concern is the word “unlawful”; if God’s law defines marriage as the union between a man and woman, then anything outside that is an aberration. In the Book of Corinthians, Paul writes: “Now to the matters of which you wrote me. It is well [and by that I mean advantageous, expedient, profitable, and wholesome] for a man not to touch a woman [to cohabit with her] but to remain unmarried. But because of the temptation to impurity and to avoid immorality, let each [man] have his own wife and let each [woman] have her own husband.“ If Paul’s was taught by Jesus Himself, then those words are not devised by carnal wisdom.

With the exclusion of gender, pleasure and/or procreation, aside from fidelity, what is the important precursor and/or great value reason for marriage, hmm, lmso?

The scriptures shows us in many verses that sex in marriage is for pleasure. Let this verse, Proverbs 5:18,19, be sufficient:

Rejoice in the wife of your youth. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love.

A second reason lies here: Because the Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth -Malachi 2:14,15.

Having and raising Godly offspring is perhaps the god-centred reason marriage was instituted. Can this be achieved if as God said an aberration existed?

OK, let me go easy on you, if sex is your pet peeve or stumbling block in SSA relationship(s)

Sex isn’t my stumbling block. A man can have sex with a tree or with a bison, that’s his choice. But anything outside the definition of lawful union is not right.

Why dont you ask him, Janosk and the Dtruthspeake! fella, his partner in crime, to provide proof where MuttleyLaff supported homosexuality, ordinarily nah

I have read a lot of their comments and I think they leave a lot to be desired.

I am sure you're a man with a good head on your shoulder and capable of good reasoning to know that you are given a red herring and being lead on to an intentional false lead by this Janosk guy

Led? Make I no talk.

The same Janosk guy is out of his depth, he cant correctly process information on his own

That is something!

Janosk and Dtruthspeake! are too lazy and have this unmerited sense of entitlement on that thread, without wanting to do the heavy lifting work themselves,... It is a pitiful, despairing and not good at all sight, to behold with you read supposedly adults in the faith and not babies display lack of common decency and sensitivity to biblical naked truth.

Hmmm.

MuttleyLaff:
Re-check, as I've just resent a new one. Are you checking the mail addy you registered on NL with?

The only time I have seen a mail from NL, we followed each other.

MuttleyLaff:
Check your spam folder.
Have again bought a fresh ban? Someone mentioned me, but the post is hidden. Is it you?

Checked, nothing there. Yes, it is my post

[quote author=MuttleyLaff post=94320407]

God bless you real good for this above emboldened explosive objective observation, that would only comes from a matured mind, however if you are being fair, promiscuity, cuts across all platforms, whether heterosexual or not heterosexual

Yes. Promiscuity cuts across all platforms. I’ll make my thoughts and findings in a few moments.

Two set of my neighbours, whom I have known since 1992 are in a SSA relationship, the two pairs of them are two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other in a beautiful lasting life-long, loyal and most importantly, monogamous, same-sex relationship, free of hate, free of lust, free of envy et cetera and that has no detriment, injury, damage, harm to each other, no betrayal of each other, or no cheating on each other, and not causing hurt to each other, another person, an animal, object or neighbour. Whats the point I am making here, there are no occurrence of infidelity between either set of neighbours.

Infidelity is usually a crime against a relationship and not a crime against the community. If your neighbourhood had a situation like Sodom and Gomorrah where the husband of one man or woman could go meet another man (in the same community) and no one would bat an eyelid, then infidelity isn’t infidelity. There is a community in Benue state, it is said, that a man satisfies his visitors by giving his wife to them upon their visitation; in such a land, adultery has a different definition.

In your neighborhood, there may not be another consenting man to any of the unfaithful half, so what the couple have is what they have. This reminds me of a Yoruba adage: the community knows peace until the bastard becomes a grown man; another variation of the adage is: the community knows peace until a bastard comes to dwell there. These adages may well apply to your neighborhood, as there is peace because there is no bastard.

The former Taoiseach (i.e. former prime minister of the Republic of Ireland) is in a SSA relationship with his long term partner, cardiologist Matt Barrett and fidelity very does exist in their relationship. Elton John, is happily married to his longtime partner David Furnish, blessed with children too and fidelity does exist in their relationship. Enrique Martín Morales better known as Ricky Martin, the Puerto Rican singer, also known as the "King of Latin Pop" and the "Latin Music King" is a proud father to his four children, his partner, Jwan Yosef.

I don’t know much about Elton or the former Tao; but I know Ricky Martin (the last time I heard about him was probably on the E! Channel where he was said to be set to make a movie revealing the last days or years of Versace). I also heard stories of him having an (unconfirmed) affair with Juan Manuel Martino.

1/ I am sure you are clever enough to know that marriage is different to and more than having sexual union, lmso.

Of course the two are different.

2/ Do you hate gay marriage? Do you hate commitment in gay marriage, lmso?

I don’t go about thinking of things relating to homosexuality or same-sex unions. Ah! I just remembered how a well respected pastor in RCCG making a homosexual approach to me many years ago. He was (heterosexually) married with kids. I have said this already: gay and marriage should be used in the same sentence or at worse, be separated by a keyboard ‘space’.

3/ Did Jesus say SSA couple shouldn't marry? If your answer is yes, I sincerely hope you have the corroborating scripture to back your answer up with it.

The Bible defines marriage in Gen. c.ii:xxiv as a union between one man and one woman. Jesus Christ upholds this definition of marriage in Matthew c.xxix:v, as does the Apostle Paul in Ephesians c.v:xxxi. Any and all sexual activity which takes place outside of this context is treated as sinful, what Jesus calls ‘sexual immorality’ in Mark c.vii:xxi.

For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries.

The word “fornication”, porneuō in Greek, means to act the harlot, that is, (literally) indulge unlawful lust (of either sex). My main concern is the word “unlawful”; if God’s law defines marriage as the union between a man and woman, then anything outside that is an aberration. In the Book of Corinthians, Paul writes: “Now to the matters of which you wrote me. It is well [and by that I mean advantageous, expedient, profitable, and wholesome] for a man not to touch a woman [to cohabit with her] but to remain unmarried. But because of the temptation to impurity and to avoid immorality, let each [man] have his own wife and let each [woman] have her own husband.“ If Paul’s was taught by Jesus Himself, then those words are not devised by carnal wisdom.

4/ With the exclusion of gender, pleasure and/or procreation, aside from fidelity, what is the important precursor and/or great value reason for marriage, hmm, lmso?

The scriptures shows us in many verses that sex in marriage is for pleasure. Let this verse, Proverbs c.v:xxviii-xxix, be sufficient:

Rejoice in the wife of your youth. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love.

A second reason lies here: Because the Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. Malachi c.ii:xiv-xv.

Having and raising Godly offspring is perhaps the god-centred reason marriage was instituted. Can this be achieved if as God said an aberration existed?

5/ OK, let me go easy on you, if sex is your pet peeve or stumbling block in SSA relationship(s)

Sex isn’t my stumbling block. A man can have sex with a tree or with a bison, that’s his choice. But anything outside the definition of lawful union is not right.

Why dont you ask him, Janosk!y and the Dtruthspeake!r fella, his partner in crime, to provide proof where MuttleyLaff supported homosexuality, ordinarily nah

I have read a lot of their comments and I think they leave a lot to be desired.

I am sure you're a man with a good head on your shoulder and capable of good reasoning to know that you are given a red herring and being lead on to an intentional false lead by this Janosk!y guy

Led? Make I no talk.

The same Janosk!y guy is out of his depth, he cant correctly process information on his own

That is something!

Janosk!y and Dtruthspeake!r are too lazy and have this unmerited sense of entitlement on that thread, without wanting to do the heavy lifting work themselves, are expecting me to leave them sitting on their hands, not moving, much of a single little finger, to lift up the floorboards so to have a look underneath and... It is a pitiful, despairing and not good at all sight, to behold with you read supposedly adults in the faith and not babies display lack of common decency and sensitivity to biblical naked truth.

Hmmm.

I can’t see your mail

You may be having a brain tumor. Go and have an MRI scan as soon as possible.

jamesid29:
All we can ask of eachother is to do what we believe to be good and right. That's all sir.
To be clear sir, I do not mean either I or you or anybody should take it upon themselves to be going around hounding and correcting anyone at every opportunity. We are not the HolySpirit's assistants.

My conversation with you was about enabling something that was not right.
This was my train of thought:
Jesus named the brothers "sons of thunder(Mark 3:17)" because of their fiery spirit or destructive zeal( that's usually the general consensus, but one can't be dogmatic about these things since the term was only used once in the whole NT). When a situation of the brothers showing that fiery spirit was recorded in the gospels, Jesus didn't say "that's just how their spirit is"; He simple told them, that's not how we do things and the story moved on. That was the parallel I was drawing on between those passages
A situation was open to be spoken on(woundedla/mb made his statement to you), it's within your right to not speak on it (nobody is nobodies teacher on here), but rationalising it away creates a enabling environment which is always a bad thing, as I mentioned in my last post.
From your reply,Now I know the misunderstanding comes from our different usage of the word "Boanerges". You saw it as your way of speaking on it, I saw it as a way of saying "thats just how his spirit is" ,and that was the enabling I was originally talking about...Everything that has been said, is strictly within those context;

I do not in anyway mean going around hounding anyone; life has enough troubles of its own for anyone to start adding that to their plate.

Enjoy the rest of your week sir and God bless you.

Enjoy your week too. May the Lord cause the light of His countenance to shine upon you and give you peace in Christ’s name. Amen.

MuttleyLaff:
Mic drop.

The words I spoke to him were words delivered to the press; who knows what I could have said behind closed doors?

I enjoy reading your responses. I had a smile whilst driving to work this morning all because of you. I’m sure you laugh (your whistling type) when you read my response to Jamesid. I have no words to explain my happiness caused by your words; may the Lord bless you and yours.

[quote author=jamesid29 post=94514361]

You do not have to use derogatory words to let someone know where you stand.
Did I use derogatory words with you sir; I do not believe I did, but I did say it clear enough for you to give a detailed reply.

You didn’t use any derogation; I meant you think I didn’t chide MuttleyLaff the way you expected me to - in a harsh, derogatory manner. You know what? I have a couple of times written to MuttleyLaff that he is abrasive, and he should speak with decorum to everyone who ‘jars his nerve‘. I wish he would be a gentleman in every situation. I wish that he would be a martini shaken, not stirred, when he feels roughed up by someone’s comment.

I don't see how "Boanerges" is letting someone know their behaviour is not right; You and I have a different understanding of the word.

The psalmist said: “I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war”; o! the contrast that exists in many of us. We mean well but the methods we employ are cruel.

I called him “a son of Thunder”; should not he get the idea that I meant he takes pleasure in startling people? Who enjoys a thunderstorm? Definitely not me. I know he got the point, and if I didn’t do enough to rebuke him, I’m sorry. I have a feeling that you think of me highly to deliver such a thing; the problem is: I don’t esteem myself, whatsoever. Though the opportunity for reprimanding presented itself, I feel unqualified to do such a thing.

Its quite interesting, that you would say I have something against him personally.

I don’t think you have something against him. I said you response showed either of two things - you are unskilled in conflict resolution or you have an ox to grind.

What's interesting is, In all my conversations on NL(both good and not so good) , you are the second person to say I have a personal grudge against someone on here. I'm guessing you can guess who the first person is.

I don’t know who the first person is o. So I am not the second person if what besets you is your inability to resolve conflicts amicably.

Funny enough, I was so oblivious to what he was talking about that we eventually found out he read something totally different to what I was saying and held on to it for quite a while.

Eyah. MuttleyLaff, see yourself.

The first issue here is, you are looking at it from a lesser evil perspective. I've had the opportunity to have a couple of conversations with kob!ojunkie and yes he still has a lot to learn just like the rest of us but that doesn't mean you get to rationalize away muttley's behaviour since you prefer his theology over another persons own. They are not the only two people on nairaland. Without or without either of them, there would always be people with good heads on their shoulders in this section.

I said what I said on a light note. However, the issue here isn’t MuttleyLaff’s theology but his behavior. Not many would fault his theology. The other man has issues with his behavior and his theology. This was my perspective when I asked you choose one.

MuttleyLaff taint is his behavior. He bullies and speaks with an air of arrogance; but a reprimand would only work on him if he respects you; I don’t think I have got to that place yet.

Secondly, the power and what God is like shines more brightly through the Christain character than in any words of wisdom or knowledge.

You said “more brightly”; yes, but it doesn’t mean that words of wisdom or knowledge don’t shine. Gods power would shine if ones words are laced with godly wisdom and knowledge. Isn’t the power of life and death in the tongue? Does the tongue not speak what dwells in the mind? Is the mind not transformed through words anymore? If you say “nay”, Christian character would transform the wicked rather, then I ask you this: didn’t the scriptures say that when grace is shown to the wicked, they do not learn righteousness; even in a land of uprightness they go on doing evil and do not regard the majesty of the Lord? When you downplay righteous words in favor of righteous display, you are setting the stage for an unbalanced doctrine.

As I said earlier, your conception of a trade off is incorrect and in this case ,unnecessary. So do I have anything against MuttleyLaff personally?

I believe you.

Problem in today's world is, we live in a culture where if you speak against your own whether right or wrong, you will be termed a hater just as I'm apparently being called here(I think)

I am not referring to you and a hater. A hater is someone who hates the progress of another man. If he is your own, you would speak against him in the pattern of Galatians 6:1-10.

It was about your post and your enabling of his behaviour.

Hmmm. There is a lady from the US who MuttleyLaff bashed; I was shocked to see the things he wrote. I rebuked him and he didn’t seem to see what I saw. He used the scriptures to back his actions. When one uses scriptures to enable bad behavior, it is quite difficult for me to continue correcting because I don’t find pleasure typing for long periods on phones and I am not argumentative.

I learn something from God’s relationship with David, the King: that’s, God will deal with his own in an almost brutal way so that they stop many bad behavior.

There is a limit to what man can do with respect to correcting. Please pardon what you see as my shortcoming; I am also work-in-progress.

jamesid29:
@bolded would probably be the continued trajectory as long as you have people like MuttleyLaff who thrive on spreading toxicity and strife under the banner of Christainity on threads; and people like you sir, who rationalize and enable such behaviours, as you've done here.
Kindly compare Mark 3:17 to Luke 9:54-55(specifically 55) sir.
Unconditional love doesn't necessarily equate to unconditional acceptance of conduct sir.

Rationalize MuttleyLaff’s behavior? Must I use harsh words or derogatory words on him before I drive home my point? If you have observed my responses in this thread and some others, I would reply anyone in gentleness; and rebuke wisely or simply ignore.

Do you know the meaning of the word “Boanerges”? If you knew, you would know that I rebuked MuttleyLaff by giving him that name; MuttleyLaff knows that was a subtle rebuke, I am sure of that. I also made him and all those inclined to toxicity to know that when you acquiesce that someone is your brother in Christ, you do away with such behavior.

Maybe you wanted me to use a lot of words to align him with decency; but there is wisdom in speaking as little as possible. The way you have spoken about him and his unfriendly responses, show you have to learn conflict resolution; it also shows you have something against him. God has given you NL to learn how to be a better person; MuttleyLaff is just a tool of refinement in the hands of God.

With respect to the trajectory you have spoken of, who would you rather have on threads that show the power of God through writings: kobo!junkie or MuttleyLaff? I am sure you would pick the latter. The trajectory is the way it is because people like both of you don’t write. If you did, your temperament would get better, ask I!bhaga!di. By now, MuttleyLaff’s bite would be like that of a sandfly.

So I place a challenge to you: write, and we would see that the trajectory would glide down to the glory of God.

BlueAngel444:
I asked you were the questions not straight forward enough?

I ask you again what in that question needs restructuring?

Your revelation regarding Christ, , as what, a prophet or what? Is that personal revelation that agrees with the written record of others or one that contradicts it?!

In agreement with records? yes. I said write your questions in an orderly manner. No one as learned as you asks questions that way.

Barristter07:
So how does it change the Fact that it's the voice of arch angel ?

Yes it is the voice of an archangel. I would like you see Revelation 8 to 11 (the clearest exposition of 1 Thess 4:16) you would realize none of us is wrong. While you look at the periphery, I’m looking more are center of what was proclaimed. But if you are speaking for superiority sake, what joy would the inferior of us have?

BlueAngel444:
since you still refuse to answer those questions, let me ask you this.

Now the question is, how did you come about a knowledge that told you there isn't one archangel?

I asked you to restructure your questions and you questioned my knowledge with snide remarks. Which is easier: restructuring your questions or me telling you about my revelation regarding Christ?

BlueAngel444:
has dappad has exposed you now, tell me this, those pictures is that why you refused to answer the questions I asked you.

because you clearly said THERE IS ONLY ONE ARCHANGEL so you knew the truth, what the deceived you. Because this your new stand is so weak even you know it

Children say childish things; so I spoke as a child. Thank God I repented and the blood of Christ still flows for me. Now I know that there isn’t one archangel and Christ Jesus isn’t Michael.

Barristter07:
The Greek text says Voice . You are in a dillema right ? U clearly started a conversation topic u can't handle.

You should have checked the etymology of that word. But I guess you are very busy doing more important things. And perhaps you are too busy to confirm this truth of this exposition on this verse in Revelations chapter 14.

vickydankal:
Living Translation
Never speak harshly to an older man, but appeal to him respectfully as you would to your own father. Talk to younger men as you would to your own brothers.

1 Tim 5:1

All through scripture a child never correct a father even when God rejects a father (Prophet) he will often Be the one to deal with the prophet himself and also use the guidance of a father to raise a child in the prophetic. Case study Eli and Samuel.

Naaman’s servants went to him and said, “My father, if the prophet had told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more, then, when he tells you, ‘Wash and be cleansed’!” (2 Kings 5:13)

Abraham remained standing before the Lord. Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing. (Genesis 8:22-25)

You said: “All through scripture a child never correct a father“. I lay two passages from the scriptures to refute your claim. The first, the servant children of Naaman correct him and turn him away from stubborn pride. Did you see where they called their master “father”?

The second, Abraham ‘rebukes’ God as it were for contemplating to do something contrary to His nature.

You have written this, misquoting the scriptures, to propagate your intention. Now, are those men Freezes’ father? Didn’t Christ say that no man on earth who adorns spirituality like a cloak should be called “Father”? There is only one Father, our Father who is in heaven.

If God used babies to rebuke kings, locusts to rebuke nations, donkeys and fishes to rebuke prophets; He would not hesitate to use stones to rebuke his children.

Those whom you refer to as men of God, are men; if indeed they are men of God; where they use the scriptures falsely to fulfill an agenda contrary to what the Father has laid down, they would be rebuked. If they are fathers to Freeze by true godly relationship, in action, the loving correction shown by Naamans servant would have been the display.

DappaD:
No no no—my intention wasn't and never is to insult anyone. I'm just trying to draw parallels here.
If you say you believe in Jesus, there's no problem. I'm not trying to make you feel out of place.

Indeed, “Jehovah knows those who belong to him”—2Timothy 2:19
So if Satan and the demons believe that God and Jesus exist, then there has to be a criteria someone must meet to be approved of God. That's all I'm saying.

Praise the Lord!

DappaD:
Yes I know
Even the demons that believe God and Jesus exist will have eternal life, abi no be so? —James 2:19

The verse says the devils believe that God is one and not what you are writing up there to insult me!

DappaD:
No problem—everybody has his or her own free will to express. So whether you're stagnant oo or you're moving oo is not my wahala.

So far—nothing has changed from the Scriptures that Jesus is the archangel Michael—in his heavenly position.

I just see this as a desperate attempt to draw JW's out and argue vehemently with them.
But at the end of the day, nothing will be achieved because there's absolutely nothing JW's can learn from you concerning the Scriptures.

Do you see this as a desperate attempt to draw the JWs out? Well, that’s not my aim. Though the JWs are always spoilt for arguments, I’m not inclined to arguments and wouldn’t enjoy the sport of drawing anyone out for an argument. In the end, whether one believes Jesus is Michael or not, Salvation is of Christ Jesus alone: Only those who believe in Christ Jesus would have eternal life.