concerning buhari's rule, pls check Wikipedia free encyclopedia, its there to judge him.thanks

@banki

please who did buhari or bakare murder?as a barrister hope you have proof and if you do feel free to prosecute them, meanwhile do yo know how many people died in portharcourt during the pdp conventions in portharcourt when Jona came visting? do you know how many people die of road accidents because of bad roads in Nigeria? now there was money appropriated to fix and maintain the roads and some people ate the money... infact when obj increased the price of fuel he removed toll gates and part of the money from every litre of fuel was meant to fix the roads, today they want to bring back the toll gates, they didnt fix the roads....they increased the price of fuel! people died during the protests of fuel subsidy who killed them? if tunde bakare and nigerians didnt occupy nigeria no one would have known about the so called subsidy thieves!people that bank rolled jonathans election, Ahmadu alis(pdp chairman 2007) son and Bamagar tukurs chairman)sons, those are the real muderers!

oya tell me how bakare is a muderer? quote 617 is a continuation of 616, okay?

617. BARRISTERS: Quote Post
in my last sentence, replace 'murdered' with murderer pls,(my editing)

616. BARRISTERS: Quote Post
Get me right pls, if he is an activist,or labour leader,no problem,but using the time to teach 'morals' to teach 'hate' and campaign for a murdered buhari is laughable, think you get me clear now!!.

@kingoflag

Im not neccesarily quoting you,ehn, but to tell you that i know more about him such that there's no new thing that you want to tell me about him,he has abandoned everything for politics,are you clear now,but he should not use church platform.
pls drop bakare, he is a failure to christians and a harlot;mixing christianity with politics nobody appointed him to lead anybody in the first place.he is not qualified as an overseer, i have proved that in the bible in my last post.thanks

in my last sentence, replace 'murdered' with murderer pls,(my editing)

@kingoflag

um . . . Bakare is a Lawyer. That is a fact.

At least do your assignment. Read up on the man before you continue fuming in the mouth as if you make sense by doing so. You are on Nairaland, where not everyone here is a mor0n you can tell any ignorant tripe to and get away with, like am sure you are used to getting in your typical Nigerian hangouts etc.

Thank you for directing me to the the fact that bakare abandoned practicing law (maybe he chooses to go for the later is not an issue here)...maybe he got a call from God according to him and that made him a pastor and to impose himself as a pastor, if you dont understand, any pastor or general/overseer that is not appointed to lead having gone through the standard required of christians as practiced by the early apostles of christianity,such is fake, self impostor and will mislead,

read the requirements below and compare maybe impostor-bakare is worthy;

1 Timothy 3:1-12
New International Version (NIV)
Qualifications for Overseers and Deacons

3 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. [size=14pt]5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)[/size] 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. [size=14pt]7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap[/size].

8 In the same way, deacons[b] are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. [size=18pt]10 They must first be tested;[/size] and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.


can you see clear standards that qualifies someone above, (bolded), if someone just says that he receive a call from God,wealthy and with connections, people start following such person without knowing maybe the person meets the standard set out in the bible,

note the words in bold,'' They must first be tested;and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons''

compare bakare's activities....above, read it from your own bible, probably he may not even read such in his sermon.

Get me right pls, if he is an activist,or labour leader,no problem,but using the time to teach 'morals' to teach 'hate' and campaign for a murdered buhari is laughable, think you get me clear now!!.

@kingoflag

Bros, abeg go and learn how to read and write properly before trying to denigrate the character of a licensed Attorney.

you are funny! forget the typo errors, i don't think Bakare needs my time to straighten or editing my write ups,...a licenced Attorney koo, licenced olodo agbaaya onijekuje awabe-aya oponu-alaini-inuro.

i think you understand this one above ehn?..,or i should use another language, i get am flenty-flenty('Buhari's dialect) he will exchange p for f, irukan-aso-oyo!!!.

pastor Bakare can not claim anything concerning jonathan's installation as the president,infact he knew nothing at all,and he is a noisemaker that need to be arrested and kept under lock.

The rejected the alledged money given to him at aso rock if its true is because he had already collected a bigger bribe from the northern elites, and his mandate is 1st,to divide christianity using the guise of being activist, and 2nd,to divide the yoruba race so as to fetch votes for the north in 2015, he is a pure harlot being mixing pastor with politics, see what moslem plus politics results to;boko-haram, buhari that bakare was canvassing for cannot wait to contest democratically but has to send some people to grave through coup detat in 1983 to topple shagari, what good thing can ever come from a murderer, and a so called man of God bakare 'a thief' now want to send Nigeria back to an iron fist regime of buhari that jailed both fela and beeko kuti for 10 yrs, shame on harlot-bakare!!!

one thing that i learn is that; jonathan being president 'is an act of God by bakare's sermon

but he could not tell us why he cannot belly the 2011 defeat,and that he knew that under abacha regime, he will be a complete coward because any move from him to give any complain he knows where he belonged to and he need not ask,
thirdly;
jonathan should learn that to be humble like moses of isreal is a sin in NIGERIA,he needs not to have told us that he had no shoes before coming to opulence, he should have someone to do the editing for him.

Anyway im enjoying electricity in my area now ever since 1998,i have not finnished a 5 ltr gallon since a week ago,its still a mystery.not even buhari era,the same buhari that pastor Bakare is dying for, religion plus politics = harlot,period.

@OLAADEGBU;

Revisiting the Equality of Jesus Christ with God (the Father).

The Incarnate Deity

"Christ Jesus: Who, being in the [size=14pt]form[/size] of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." (Philippians 2:5-7)

see the greek word used for 'form' in phil 2:5-7 below;

μορφή

morphē

mor-fay'

shape ; figuratively nature: - form.

form = nature and used figuratively;

and let us consider same verse in the jewish bible;


Philippians 2:4-12
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)


[size=18pt]6 Though he was in the form of God,
he did not regard equality with God
something to be possessed by force.[/size]
7 On the contrary, he emptied himself,
in that he took the form of a slave
by becoming like human beings are.

in verse 6 above;

a person,in the form or nature of God,

did not regard equality with God something to be possessed by force

let us consider the matter being discussed in the preceeding three verses phil 2:3-5;

3 Do nothing out of rivalry [/b]or vanity; [b]but, in humility, regard each other as better than yourselves — 4 look out for each other’s interests and not just for your own.


unselfish interest is to be promoted among the church in phillipians, as in 'one-another' below;
as in christ,
5 Let your attitude toward[b] one another[/b] be governed by your being in union with the Messiah Yeshua:

so christ demostrates an unselfish love a good example for christians, not considering his own gain to force worship and honor to himself, but consider to have himself sacrificed in-order to get humans in union with God.

so reading another meaning to the book of phillipians above 'is considered out of context'

The entire gospel message runs counter to the human mind. The Creator dying for the creation. The judge paying the penalty for the guilty. The immortal One dying. Sinless God substituting for human sinners. No human or devil ever could have thought of this scheme, and indeed, no such one did. This is evidenced by the works-oriented salvation offered by all cults and false religions, as conjured up by such sources.

lie!!! the catholics made the gospel looks complex to gain undue advantage of the poeple, the bible quote below aknowledge the fact that jesus message are to be understood by the followers,read (bolded)
john 17:6,7;
6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. 7[size=14pt] Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You.[/size]


But make no mistake! The babe in the manger was the Creator, holy and eternal! "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. . . . All things were created by him, and for him: . . . that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself" (Colossians 1:15-20).

If the babe in the manger was God,and God is the firstborn of every creature, how do you reconcile bible facts below;

Proverbs 8:22-31

22 [size=14pt]“The Lord [/size]brought me forth[size=14pt] as the first of his works[/size],
before his deeds of old;
jesus confesed as being the 'among God's first works' of couse it shows that at a particular time,jesus was not existing with God in the heaven before he was created as one of the first works of God.

23 I was formed long ages ago,
at the very beginning, when the world came to be.

jesus also mark his beggining with 'before or when the world came to be' it shows a begining, but God has no beginning.

In order to qualify as a sacrificial substitute, He had to be born as a child into humankind, but without the inherited sin nature of His human parents. A virgin birth was therefore necessary.

He had to live a sinless life. He had to be fully human, but also fully God, so that His substitutionary death could apply to the sins of more than one guilty sinner.[size=14pt] He had to be "God with us," the meaning of the precious title Emmanuel[/size] (Matthew 1:23), as prophesied years before (Isaiah 7:14). JDM

yes he was reffered to as 'God'in the prophecy, no doubt about that,but then he is only reffered to in the same book of isiah below as 'mighty God' and not 'Almighty' baba God.read it yourself;
Isaiah 9:6

6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor,[size=14pt] Mighty God,[/size]
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

any more verses quoted out of context?.......bring them on pls and stop forcing meaning to a sub-sentence within a bible paragraphs.

lets all thank William tyndale who at the cost of his life took the risk to laid bare the false teachings of 3-1. no wonder the catholics burned him alive, but could not stop the arguments for more than a century.

@Myjoe

i still wonder why you quote bibles and think it will partly surport your appologetics only to leave you with plenty holes to fill,see below;

1 Peter 2:16-19
(NASB)
16 Act as free men, and [a]do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

Christians are to act as free men and flee from only that which is evil.

Act as free men, in what areas and why?
verses 5-9 explained the transformation from the old law to faith in christ, while the old law required circumcision to be called among the 'sons of God' christ sacrifice has opened the door to
12,the gentiles who were formerly required to circumcise before now were declared to have freedom from the requirements of old law.

and that is still the same thing that paul was also emphasizing below in your quote;

Colossians 2:16-19
(NIV)
16 [b]Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

In eating or drinking, who do you follow? Your conscience or those who insist in burdening you with their own details? Should Christians create burdens for themselves or try to follow Jesus who said his yoke is light? Should they allow anyone to rule their religious lives or cherish the freedom procured for them by Jesus Christ?

just as the isrealites of old celebrates 'new moon'and 'sabbath'etc....

1 Chronicles 23:31 1 Chronicles 23 1 Chronicles 23:30-32 and whenever burnt offerings were presented to the LORD[color=#000099] on Sabbaths and at New Moon festivals and at appointed feasts. They were to serve before the LORD regularly in the proper number and in the way prescribed for them.[/color]

your bible quote below does not even support your point;

16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

you should have even given some thought into the directions given through paul earlier in the book of 1 corinthians 14:34-37

In eating or drinking, who do you follow? Your conscience or those who insist in burdening you with their own details? Should Christians create burdens for themselves or try to follow Jesus who said his yoke is light? Should they allow anyone to rule their religious lives or cherish the freedom procured for them by Jesus Christ?

if you compare your statement with the other direction given through paul below;

1 Corinthians 14:34-37

34 [size=14pt]Let your[a] women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive[/size], as the law also says. [size=14pt]35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.
[/size]

[b]now, has paul burdened down the church members,isn'nt it? or even deprived the women of their right?
or maybe paul has assumed the 'centre brain' for women knowing fully well that 'he will instruct them not to allow theirself to be judged or determined by leaders including paul himself, is that not how you understood it?

I am saying that your church is denying Christians, many of whom are very sincere, their God-given freedom to think and choose for themselves, even in matters the Bible is not clear on which ought to be left to the individual. This freedom can be determined from reason. Many of them are also coded in the Bible, which is the constitution in this case. Even if we suspend reason and go by the Bible alone, your church would still be found culpable. Maybe you will get to address this issue now it has popped up once again due to your analogy. To satisfy your requirements, I will be specific.[size=14pt] Why does the church’s leadership not allow Christians to decide for themselves in matters of medical treatment when the Bible is not clear on the matter? For example, blood transfusion, vaccines and organ transplant.[/size]

can you see parallels with paul's case below;
34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive[/size], as the law also says. [size=14pt]35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

you would have asked same question from paul,questioning his authority,and accusing him of ''assuming the centre brain''brand.
not so?

@OLAADEGBU

your analogy below clearly shows that you have lost this argument;

There is no doubt that God is One, afterall, 1 x 1 x 1 = 1

you cannot back up your claim above with the bible,the bible has been vindicated on this issue,here is where the problem lies; [1 x 1 x 1 = 1].... clearly exposed 'virus' that has been rendering all glarring bible verses unfruitful and until the virus is properly treated,there seem to be no way out,

if you can read yoruba very well,your formula above is called 'ojoro', or 'cheating' and if you doubt it prove beyond reasonable doubt why it is one multiply by one.... and not one plus one....using the bible only.

No wonder William Tyndale was murdered exposing this mystery? he must have been disgusted by living with 3 in 1 virus that needs to be treated thereby leading a course that exposed 'the greatest lie ever' making the bible more assesible to many so as to raise questions and clarify issues and when olaadegbu could no longer cite any bible verse, he desperately hang on 1 multiply by 1.

you see what i mean,and you have seen clearly where bible would have declared that God is three expecially recognising a neural and separate entity as 'a mediator' between two parties in Galatians 3:19-23.
its fun to engage with trinitarians knowing fully the extent that they can sustain their argument, but at least you even tried until this particular page.
cheers.

@Myjoe,
you dont need to wait for me to reply pls,thanks

@Myjoe
More detailed analysis on your quote below;

1 Peter 2:13-17
(NASB)
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent [a]by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. 15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 [b]Act as free men, and [c]do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the [d]king.

So you are also to submit to governors, not only the leaders of your church. Does this mean a Christian is to go against his conscience on the orders of his governor? Which takes precedence - obedience to your God-given conscience or submission to the governor? Which takes precedence - obedience to your God-given conscience or submission to your church leader?

So you are also to submit to governors, not only the leaders of your church. [size=14pt]Does this mean a Christian is to go against his conscience on the orders of his governor?[/size]

Myjoe, im sorry, your failure to read the answer to your question above from the same chapter (1pet 2)that you cited, has just exposed more about your motives(that is reading for reading sake..[marked 3#] i will refer to it for more explanations)but,let me show you the answer from your own quoted bible reference, here is the answer in verses 21,22;

1peter 2:20,21.
20 For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? [size=18pt]But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God.[/size] 21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:

the answer derived from here is,

1, going against your concience on governors order,it is of little or no benefit or credit to you compare to the benefit derived from 'suffering' for the lords.because the present leaders(gorvernors etc,are just temporary)compare to Gods coming kingdom rulership.

2,going for or against your concience on governors order [size=14pt]is not the same as following directions provided through the christian leaders called servants.[/size](note the word;directions provided through the christian leaders called servants)

3,[size=14pt]But [i]when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God.
[/size]
you still wonder what paul declared as 'do good and suffer' please note the extent that paul declared
let me help you;

Acts 5:27-30;

27 The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. [size=14pt]28 “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching[/size] and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”

29 Peter and the other apostles replied:[size=18pt] “We must obey God rather than human beings![/size] 30[i] The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead —whom you killed by hanging him on a cross.[/i]

Which takes precedence - obedience to your God-given conscience or submission to your church leader?

[size=14pt]you will also wonder why the apostles did not answer individually but answered using a collective noun 'WE'[/size].which further stressed what jesus declared in;
'labelling The apostles decision on this matter' as 'shifting of individuals thinking to the central brain' shows some poor understanding regarding the duties of christian leaders called servants.

using a collective noun 'WE'.again further stressed who jesus is reffering using 'you'. in;

John 15:19

19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

had it been that you have done your home work very well,in your apologetics above you would have aknowledged the aforementioned reasons why paul and even timothy were in the prison in the first place right inside the bible chapter (1pet 2)that you have quoted,and your failure to do that has exposed more about your motives, lets go now!!!.

@OLAADEGBU
The emphasis is here in verse 20;
[size=18pt]20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one[/size].

God is here being Distinguished apart from the 'mediator' in one sentence.... but God is one.

@OLAADEGBU,

True christians dont worship Angels, but they direct their worship to God,even an Angel instruct john who bows for him to 'worship God' by rejecting worship,so worship must be directed only to God, thats why christ is called 'the mediator'

Mediator refer to:

A neutral party who assists in negotiations and conflict resolution, the process being known as mediation

read the bible verse that 'killed the notion' of jesus-man or man-jesus below reffering to God as 'one'.
Galatians 3:19-23

19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and[b] it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.[/b] 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only,[size=18pt] but God is one[/size].

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.

@myjoe

my statement that i have been following the tread does not translate to mean that i have also 'undertake all opinions relating the topic' no build a topic from the root. ThANKS

@Myjoe

I’m not sure what the problem is here.

are you sure its not here, let me give a little hint;
myjoe quote;

Thank you and welcome, Barristers. Yes, it's good to take on isues one by one.

you actually aknowledge innitially that 'its good to take issues one by one' above.then why these below;


i expect you to bring any of the matter one by one,treating my issues alone progressively but you copied and pasted some topics that has already been built to a level by another person and you expect me to buy that,see what you posted below;

MyJoe:
Ok. Let’s say that verse is clear on blood transfusion. (whether it is is a matter for another day.) How about the issue of blood fractions? You will agree with me it is not clear on that. Here is what I am getting at:
On Monday, the church says: blood fractions are okay.
On Tuesday: the Bible says they are wrong.
On Wednesday: they are okay.
On Thursday: the Bible says they are wrong.
On Friday: they are okay.
If the Bible were clear on the matter (blood fractions), there would be no changes and confusion. Since the Bible is not clear on the matter, yet your church insists on deciding for its members, on what basis do you claim that members are allowed to use their conscience or understanding? Why didn’t your church simply say: “the Bible says don’t take blood transfusion(!). But as for the smaller fractions, it’s not clear. Let your conscience guide you”?

now, when have we build the topic from blood transfusions to 'fractions', is it from my own conversation or someone else?
i dont buy such concuctions-put-together and built in conversation with another person, and so if you want my comment on that then we go back to our innitial agreement to build a particular conversation.let me analyse without tachnicalties now but man to man.

myjoe

What I am saying is that Witnesses are not allowed to make personal religious decisions even in small matters, including those the Bible is clearly unclear on. If your view is that having willingly joined [size=14pt]the individual has agreed to cede his thinking to a central brain [/size]and there is nothing wrong with that, we can disagree on that point – that is, whether there is anything wrong with it or not. I am merely pointing out that that is the situation. However, you cannot pretend that Witnesses are allowed to think for themselves just because they agreed not be allowed to think for themselves.

let me address the (bolded)above now,

i have previously addressed the issue of 'if members are allowed to think' and this i have explained citing that reasonable period of time were allowed for an individual to learn logically what Gods words is,and how it affects them,and what the future holds for them, with emphasis on Gods kingdom to come,so that Gods will will be done,as in heaven so also upon the earth,
an individual proposing for baptism decides 'during the course of study' to accept the direction given through their leaders'.
now, you requested that having accepted to be guided by the direction handed through leaders ,that cant someone 'turned around' to question or complain about 'why' a decision he/she has already studied in the bible and accepted,and thereby raising further questions to draw attention to his own 'new opinion' having turned around on same matter?

From the onset starting with the isrealites, God has a pattern to direct his people,.....they must receive his direction through an annoited leader.

moses leadership was chalenged by korah/dathan/abiram,....they wanted to decide just the way you are clamouring, without really knowing what is involved,hear what they say

Numbers 16:1-3;

.1 ¶ Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men:
[size=14pt]2 And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown:
3 And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?[/size]

the rebels regretted their actions, but something still stands out,..someone is really making a case for the congregation,making an appeal on behalf of the congregation clamouring that they also have all if not more than what it takes lead the isrealites and that there is nothing special about
moses duties than [size=14pt]'just thinking'[/size] and that they can really think for theirselves.

in your own case [b]your own assumptions on the jws leadership can only be reduced to mere 'thinking' [/b]and depriving others from doing that, isnt it?

lets see another one;

Numbers 12:2-3.
Miriam happened to miriam later was not even neccesarry,

2 [size=14pt]"Has the LORD spoken only through Moses?"[/size] they asked. "Hasn't he also spoken through us?" And the LORD heard this.

3 (Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.)

what happened later wasnt needed here to scare anybody but then,people are making a case to be involved in the process of the lords [size=14pt] dissemminating imformation without knowing what it takes.[/size]

isrealites did voice their opinions in the wilderness complaining bitterly that he should have left them in egypt, those who died as a result of murmurring too is not the point here but [size=18pt]'reducing moses funtion as mere thinking that does not require anything special. isnt it?,[/size]

[size=14pt]before i proceed here, do you agree that it takes 'more than just mere thinking like others' to be involved in managing Gods people?
[/size]
i dont need questions please, but give a yes or no, because, this is the area that actually defines the role of leadership of Gods people.
dont answer with questions pls.

Despite repeated warnings from the IGP in harrassing and extorting money forcefully from commuters by the police, it was a drama today while passing through iyara ijumu to iyamoye ijumu towards omuo ekiti, several road blocks were mounted by aggressive policemen (Mopol) today around 4:35 P.M

they use the excuse of the recent bomb blast at iyara-ijumu as a cover to start demanding vehicle particulars from motorists and those with one reason or the other were parked well and extorted.

of concern is their [b]use of log wood [/b]to block several parts of the road to make it difficult for trailers,
see wetin long troath they cause. can someone provide me with the phone numbers to call, so as to stop that madness now! pleeeese

@Myjoe,

I must thank you for taking the time to express how you feel in your reply directed at my posts,
but i must point out some things in your post that i believed that you can try to adjust if you can so as to keep conversation focused and with some sort of dignity,

In my second reply to your post, i appeal to you like this 'in quote' below (bolded)

i will appreciate if you give me instances directly,not neccesarily reffering me to other peoples posts, and if its possible that sentiments can be limited,im interested in legitimate claims and not mere assumptions
thanks

But having agreed to taking the issues one-by-one,this is how you still went on to address it;
your quote below;
Myjoe quote;

I have already provided legitimate facts - I'm afraid I have to refer you to what I have written since there is no need to rehash them. But here are facts, now directed to you:

Again
Im very clear that i dont address insinuations and gave instances below (bolded)in my earlier quote;

any other insinuations such as[b] 'do you want to tell me that' or 'are you saying that' [/b]or 'insults' directed at perceived act of suspicion of ones involvement on personal opinions against basic principles are null and void,and of no benefit or enhancement whatsoever to the accuser's argument.

you still went on to force your own opinion on me this way, (bolded);

Myjoe

However, you cannot pretend that Witnesses are allowed to think for themselves just because they agreed not be allowed to think for themselves.

However,
Anyway,let me start dealing first with your summarry below;

Let me summarise this and perhaps there is will be no further argument on this point. You are saying that having willingly agreed to join, knowing that the organisation will make all religious decisions for him, the individual cannot turn around to complain that he was not allowed to make his own decisions. Period. All I am saying is that this should be admitted.

i will answer this from the same post that i have replied you with (bolded);


my earlier part-post

and on why would a member or all members not present in decision making,

All these processes has already been studied in the pre-baptism period, understood and accepted by a proposing member which also includes those whose parents are Jws and are born there, there is no child/infant baptism but there is a reasonable time given for maturity and decision making stages before they choose to either proceed to baptism or not.

[size=14pt]there are numerous instances like that in which a child would just choose not to proceed with his bible study due to his personal opinion, his wish will be respected, he still receives handshake and even some warm affection.[/size]

more emphasis on some part of your querry;

knowing that the organisation will make all religious decisions for him, the individual cannot turn around to complain that he was not allowed to make his own decisions.

can you choose to drive on the left-hand-side of the road here in Nigeria,having been validly licenced and imformed on where the rule states that all drivers must drive on the on the right hand sie of Nigerian roads,[b]but you turned around [/b]on 'grounds' that you have lived all your life in the U.K,or that you are a leftee, that is you are comfortable using your left hand to control your car's gear? and so the authority must bend to your own opinions on the two of the numerous grounds above and failure to do that means that you are not allowed to think?or excercise your 'feelings' or maybe you got your car impounded(for example) by the traffic officials and you end up paying heavy fines,

who do you blame?

and on
Your-friend's-classmate's-mother-back-in-the-day's claim below;

I know of someone that they studied with. My friend's classmate's mother back in the day. She had to leave her husband because she was the second wife. Of course, she did not want to leave her husband since there were no serious problems in their marriage. But it was made clear to her that without taking that step, she could not get baptised.

how you are so precise about the event considering the long individual relations involved (My friend's classmate's mother back in the day)involved is noteworthy,
trying to force a (bolded)statements below on me ahead of my response has just gave me a hint about you,but i can handle that,see below;

Myjoe quotes;

[size=14pt]Now, I think you would narrate this story somewhat differently[/size]. "...the woman made up her mind to get baptised after what she described as a willing acceptance of principles and doctrines she was presented with..." I guess it will be hard for an objective reader who has no personal acquaintance with the what goes on to say who is more accurate in his description, as this is quite subjective. But a whole book can be written on the manner in which JW "presentations" are made and the reasons people buy them.

At this junction, i would like to ask that do you meet the alledged woman in question in person to hear her reason-for-leaving her husband first, one on one,or do you just listen-in-reverse like this ..from 3-2-1; see what i mean; the information came like this, (1)[your-friend] relied-on-the-story-from-his-own (2)[classmate] whose (3)[mother] actually experinced the event,another factor is back-in-the-day,is not precise so lets leave that out.

why i ask is that do you know that Marriage laws 'do not' recognised two women 'in contract' at the same time with a man?
this is just exactly what they will be told in the court registry, lets leave The Jws out of this.

you know i have told you that i deal with facts,but you still choose to present cases with emphasis to draw emotions and direct the fault wholy at your accusers doorstep.

and do you know that,

second wives often suffer in legal claims which often happen as a result of claiming rights in the event of death of the husband?

And is it a crime if someone expose a person to an inpending danger directing the person to the bigger picture ahead?

on the issue of a fourteen year old boy who was a jws, who answered my 3 out of my 4 questions impressingly,below are your replies,

Myjoe;

That fourteen year old kid was simply parroting what he had been told. Proof? Ask another fourteen year old kid, or a seventy year old grandpa, or a 35 year old spinster, and the exact same words will be used.

At the stage,
since the story is from me, and i have appealed for 'no insult conversation'
what is 'parroting'
see your last quote on the issue;

Myjoe
I believe I saw the word “insult” in your last post. I have not insulted you or anyone on this thread, please. I’d be disappointed in myself if I did.

just to show you,im not bothered with it,but your sentiments is growing louder, pls lets get focused on issues and not attacking someone that you 'have never met before'

when seeking equity,they say you must come with clean hands.

back to the topic

It is not possible for two individuals to say the same thing allthrough, because i deal with writing verbals or statements at times,no two statement are exactly same brother, so the use of that discription to me is unfounded, and if the jws says the same thing, let me remind you another reason that may contribute largely to this of which many people ignore....they only accept the bible (commonly known 66 books of sacred scriptures)as their basis, while other denominations would merge with some philosophical ideologies.they provide a basis for not buying to philosophical ideologies due to the clear warnings below;

colossians2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world [size=14pt]rather than on Christ[/size].
the jws accept based their acceptability of the bible without notable phylosophical ideas based on this scripture below;
2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

i think that they have defined their basis and boudaries, and thats one of the reason that could make one to predict some of their answers.

and to prove you wrong on the fourteen year old boy issue,

i wasnt alone asking him questions, a friend named john who was a catholic was around,and on the issue of purgatory(which catholics believed to be the purification of souls of the dead before the souls enter the heaven),

the boy having used the the bible to an extent, my friend john now started to back the purgatory claim from the apocrypha scriptures called the 'maccabees' which the catholics choose to adhere to in their proof of purgatory,the scripture was unfamiliar to the majority of christians,
so we all listen to the reading of that i could term an 'unfamiliar scripture' to the majority of other faiths outside catholic, my friend john read among others thus;

2 Maccabees 12:39-45
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
39 And the day following Judas cam with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchres of their fathers.
40 And they found under the coats o the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth the Jews:
41 Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden.
42 And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain.
43 And making a gathering, he twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection,
44 (For if he had not hoped that the that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,)
45 And because he considered that the who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.

listening again with emphasis to the reading of the the bolded chapter 43-44, the same fouteen year old boy insist that on the basis of this two bolded verses above,

''43 And making a gathering, he twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection,
44 ([color=#000099]For if he had not hoped that the that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead''

the boy insist that these whole quoted verses rests on these two paragraphs 43-44.he insists that the verse were not supporting purgatory concept but ressurection.here is it;

''thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection,
44 (For if he had not hoped that the that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead''


the boy make this decision in just lees than 20mins or so of listening and gazing at the system to the reading of these from a catholic bible file that my friend saved on his system.

john (my friend)says that catholics too believed in ressurection,but thats not the issue, i expect more convincing and logical points from one who choose a particular religion.anyway that you choose to aquirre sound knowledge, so far you can defend it and pleased with it, then let it be.

and if you call that 'buying wholesale' well it may just be a personal opinion of yours of which you are entitled to.

Myjoe quotes

In legislating on political participation

note; Jws is herein reffered to in the context as jehovah's witnesses.

On Political involvement,the (jws)took a stand based on what they found in the bible,to remain neutral,
to the extent that 'political involvement/participation is concern following an agreed terms that universally agreed upon,using several dictionaries,three good points stands out or all the points covered in the various definations were prunned down to (3)three, eligible to 'confirm' someone to be declared 'involved' in 'political involvement namely;

1) People can get involved in a public arena to advertise and communicate demands to anyone willing to listen. Example: joining a demonstration.
2) People may target policy-makers in legislatures or the executive branch as addresses of their communications. Example: signing a petition.
3) People may get involved in the selection process of those who aspire to legislative or executive office. Examples: voting for a party or running for office.


and in all these three above, Jws choose not to get involved.

any other insinuations such as 'do you want to tell me that' or 'are you saying that' or 'insults' directed at perceived act of suspicion of ones involvement on personal opinions against basic principles are null and void,and of no benefit or enhancement whatsoever to the accuser's argument.

and on the issue of 'who directed the doctrines to be enforced'
i have treated that in my last post,but more emphasis again, there is a reasonable period of time a particular member studies the principle guarding the doctrines,and untill such a person comes forward to declare his 'consent' to be baptised and 'signifies this with water immerssion' which stand as a declaration of his/her followership by willingly exclaiming in his/her own words 'here i am, send me',and this testifies to the fact that there was no force or coersion in agreeing to the directions of their respective and defined leadership.

and on why would a member or all members not present in decision making,

All these processes has already been studied in the pre-baptism period, understood and accepted by a proposing member which also includes those whose parents are Jws and are born there, there is no child/infant baptism but there is a reasonable time given for maturity and decision making stages before they choose to either proceed to baptism or not.

there are numerous instances like that in which a child would just choose not to proceed with his bible study due to his personal opinion, his wish will be respected, he still receives handshake and even some warm affection.

so, every member of jws are aware of the requrements of being an overseer, and this the jws choose to follow according to them 1 timothy chapter 3.

they choose to accept that requirement since it it based solely on bible principle that was actually practiced by the early christians and apostles.

so the issue of not voicing their view on what their leadership decides,is not an issue at all because it has been agreed accepted willingly prior to baptism.
they accept what paul says in

Hebrews 13:17

[size=14pt]17 Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.[/size]

so with few of many facts provided here,backed up with the bible as their main 'boundary' i dont thnk your accusations is really justified until you proove otherwise with facts and not hearsays.

lets deal with facts,
im waiting.

@OLAADEGBU

PLS NOTE THAT DANIEL 12:1 'is paragraph containing a character who is a prince and who will deliver good people, ....not from war (note that is different from the war in rev 12:7-9), but tasked with identifying the good people that will go to life' but will an angel be given a task meant for his superior,if jesus was not micheal?

@OLAADEGBU

pls note below verses are from seperate individuals, in psalmm 110:1 and hebrews 1:13

Ps.110:1 "The Lord said to my Lord sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.


HEBREWS 1:13

[size=14pt]13 But to which of the angels [/size]has He ever said:

“Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”?

the attribute of 'who sits on the right hand' is being connected to and angel, isnt that ridiculous to you? how could this be written in the bible? just wait,

Again
another attribute combining two strong qualities used to describe jesus and Micheal;
jesus is....'Prince and a Saviour' micheal is...'prince who protects your people' honestly see that below;

Acts 5:31
King James Version (KJV)
31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand [size=14pt]to be a Prince and a Saviour[/size], for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Daniel 12:1
12 “At that time Michael, [size=14pt]the great prince who protects your people[/size], will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book —will be delivered

ok now, can you pls compare the following verses,(Daniel 12:1-3) and (john 5:27-29) who the common character was,

here we go;
[size=14pt]Daniel 12:1-3


12 “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book —will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise[a] will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.[/size]

[size=14pt]john 5:27-29

27, And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.[/size]

sentiments apart, after comparing above book of Daniel and john word for word, do you still think someone twists like you claimed?

thats why i said easy easy brother, you explain your view on that, thanks

@OLAADEGBU

Twisting the Word of God as Satan did in the garden of Eden qualifies such as cults and false religions.

easy easy brother, nothing here suggests a twist like that of eden, let me expose sentiments here,

in garden of eden God says if the couple eat the forbiden fruit they will die, while satan did actually said they will not die but will be like God, so satan accused God of lying, but in this case legitimate bible verses were quoted and nothing outside the bible was added to butress points on this issue,but calling a dog with a bad name just to hang it is childish to me, maybe you can still go through this legitimate clarification to your response;

"For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God and the dead in Christ shall rise first" (1 Thess. 4:16)

you dismiss above verses but then you can see that 'there was actually one character' here with a shout,and voice of the archangel'


but then, which bible verses do you support with your assertions below;

The 'shout' there is a military command and who do you think is the angel in charge of military assault in the heavenlies? It is probably Michael, who is an arch angel and it is not only Michael that will be coming with our Lord Jesus Christ but with a great host of heaven. So it is not our Lord Jesus Christ who will blow the trumpet and shout the military command

now you can see that even what you claim to be correcting someone,you are doing worse.jude 9 does not add any substance to your claim,in fact i will not go far,but from the same chapter 9 of jude, read verse 4;

Jude 1:4-9
New King James Version (NKJV)
4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny [size=14pt]the only Lord[/size] God[a] and our Lord Jesus Christ.

9 Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “[size=14pt]The Lord [/size]rebuke you!”

'the lord' rendered in both verses 4 and 9 using small letters for both lords shows that it is reffering to God almighty and in verse 9 shows that micheal is reffering to 'the lord' to rebuke devil.see the use of small letters in verse 4 again.these are caused by translations of the bible from greek and hebrews to english language.

while revelation 12:7-9 too does not help your points,because of your assertions that;

So it is not our Lord Jesus Christ who will blow the trumpet and shout the military command

then whats jesus participation in the war when;

rev 12 :10,11.
verse 10;
'[size=14pt]and the power of his Christ[/size]'
verse 11;
'[size=14pt]they overcame him by the blood of the Lam[/size]b',

compare with;

Daniel 10:13,21.

13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings of Persia.

21 But I will tell you what is noted in the Scripture of Truth. [size=14pt](No one upholds me against these, except Michael your prince.[/size]


but then there are other strong verses that the post relied on to solidify these fact that jesus is actually the archangel Micheal

how?

Psalm 110:1
King James Version (KJV)
[img]110 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.[/img]

now see where the lord was actally reffered to as angels

9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”[a]
10 And:

“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
11 They will perish, but You remain;
And they will all grow old like a garment;
12 Like a cloak You will fold them up,
And they will be changed.
But You are the same,
And Your years will not fail.”[b]
[size=14pt]13 But to which of the angels has He ever said:

“Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”?
[/size]
so you can provide alternative coment.

@Ubenedictus:

this is the worst thing i have ever heard, you are saying Jesus is and arch angel, where did you hear that! Which bible

The only other verse in which an archangel is mentioned is[size=14pt] at 1 Thessalonians 4:16, where Paul describes the resurrected Jesus, saying: "The Lord (Jesus) himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet."[/size] So Jesus Christ himself is here identified as the archangel, or chief angel.

A BIBLE VERSE HAS BEEN SUPPLIED HERE, TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM,(note that the scripture supplied is a legitimate sacret scripture, and not the apocrypha that catholics added) NOW SUPPLY A COUTER PROOF TO DISQUALIFY THE PROOFS, WE ARE WAITING PLS

@OLAADEGBU,
This is what qualifies them as cults and false religions.

When has quoting points from the bible and not from the other book makes some one a cult? prove that pls from this particular context and not from sentiments.

@Myjoe

In legislating on political participation, blood transfusion, vaccination, organ transplant and other sundry issues, was the Watchtower simply following the Bible or overreaching itself, that is failing to allow members to think for themselves and following their consciences based on their personal enlightenment or understanding of the Bible? It was to show that the Bible is not clear on some issues that I mentioned the matter of doctrinal changes since the former is the only explanation for the latter.

Apart from the other contexts, i want to limit or start with the ones that you directed at my post,if possible.

Now you have just accused the watchtower of;

#failing to allow members to think for themselves and following their consciences based on their personal enlightenment or understanding of the Bible?


But from my own experience, i knew someone that they (jws) studied with for years and the person participate in giving comments at their sessions, he receives handshake and warm affection while the same person still living with a woman whom he is not married to.

but years later as his study progressed, the man decided to engage the woman in court registry,and some witnesess attended,and since they(the couple) already have one issue;a child before, then the man made up his mind to get baptised after what he described as a willing acceptance of principles and doctrines he was presented with and he did not stop at that, he searched for evidences on his own to get convinced and later declared himself convinced and willingly signify his intention 'to make a dedication' in water baptism, and he was duly baptised and later the wife too got baptised a year later after she decided to wait and be sure if the religion doctrines really answers her questions,she declared that she is personally convinced not because of her husband or under pressure from anybody,but because she wanted to have answers to some basic questions, which according to her the answers that she actually receives progressively was convincing,and that she actually did the search and compare with what she believed before on her own.


another one,

i engaged a young boy in his fourteen who claim to be a jehovah's witnesses in a conversation several years back,and he was able to answer three out of my four questions convincingly with sound proofs, quoting several bible verses to back up his claim.(trinity concept among others),
he gave no interpretations from other source because the whole answers were supplied inside the bible itself,and he seem to have more points than others, and guess what, he is yet to be baptised but was allowed to expose and test what he had learn to the public.

i think it is noteworthy that jehovahs witnesses allow 'the yet to be baptised' ones to openly declare their beliefs openly,exposing their beliefs or test what they belief with others openly for a particular period of time before they 'actually present theirself for baptism' which they say it means that they have agreed to 'enter into a contract' to accept what they have learn,make reseaches and convinced with.

so how do you 'reconcile your statement' with these few given facts,

or how do you mean? that;

failing to allow members to think for themselves and following their consciences based on their personal enlightenment or understanding of the Bible?



you may have erred with that assumption, and untill you prove otherwise.with fresh and legitimate facts, one by one so that we can treat them accordinly.

there is no proof that suggest that the watchtower have 'failed to allow members to think themselves' because each member willingly agreed to 'the principles of the doctrines thereby accepting the terms and conditions of their defined leadership' it was a concious mutual consent after a period of deliberations from a proposed member to either decide to accept the doctrine willingly or not.
i will appreciate if you give me instances directly,not neccesarily reffering me to other peoples posts, and if its possible that sentiments can be limited,im interested in legitimate claims and not mere assumptions
thanks

@Myjoe,
i have been following the tread,but then

permit me to delve into this issue,im interested pls,in your response directed to another person on the tread,i lifted the quote below, because you seemed to muddle things up,and i want to be clear on that, below;(in blue)

No. I neither said nor meant any such thing. I mean that due to the psychological methods used and the fact individuals are not permitted to think for themselves or disagree on anything, certain problems are created.

so,how do you mean that 'individuals are not permitted to think for themselves'
lets start with this one first.

i see this accusation above in quote as false. i will appreciate if we can deal with issues one-by-one.

@frosbel

pls answer my question on jonah's issue,its directed at you, you are the OP, so why are you shut out? people are waiting for your say,;

1,why would an omniscient God (primary Definition: The attribute of God by which God perfectly and eternally knows all things which can be known, past, present, and future) would not 'keep to a fixed proclamation of fourty days' when he fore-know, or had the future knowledge that nineveh would still delve into same sin they practiced before?

2,why would he (God) stressed his prophet(jonah) knowing fully well that he can extend excecution?

3,how would scholars or critics or historians at that time view jonah's failed execution, dont you feel that it exposes him to ridiculous jesting?.

mr Anony

[quote author=BARRISTERS]@frosbel

so answer pls one-by-one;

1,why would an omniscient God (primary Definition: The attribute of God by which God perfectly and eternally knows all things which can be known, past, present, and future) would not 'keep to a fixed proclamation of fourty days' when he fore-know, or had the future knowledge that nineveh would still delve into same sin they practiced before?

My friend, let us not look at one aspect of God while purposely excluding the rest. God is all-knowing and He is all-powerful as well as merciful and just.
The prophesy for the destruction of Niniveh was Jonah prophesying about what God would do and not God prophesying about something beyond His power.
1. God in his justice was going to punish Niniveh for sins, God in His mercy forgives Niniveh after they repented.

Jonah 3:10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.


2,why would he (God) stressed his prophet(jonah) knowing fully well that he can extend excecution?

2. God stressed Jonah because He wanted to give the Ninivites a fighting chance. This shows God's justice and mercy. If He simply forgave them without penance, then He would be unjust. On the other hand if He simply destroyed them with no warning, He would be unmerciful.

3,how would scholars or critics or historians at that time view jonah's failed execution, dont you feel that it exposes him to ridiculous jesting?.

3. If scholars and critics could see the bigger picture, then they would see that Jonah was not a false prophet. One can't properly criticize an occurrence that one doesn't fully understand

remember that its not an issue maybe ninevites had a temporary remorse, but because their remorse or repentance 'is no a condition' in jonahs message from God which further worsen jonahs case of defence, and was jonah angry?well it depends on who listens to his defences.
You are neglecting something here: In the case of Jonah and Niniveh, The nature of God is already taken as a given, or else how would the Ninivites know exactly who to to repent to or that they are even required to repent in the first place?

i appreciate your response, but im of the view that you are not holding a brief at the OP,frosbel, so im waiting for his reply first, before i give further comments

catholic are guilty for war crimes,

in the 2nd world war, hitler receives blessing and support from catholics,
american catholics brothers and france catholic brothers killed each other,
this raised some question about 'where is Gods position'if God through pope approves shedding of ones blood under religious guise,
see pics below;

@frosbel

I hope you are not a barrister in real life, you would have lost this case with the nonsense you just posted up there

on what grounds would i lose the case?
pls state categorically.

im expecting you to counter issues i raised one-by-one.

dont turn this to abuse and insults bro, you are showing some signs of weakness,

you raised issues about predictions by jehovahs witnesses that are yet to be fufilled,accussing them that the yet to be fuffilled predictions cast doubt maybe they are really from God or shows a kind of unnaproval from God.

now, jonah among other prophet, his case proved you wrong totally.

remember that many people are reading through this forum and wants to see how you defend your allegations, it is easy to copy accusations from other sites and paste but how far can you sustain your allegation?

among other accusations that you brought was omniscient God.so im still within the boundary of the topic.

so answer pls one-by-one;

1,why would an omniscient God (primary Definition: The attribute of God by which God perfectly and eternally knows all things which can be known, past, present, and future) would not 'keep to a fixed proclamation of fourty days' when he fore-know, or had the future knowledge that nineveh would still delve into same sin they practiced before?

2,why would he (God) stressed his prophet(jonah) knowing fully well that he can extend excecution?

3,how would scholars or critics or historians at that time view jonah's failed execution, dont you feel that it exposes him to ridiculous jesting?.

remember that its not an issue maybe ninevites had a temporary remorse, but because their remorse or repentance 'is no a condition' in jonahs message from God which further worsen jonahs case of defence, and was jonah angry?well it depends on who listens to his defences.


no nane calling pls, lets make it mature
God bless you. expecting reply

[b]@frosbel

1. When Jonah’s warning reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust.
2. When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.


If they had not repented , in 40 days Nineveh would have been destroyed.

Also we both agree that after a long period, they went back into their wickedness and were ultimately destroyed, this was the beginning of the end of the Assyrian empire , Nineveh was it's capital.

oh!!! so you agreed that the temporary remorse of the ninevites deteriorated again into their sinful ways again,
then there arises a question,

why would an omniscient God (primary Definition: The attribute of God by which God perfectly and eternally knows all things which can be known, past, present, and future) would not 'keep to a fixed proclamation of fourty days' when he fore-know, or had the future knowledge that nineveh would still delve into same sin they practiced before?

why would he stressed his prophets knowing fully well that he can extend excecution?

how would scholars or critics or historians at that time view jonah's failed execution, dont you feel that it exposes him to ridiculous jesting?.

[size=14pt]remember that its not an issue maybe ninevites had a temporary remorse, but because their remorse or repentance 'is no a condition' in jonahs message from God [/size]which further worsen jonahs case of defence, and was jonah angry?well it depends on who listens to his defences. [/b]

@frosbel,

[size=14pt]"If the prophet speaks in the LORD's name but his prediction does not happen or come true, you will know that the LORD did not give that message. That prophet has spoken without my authority and need not be feared."[/size]

[size=14pt]Then are you saying that jonah's fixed prediction of ''fourty days more'' which failed to occur within the fourty days means that jonah has not 'spoken of Gods authority?.
read pls;[/size]
jonah 3:3,4;
3 Jonah obeyed the word of the Lord and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very large city; it took three days to go through it. 4 Jonah began by going a day’s journey into the city, proclaiming, “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown.”

fourty days lapsed,and jonah's prediction within the fixed date never was!


God raised another prophet after jonah named Nahum to still re-echo his destruction plan when the people fell back into their former sinfull ways;

'Nineveh would be destroyed while her inhabitants were “drunken” (Nahum. 1:10)'

'Nineveh would be unprotected because “the gates of thy land shall be set wide open” and “fire shall devour thy bars” (Nahum. 3:13)'

Even after Prophet Nahum, God still re echo the same destruction plan, this time showing the extent of the destruction;

zephaniah 2:13
He will stretch out his hand against the north and destroy Assyria, leaving Nineveh utterly desolate and dry as the desert.

Are these prophets, jonah, Nahum and zephaniah a failure,or does not speak of God,when the bible account shows that God had given those instructions,

lets start with jonah,

jonah 3;3
[size=14pt]3 Jonah obeyed the word of the Lord and went to Nineveh.[/size] Now Nineveh was a very large city; it took three days to go through it.

answer pls!