₦airaland Forum

This picture, is it for real?

True and authentic!, plenty plenty still dey! just concentrate on what you are doing and let me engage them with their criminal past. and let the whole world see their yansh!

note that there is only one archangel but refusal to heed the warning,and following pagan scripture led your pope to not only adopt an unexisting archangels outside the bible, but follow the pagan way of worshiping them, shame!

@ubenedictus

u have a problem with english! In england till today d magistrate is called your woship, in clear english that means ur honour, so my dear wen d writtings of d popes were translated in older english the original meaning of d word "worship" was preserved.

this type of your illiteracy has entered 'agono' or 'alagono' like the yorubas says, instead of you to have asked what 'your worship' and other legal 'registers' means before proceeding on a public here on NL to expose your dirty linnen. now in legal terms, if you dont know, these registers you mention above with ignorance are exclusively for legal usages, no judge is called 'your worship' ehn? but they are addressed that way because of their superiority among those seated in the court.

there is no link between using 'your worship' addresing a judge complying with legal requirements in a court of law, and the pope who on his own wrote in his Bull and was said to be permitting and encouraging the worship of the seven archangels

''Pope Pius V said in his Bull to the Spanish Clergy, permitting and encouraging the worship of the seven archangels

the difference is that is that the decision to singlehandedly permit and encouraged such idolatory act was not a unanimous resolution,but he forced or led the church into idolatory.while that of the court are unanimously agreed to and adressed to the judges 'office'. okay?
olodo.

u are trying to appeal to emotions! Hahaha u fail, those concord were signed before hitler started killing anyone, and incase u are ignorant of history,
hitler didnt start as a "bad guy". Lastly there is nothing unholy about the concord.

you are a liar, see picture A below, your priests were blessing armoury,and guns, actively participating in blessing tools that will be used not to kill grasscutters or antelopes but a fellow humans like you, now can you say that these priests respect Gods command

THOU SHALL NOT KILL? but the priest blessed the armoury with so-called holy water not mindfull of other catholics in the other opponents camp. we saw catholics soldiers (britain/America) vs catholic soldiers (france)(germany) killing each other,

what a shame, see the pics of a shamefull act of your priest below pics A


yeah,

@Boomark

if we should go by v14 you quoted it says "are they not all MINISTERING SPIRITS sent forth...." here shows they are ministering spirits before being sent forth.

'MINISTERING' should have been severed from 'spirit', or shouldnt have come before 'spirit'

Minisrering and sent forth are the same 'they are delegated with a task'

24 elders are spirits but they don't have the same look oe design as a cherub who is an angel.

are you making a case for look? remember that being in spirit medium itself, they are can change their looks. i will treat that later!

pastormustwacc: ^^^all of una never reach agreement? No agreement!

The credibility of the truth will never be in agreement with the majority,

mathew 5. we are told by jesus concerning true worship, ...broad is the gate and wide is the road leading to destruction[b]MANY[/b]are the ones going through it, but narrow and cramp is the road to life 'FEW' are the ones plying the road, these two set of people above are distinguished by their stand .....they are never in agreement,and will never be.

so,it pleases those few with focus on truth as contained in the scripture[b] to never come in agreement[/b] with the majority who are misled through pagan scripture and distortion of beliefs.


if you are waiting for an agreement, it is never going to happen, because the divisive stand is the mark of where you belong.

@frobel

And I still say Jesus Christ , was not , is not and never will be an angel

on what grounds,

you gave us one ground that makes angel not qualified to redeem humans,because you said that they are lower in rank to jesus,and moreso it is an insult to God.

Now using your analogy;

you said jesus did not pre-exist before beign born, which means when he was born as a human,(lower in rank to the angel),with the sole purpose of redeeming humans,

he is lower in rank to the angels(while on earth) was testified in hebrews 2:9

heb 2:9;

9 But we see [b]Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels [/b]for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

you are yet to answer this questions;

1, is it an insult to God that jesus was made a little lower than the angels(on earth)?

2, with his lower rank than the angel(on earth) is he qualified to redeem humans?

taking into consideration that 'you are making a case based on qualification' that angels are just low to be qualified for redeeming humans,

qualification-wise, is he qualified (on earth)to redeem humans?

if you start your Movement now, how do you answer your members these question popping up which you are yet to answer?

waiting!

@ Barrister, pls i need u tell the whole world reading your long post so far, is Jesus christ an angel? Please answer yes or no.

Thank u.

yes of course, malachi 3:1.... ''my messenger'' not just any messenger but ''spirit messenger''

@Boomark

i think you are not thinking that i refer to john as an angel? pls i dont,for clarity sake

@Boomark

The same goes with angels, they are created for the purpose the are to serve.

see the bolded below

hebrew 1:14,

14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?

angels were created spirits first before beign delegated as angels/messengers.

we also have the 24 elders who are also spirit servants in the book of revelation but were not called angels! they are spirits.

@boomark

of course not!

You answered well according to the scripture. "to the firstborn of all creation" not to angel Michael.

Good work.

based on the available proofs withing the bible, there is no other proof that contest one on one with strong proofs linking micheal's activities with that of 'Gods son' expecially

(a)'the voice of the archangel' 1thess 4:6

[{when there are not 2 (first(archo) of all (angellos) angels/spirit mensengers)the very first to be created]}.

(b)''the dead will hear the voice of the son of God john 5:25-28. and the

(c)archangel involved is actually Micheal..dan 12:1


all a,b and c above[b] point to just one event of resurection in the last days[/b]

you wonder that john 5:25-26 actually disclose who the 'sole' authority is given (son of God)whose voice is to be heard.the uniqueness of voice here is that 'it communicates the real instruction and command the dead' while trumpet is not a voice but at best to give an alert,possibly to be heard by the dead, but the instruction will be passed through a special voice,and the only proof of voices that contest here is the ''son of God voice'' and ''archangel's voice'' Micheal actually the archangel dan 12:1.

it is logical to conclude without hypocrisy but on the available proofs in a,b and c above that since an authority to raise the dead is involved to a ''sole candidate '' also recognising ''the candidates voice in the authority issued'' as the only voice that is recognised in the authority issued, not recognising any other voice outside the one contained in the autority, we can conclude that the ''voice of the son of God'' that the dead will hear (john 5:25-29) is (b)an archangel's voice 1 thess 4:16(c)precicely that of micheal the archangel dan 12:1

strictly based on available evidence contained in the bible, recognising the sole authority in john 5:25-26.

read the evidence chronology above b4 comment pls.

is it right to proceed a case without enough evidence as shown (in blue)above?

Chelsea also said they were sorry for the intense media scrutiny Clattenburg was subjected to following the game against Manchester United in which they complained about "inappropriate language" the referee had allegedly used towards their Nigerian midfielder John Obi Mikel.
Clattenburg was cleared by the Football Association on Thursday.
[/b]Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck held a meeting with Professional Game Match Officials Limited, which manages top English referees, and the Premier League to discuss the matter on Monday.
[b]"The club regrets not having given more consideration before issuing a statement on the evening of Sunday 28th October," Chelsea said in a statement.
"The club also regrets the subsequent impact the intense media scrutiny had on Mark Clattenburg and his family.
"The referees accept that, given Chelsea FC had received a good faith claim from one of their employees, the club had an obligation under FA rules to report the allegation."
Chelsea said they would welcome Clattenburg back to Stamford Bridge and the referees' governing body said it would have no hesitation in appointing him to officiate Chelsea games.



The west London side made a formal complaint about the 37-year-old after Ramires and Jon Obi Mikel told club officials of their belief that the referee had abused the Nigerian 25-year-old on October 28.

[size=14pt]OBI MIKEL CHARGED[/size]
the FA do not believe the official has a case to answer - and Obi Mikel has been charged with using threatening and/or abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour in or near the Match Officials' room.

The FA's official statement reads: "The FA has concluded its investigation into alleged misconduct by Mark Clattenburg during the match between Chelsea FC and Manchester United FC on Sunday 28 October 2012. No disciplinary action will follow against Mr Clattenburg."

[size=16pt]The FA revealed the chronology of their investigation as follows:[/size]

"Following the conclusion of the match, Chelsea FC reported to the match delegate that two of their players had been

separately subject to abuse by the match referee, Mark Clattenburg.


"On Monday 29 October 2012, The FA contacted Chelsea FC to establish whether the club and individual players wished to make a formal complaint in relation to the allegations reported to the match delegate.

"On Wednesday 31 October Chelsea FC contacted The FA and confirmed that the club had conducted an internal enquiry and that they did wish to proceed with a formal complaint in relation to one of the allegations of abuse. The club did not wish to proceed in relation to the other allegation. The club provided witness statements from two players, Ramires Santos do Nascimento ("Ramires" and John Obi Mikel.

"The details of the allegation were that following one or the other of the red cards issued during the second half of the game, Ramires heard Mark Clattenburg say to John Obi Mikel, "shut up you monkey". John Obi Mikel did not hear the alleged comment.

"On 1 November 2012, The FA requested that Chelsea disclose full details of their internal investigation.

"On 5 November 2012, Chelsea FC provided The FA with witness statements from other Chelsea FC players and officials.

"On 5 November 2012, The FA interviewed Ramires and John Obi Mikel, using the TV match footage obtained by The FA.

"Between 7 and 8 November 2012, The FA interviewed all four match officials.

"On 9 and 14 November 2012, further to FA requests, Chelsea FC provided unbroadcast video footage of the game from static cameras.

"On 15 November 2012, The FA re-interviewed Ramires to show him the previously unseen video footage provided by the club. At this stage, for the first time, the exact point at which the comment was alleged to have been made was established.

"In light of this new information, between 15 and 19 November 2012, The FA interviewed the players who were in the vicinity of the alleged incident, and re-interviewed John Obi Mikel and the match officials.

"Chelsea FC was offered the opportunity to provide any further information or evidence that they believed could be relevant to the allegation.

"The FA then sought advice on the evidence gathered from independent Queen’s Counsel.

"The evidence for the allegation came from one witness, Ramires. Ramires, whose first language is not English, explained that his instinctive reaction was to seek confirmation from John Obi Mikel as to what the referee had said.

"John Obi Mikel, who was being spoken to by the referee, was much closer to the referee than Ramires and did not hear what it is suggested was said to him.

"Three other witnesses, i.e. the other Match Officials, to whom everything said by referee was relayed via their communication equipment, are adamant the alleged words were not uttered.

"There is nothing in the video footage to support the allegation.

"For completeness, but of lesser weight, two other players, whose first language is English and were in the vicinity, did not hear anything untoward.

"Having considered all of the available evidence it was the opinion of David Waters QC, independent counsel, that the evidence of Ramires was not supported by any other evidence. Moreover it was contradicted by other witnesses and does not cross the evidential threshold required to bring a charge against Mark Clattenburg.

"Having considered Counsel’s opinion, and in view of all the circumstances of the case, the FA does not believe that there is a case for Mr Clattenburg to answer.

"Equally The FA is satisfied that the allegation against Mark Clattenburg by Ramires was made in good faith. It is entirely possible for a witness to be genuinely mistaken and convincing in his belief.

"The FA receives and investigates numerous allegations of misconduct over the course of a season. All allegations are properly investigated. It is not uncommon for investigations to lead to no disciplinary charge being brought.

"The FA encourages all players who believe they have been either subject, or witness to, discriminatory abuse to report the matter immediately to the match officials on the day.

"Furthermore, all participants are advised to report any such alleged misconduct to the FA. In this case, the player and club were correct in reporting the matter to the FA and it was appropriate and proper for such an allegation to be thoroughly investigated."
"There was recognition by all parties that the impartiality and integrity of refereeing in this country remains paramount," Chelsea said.
"All parties now believe it is time to draw a line under this incident, learn from it and move on for the good of all Premier League clubs, players and match officials."

It will be recalled that clattenburg is the 4th refferees griviously accused after chelsea lost. 2 other reffs have resigned after a threat to their lives, and it is alarming among reffs that they are under presure to officiate chelsea games which often produce more fouls than their opponents,the reffs are faced with balancing of foul waved for each teams.while chelseafc easily forget serious fouls waved away to their credit, they 'cry' conspiracy at another waved for the other team,thereby making the reffs work under pressure.

links below;

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/premier-league-chelsea-admit-clattenburg-regrets-without-saying-160913533.html

BREAKING%20NEWS%20%20FA%20takes%20no%20further%20action%20against%20Clattenburg%20-%20Goal.com.htm

[size=18pt] For to which of the angels did He ever say:

“You are My Son, (Heb. 1:5)(king james version).[/size]



answer, ......To the firstborn of all creation..colosian 1:15.which is reffered to as ''my messenger'' (spirit messenger) or angel(greek meaning), in malachi 3:1. and no other messenger/angel that can duplicate the very first creation,archo-angellos, and no one

apart from the 'very first' creation merit being reffered to as ''you are my son'' and “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool” (verse 13).

can you dispute that?

@chukwu-omo-nna

Pope Pius V said in his Bull to the Spanish Clergy, permitting and encouraging the worship of the seven archangels

enjoy this now! e funny no be small,i go dey release them piecemeal for your enjoyment,

@chukwudi44

who said that there are other arch angel? definately not the JWS,

I thought you said other arch angels don't exist now you are accussing catholics of worshipping them.confusion has obviously set in.

You guys obviously worship charles russels that is why you have deliberately tried to belittle the divinity of Jesus so that you can promote your god.

didnt you guys say that you dont worship angels? or mary? now your yansh don open see am here;

Pope Pius V said in his Bull to the Spanish Clergy, permitting and encouraging the worship of the seven archangels

onyi-oshi!

Pope Pius V said in his Bull to the Spanish Clergy, permitting and encouraging the worship of the seven archangels

@chukwudi44

let me ask you,why must one be ordered by the pope to worship any other person than God, worshiping arkangel statue is purely idolatory!

@chukwudi44

exactly!

That is what i have been trying to tell him.

shut up! can you deny these facts exposed, or can you tell us is from protestant? see bolded below' did'nt you quote book of tobit to claim that there are other archangels? word for word they are revealed in these quotes, now see the extension of your catholic mess! bolded below;


Since the 4th century these 7 Archangels have been honored in the Roman Martyrology. In Mettenheim Bavaria is the Catholic Church dedicated to the Seven Great Archangels. [/b]It is now over 250 years old. On the 18th of October 1720, this church was dedicated. Each of the 7 Archangels was mentioned by name in the consecration prayer by Rev. Franz Wagensberg, Bishop of Salzberg. [size=14pt]Inside the church are 7 altars, each dedicated to one of the Archangels with a statue of the Archangel it was dedicated to. The dedication by a legitimate Catholic Bishop is additional proof of the correctness of the names and an encouragement to active devotion to these angels!
[/size].
[b]Pope Pius V said in his Bull to the Spanish Clergy, permitting and encouraging the worship of the seven archangels: "One cannot exalt too much these seven rectors of the world, figured by the seven planets, as it is consoling to our century to witness by the grace of God the cult of these seven ardent lights, and of these seven stars reassuming all its luster in the Christian republic." (Les Sept Esprits et l'Histoire de leur Culte; De Mirville's 2nd memoir addressed to the academy. Vol. II. p. 358.)

@Boomark

you have not responded to my last post!

@Boomark

@barristers

John was never referred to as an angel...no body will agree with you on that.

Truthislight do you agree with him that john is an angel?

did i say that john was an angel brother?
pls read my last post again.

Boomark;@barristers

All angels are messengers

the implication of what you are saying here is 'messengers are messengers' simple!
i have defined in the last post that all these heavenly spirits,ministering spirits, called 'sons of God'

hebrew 1:14-15 classified 'the son'(jesus) with 'Spirit' angels. sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?

13 But to which of the angels has He ever said:

“Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”?[i]
14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?

also chapter 2:3
,3 how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him.

they are firstly, 'spirits' before secondly, 'being delegated as messenger/angels' angel means 'messenger'(in its primary deftn) derived from the greek word Angellos.

for example you do exist firstly, as a phisical gender,male (primarily).before secondly, beign delegated to some duties,like manager, Supervisors,etc, Supervisors in coy A with the same role can be 'inspector' in coy B, the point here is the 'role played' they are titles.like angels/messengers, you are not born a manager or Supervisor.

Angel/messengers are assignments delegated to (1)either spirit beigns or (2) human beign

thats why an angel can testify to john(not baptist) that;
''im a fellow servant like you''

but not all messengers are angels.

of course human messengers need not be angel angels to deliver their assigned duty!

"The least of angels is greater than him" shows that he is not the 1st nor the least of the angels.
dont confuse things here,pls

the implication of that statement is as regards (the imferior human state of john,to a superior 'spirit angels's state)

let me borrow from frosbels bble quote;.

hebrews 2:6b 7 NIV
“What is mankind that you are mindful of them,
a son of man that you care for him?
7, You made them a little lower than the angels;

john is never been reffered to as an angel.thanks

what evidence do you need to know why you are pained! watchtower will never hide those truth, i expect you to deny, is hitler not a hero to you? keep your answer,but by the time i continue to load you more and more embarasing moments of your catholic church, nobody will tell you what to do,lets go now.

@chukwudi44

Even Jws do not depend on the bible alone but also pick up a lot of garbage from the watchtower magazines

we knew why you are pained seing watchtower,

because of codemning your pope as a harlot forming political allies with murderers like hitler who killed at least 6 million jews, but became a hero to the roman catotolic

see the

pics 1, unholy union of the harlot!

pics 2, catholic hero (murderer hitler) signing autographs with catholic nuns.

@frosbel

Let me ask you a question before I reply.

At what point was MAN as a race made a little lower than the angels ?

courtesy demands,without hypocrisy that you are responsible for your own assertions! how do i mean?

scroll back to my 1st question, below;

Barristers to frosbel;...now frosbel,answer me this;....was 'jesus ever made lower than the angels at some point in time?'

im making a case 'only for jesus' according to verse 9! lets read it again;

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

neither my question nor the bble quote was making a case for for MAN as you put it, it was your insinuation, not mine,as you can see bolded

,

Jesus Christ was made a little lower than the angels in the same way that[b] MAN as a race was made a little lower than the angels[/b].

so pls answer

1,was that an insult to GOD?

qualification issue

2,At that point when jesus was made lower than the angels, [/b]considering that his rank as at that point in time, while on earth(in lower rank than angels),[b] can you say that 'jesus is qualified' as in lower rank than the angels (which you admmitted)to reddeem the world?

considering the fact that you have earlier base an argument (in the 1st page) on qualification.

who is more qualified now [b]'qualificationwise' [/b]angels or jesus, simple answer pls just pick one.

dont disappoint me pls, other honesthearted are watching!

@Boomark

Boomark;@barristers

All angels are messengers

the implication of what you are saying here is 'messengers are messengers' simple!
i have defined in the last post that all these heavenly spirits,ministering spirits, called 'sons of God'

hebrew 1:14-15 classified 'the son'(jesus) with 'Spirit' angels. sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?

13 But to which of the angels has He ever said:

“Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”?[i]
14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?

also chapter 2:3
,3 how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him.

they are firstly, 'spirits' before secondly, 'being delegated as messenger/angels' angel means 'messenger'(in its primary deftn) derived from the greek word Angellos.

for example you do exist firstly, as a phisical gender,male (primarily).before secondly, beign delegated to some duties,like manager, Supervisors,etc, Supervisors in coy A with the same role can be 'inspector' in coy B, the point here is the 'role played' they are titles.like angels/messengers, you are not born a manager or Supervisor.

Angel/messengers are assignments delegated to (1)either spirit beigns or (2) human beign

thats why an angel can testify to john(not baptist) that;
''im a fellow servant like you''

but not all messengers are angels.

of course human messengers need not be angel angels to deliver their assigned duty!

"The least of angels is greater than him" shows that he is not the 1st nor the least of the angels.
dont confuse things here,pls

the implication of that statement is as regards (the imferior human state of john,to a superior 'spirit angels's state)

let me borrow from frosbels bble quote;.

hebrews 2:6b 7 NIV
“What is mankind that you are mindful of them,
a son of man that you care for him?
7, You made them a little lower than the angels;

john is never been reffered to as an angel.thanks

@frosbel

Jesus Christ was made a little lower than the angels in the same way that MAN as a race was made a little lower than the angels.

good boy!

with the bolded above, you admitted that jesus actually (at a point in time) was made a little lower than the angels.

next,

1,was that an insult to GOD?

qualification issue

2,At that point when jesus was made lower than the angels, [/b]considering that his rank as at that point in time, while on earth(in lower rank than angels),[b] can you say that 'jesus is qualified' as in lower rank than the angels (which you admmitted)to reddeem the world?

considering the fact that you have earlier base an argument (in the 1st page) on qualification.

who is more qualified now [b]'qualificationwise' [/b]angels or jesus, simple answer pls just pick one.

dont disappoint me pls, other honesthearted are watching!

@frosbel,

im putting it to you (now) that you have erred!(as you have just demostrated here)

the question i posed to you earlier ,i quoted hebrews 2:7,9 in my quote,of which you 'selected' along with your reply,this way;

BARRISTERS: @frosbel

your post is too dry, read heb 2:7,9 where it is said that 'jesus was even made lower than the angels at some point' you are even making a case that he has always been greater than the angels but what about heb 2:7,9 [/b]above.are you going to cry?

see your reply below,where you deliberately delete verse 9,that contains the point you are disputing,

[b]frosbel;..“What is mankind that you are mindful of them,
a son of man that you care for him?
7, You made them a little[a] lower than the angels;
you crowned them with glory and honor
8, and put everything under their feet.” - Hebrews 2:7-8.

Now, can you tell us 'why' you felt uncomfortable with verse 9, by removing it completely, after selecting it from my post as the area that you are responding to?

is it that verse 9 stood 'gidigba' in your way?

see it again,it has poped up again

hebrews 2:9;

9[size=14pt] But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels [/size]for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

why i quoted this (vs9)is not to discredit jesus who is already exaulted, and now better than the messangers/angels in the sense that he inherit a seperior name.(heb 1:4).

but to get an answer, now frosbel,answer me this;....was 'jesus ever made lower than the angels at some point in time?'

you are making a case that he has always been greater than the angels but what about heb 2:7,9

pls stop directing trinitarian questions to me,im against trinity and will always be,direct them to chukwudi44,true2God and Ubenedictus, but i dont think they will want to engage you because they need you as their ally to confront the JWS,but not knowing that you are running out of gas here, so i can understand why they bear your insults since without replying,go on soun jare, but back to my question,

is verse 9 above an insult to God? as you suggest in your earlier post,[/b]if you refuse,then your emotional standard for jesus is just based on your personal impulse,and not based on the scripture.we are all emotional for him,but you seem to be hiding something.

[b]also comment on verse 9 above!

@Malawian

Malawian(m):
What is an archangel, and who are they? In truth, an archangel is any angel who has risen above the generic rank of an angel. Among the archangels, seven “Archangels of the Throne” [size=18pt](although this term is not used in canonical texts)[/size] hold the highest ranks in the order—Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Orifiel, Zarachiel, Uriel, and Simiel. These privileged angels may also stand or kneel before the Throne of YHVH, the divine presence. Let’s look at the stories of each of these archangels.
Michael: The Angel Prince of Israel

you see the bolded above at the beggining of your post? that is the flaw that knocked all your post down! like statistics,a wrong piece of data will definately affect the result,no matter how rigourous you have work,until it is corrected, see the flaw again ''although this term is not used in canonical texts'' we deal exclusively with the sacred scriptures, and not pagan scriptures, and that is the tonic that has sustained the tread till this page(15).

only if you can work within the constitution of 'only the sacred scriptures', then we can discuss and make the tread more imformative! thanks for your time.

@free123
i still repeat,where are the monies donated by relatives of dead ones to 'purgate' the soul of their dead loved ones which your fraudulent catholic priests are using to settle abuse cases,while they abandone those deads in a particular stage that they needed promotion to another stage. awon ole! why are you angry?

Barrister
only a cultist will defend lies from his master - JW. False prophecies/predictions have been one of the hallmarks of JW, Lies and boastings, claims upon claims - no organisation read the bible more than we do, no organisation practise christianity more than we, christiendom is evil, we are the most hated, dont touch blood (while their prophets use drugs made from human blood) etc. Lies have been part of you. Shame will be urs when watchtower wakes up tomorrow and reviews its stand on some issues

na wao, free123 is angry o! see am now! who wan make am cry, ok pele!

@true2God
not even one bible quoted but whining and whining and whining Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah;

All the long post by Barrister is to support the apologetic watch-tower of which they are trademarked with, changin doctrines yr after yr calin it 'light is gettin brighter' and an educated mind will buy dis fallacy. Tufiakwa! God forbid.

This 'arch angel michael' falacy was not even associated with their foundin fathers, either Russel or Rutherford (dat does not however exonorate them as master Bible twister to support their devilsh doctrines).

The book of Hebrew chapter one is enof to nullify all watchtower lies wrt this topic. Arch-angel is still an angel. To the Jw Jesus christ is an angel, pure and simple. And going by Jw doctrine, God did not create anything but Jesus (or arch angel michael accordong to Jw), an arch angel michael created all other things (accordin to jw). Invariably, accordin to watchtower, it was arch angel Mivhael that created angel Gabriel and all other angels. Angel Michael also created the heaven and the earth, acccordin to jw theology, since God did not create anything but the son.

I am highly disapointed dat someone, presumably informed, will be fed will lies and he wil swallow it hook, line and sinker and will even go ahead defending lies.

As i posted earlier, Jw belongs to the category of mormonism, eckanker, the grail messenger, the christian science, and some other occult group portrayin themselves as xtains.

Any organization that does not believe in the atonement of sin through the shed blood of christ, that christ is the savior of mankind from sin, that christ (not watchtower org) is the only mediator between mankind (and not 144,000 pple as taught by watchtower) and God , that all angels are commanded to worship the son (jesus, cos even men are not to worship angels, let alone angels worshipping angel). That organization is watchtower.

Anyone can continue worshiping or adoring or paying obeisance (according to new world translation) to arch angel Michael. Surely watchtower arch angel Michael is not the christian Jesus. That shows that watchtower is servin another master quite diffenrnt frm Jesus.

Boomark

@barristers

John was referred to as a messenger in Malachi 3:1. See also:

Matthew 11:7-10

7 As they went away, Jesus
began to speak to the crowds
concerning John: “What did you go
out ninto the wilderness to see? oA
reed shaken by the wind? 8 What
then did you go out to see? A
man 1 dressed in soft clothing?
Behold, those who wear soft
clothing are in kings' houses.
9 What then did you go out to
see? pA prophet? 2 Yes, I tell you,
and more than a prophet. 10[b] This
is he of whom it is written,
q“‘Behold, I send my messenger before
your face,
who will prepare your way before you.’[/b]

Does that make him an angel?

very good question my brother, verse 11 the next verse gave us a hint,a part answer!

Matthew 11:11
(NKJV)
11 “Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.as a human beign with physical body, john is lower 'in nature'to the least of persons in heaven because he is in humanbody(inferior to angels)

Hebrews 1:14
'' Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation''?

all angels and spirit creatures are reffered to as 'sons of God' in the sense that they are ;all spirits,including jesus and God almighty, and that spirit form superceeds our human form.
(a) but the word 'angels'...meaning messanger/servant etc; in spirit form; 'angels'share the elementary task of beign delegated messanger/servant 'the office'

(b) human prophets, pastors etc are also worthy to be reffered to as messanger but share the office of 'messanger/servant too with angels but, 'in human form'

thats why an angel told john that ''they are fellows'' But he said unto me, 'Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you [/b]and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book.

revelation 19 :10 answers your question,0 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: [size=14pt]I am thy fellowservant,[/size] and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
looking at the greek defination of angels
G32

ἄγγελος

aggelos

ang'-el-os

From ἀγγέλλω aggellō ; a messenger ; especially an angel ;[b] by implication a pastor: [priest]- [prophet] {angel} messenger.


(primary) use of the word (ang'-el -os)angel reffers to spirit beigns, like that of the son of man, as a messenger,

but (bolded defntn above) also has an extention (secondary) to a prophet, priests or pastors.of which john fell into that category! but the angel recognises his duties and funtion and declared to john that 'im a fellow servant'.

lets say that your real name is boomark, you do exist firstly as a phisical gender,male (primarily).before beign delegated to some duties,as a messanger/servant, that does not change you to spirits. no.

Angel/messengers are assignments delegated to (1)either spirit messanger, or (2) human messanger

so john was Gods messenger in humans form,that does not make him a spirit.

@frosbel

Jesus Christ is not angel Michael.

If you worship angel Michael, then you are committing an abomination in the sight of GOD.

your post is too dry, read heb 2:7,9 where it is said that 'jesus was even made lower than the angels at some point' you are even making a case that he has always been greater than the angels but what about heb 2:7,9 above.are you going to cry?
abeg go start frosbel movement international jare! 3 jesus.

@ubenedictus

let he wu is without sin be the first to cast a stone. Im very sure Jw dont sin.

i also noted that they can sin too, if you read the post,the few cases they had,jws were very firm to disffelowship those affected outrighly, but many will still criticise that why must they be disfelowshiped, calling GB as too rigid and harsh,but how do you describe a situation where catholic priests are not dismissed for such offence,but are rotated among parishes up to the level of 8 diocess running into bankruptcy after settling repeatedly abuse cases! what measure are being put in place to check those execes, note that, had it been that free123 did not go into insulting the WT,nobody will care to go into these cases, but how can someone with series or fleets of mind buggling cases be throwing stones first? is it right, im ready if he continue to distract attention from the topic.