₦airaland Forum

Maynman:
My RSV says "Joshua".
Joshua is an English name.
Jesus is a latinised name, they even had to remove I(esus) and replace with j(esus). Who is esus?

I suggested the Old KJV because it mentioned the original word the apostles used. If you refuse to check it out, look for any interlinear version of the Bible

Maynman:
The history is there for you to see, I called Yahweh, a dummy because that's what he is, there is no resentment but FACTS, it's you in your feelings for your isrealite god.

Are you here to talk Facts or your beliefs, please if you don't have facts next time, don't quote me.

https://www.worldhistory.org/Yahweh/

You're not upsetting me because you're calling Jehovah a dummy. OP called him a fool, and I didn't express any resentment, or did I.
Look harder for what you're doing. I've replied to several of your posts, so examine them all.

And I'm here to talk about the historicity of Jesus and of his disciples. Remember I asked you for the original topic?

musicwriter:
Yes, I called Jehovah a fool.

Jehovah is a typo error, I believe by Germans who were trying to write the Jewish Yahweh.

You don't have to worry whether I left Christianity because I was offended. Yahweh's own crimes in the bible is enough for anyone not to believe him.

Ah! So it's the things he did and the things he allowed?

We can take the “crimes” one after the other. Mention one of them.

Maynman:
Just look "Yahweh" up, the poor dummy god history is all over.

https://www.worldhistory.org/Yahweh/

This conversation isn't going anywhere, man. I don't know where all this resentment is coming from.
What was the original topic of this discussion again?
You see, you're really beginning to upset me because one of us is acting like a child, and that isn't me.

If you have a beef with Jehovah (or Yahweh or whatever you want to call him), spill. Don't keep it and let it fester.

Maynman:
This is jargons.
Let's take it one by one.
First off, Jehovah is a nonsense mispronounced word,so calm down and read properly.
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Jehovah


Secondly, Joshua is not Jesus in Greek, it's lesous in Greek, Jesus is a LATIN name called iesus, it was TRANSLITERATED from the Hebrew yeshua, which means "Yahweh saves".

Lastly, Please confirm what you are saying before posting not what they taught you.

It's alright. Let's not deteriorate to name-calling.

You know, the issue as to Jehovah being a mispronunciation was why I gave the example of someone mispronouncing your name.
Our names get mispronounced all the time, and we don't make a big deal out of it.

Jehovah was originally a mispronunciation, okay. So, if we call him Yahweh for the sake of this discussion, man no go vex.


As for Jesus, what does Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 say? Isn't it Jesus?
Evidently, Joshua isn't literally Jesus in Greek. It has been Latinized and Anglicized. Anything I don't mention isn't because I am ignorant of it, but because I think it is too obvious to warrant mention. Or should we start using Greek alphabets to denote words in Greek? How about Hieroglyphics for words in Old Egypt?

Maynman:
Yahweh' is just a local god that was worshipped by the isrealites.
His father is El, that gave him israEl as a nation.

Calm down and read on how yahwism evolve to Judaism after the Babylonian exile.

I don't know, bro. But if that's how you see it, I appreciate a different perspective on any matter.

So, what's your take? That we evolved from a common ancestor? Or do you identify as agnostic?
Or perhaps you belong to a different religion.

Maynman:
There's nothing like "Jehovah".
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Jehovah

Jehovah has a more solid root in the minds of people, that's why we use it.

You know, I have a good example:

You know Joshua in the Bible? The Joshua who led God's people into the promised land, yeah that one. Well, in Greek his name translates to Jesus, and that is what Stephen and Paul called him. (see Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8; Old King James Version) Neither of them argued that that wasn't his name, they just called him by the name that would be more rooted and hence more accepted by those speaking the language of the day.

It is the same with Jehovah. If anyone insists on calling him Yahweh, we won't stop them. It is better that everyone uses one name for ease and less confusion, and Jehovah is more rooted in the minds of people than Yahweh is.
The main thing is for people to realize that God has a proper name, not that the name you are using should be the original pronunciation.
For example, when we can't pronounce a person's name properly, we still pronounce it nevertheless—however way we can. And if they can sense our genuineness, they won't make an issue about it.

Besides, there is of yet no consensus as to what the original pronunciation of God's name is.

22jumpstreet1:
do you agree that Islam also came to replace both?

Islam claims that its founder Mohammad was an offspring of Ishmael. If that's the case, Jehovah told Abraham that his offspring would come through Isaac and not through Ishmael. (Genesis 21:10-12) Paul reported that this drama where Sarah sent Ishmael away represented how God reserves his favour not for those he is casting away but for the true offspring, the congregation of Jesus.—Galatians 3:16, 29; 4:28-31.

Also, Abraham's real offspring through Isaac prophesied that Christianity would be restored, not replaced, in the time of the end.

For these reasons, I do not believe that Islam replaced either Judaism or Christianity.

Maynman:
2 Peter 1:16-18 wasn't talking about it.

The disciple that was present didn't talk about it, but the one that wasn't, talked EXTENSIVELY about it 😂

LoL. No bro, Peter used the expression “we” in saying “WE were EYEWITNESSES” to indicate that he was in fact present. Reading Matthew 17:1 we see that Peter, James, and John were the ones who saw the vision. So, it is not true that “the disciple that was present didn't talk about it.” The disciple that talked, as you said, “EXTENSIVELY,” about it, is the one who was present. And isn't that what you would expect? That only an eyewitness would report extensively on a matter?

Maynman:
Judaism is from yahwism.

)
Okay.
Well, Jehovah, (or Yahweh if you prefer) condemned the Jews for worshipping goddesses, including Queen of Heaven, and others.
Interestingly, if we're talking about gods and goddesses, done forget the Madonna and child image reversed by the Roman Catholic church which some have in ignorance worshipped the Egyptian image which happened to look similar; also, don't forget to remember Easter (Eostre, Ostara) which celebrated by Christendom in general.

Maynman:
Where did the disciples who saw it write the story?

They kept it among themselves, apparently. They didn't write it. Even today, it isn't everything that you write.
Peter was the only one who ventured to write about it. It is there in 2 Peter 1:16-18.

Maynman:
Let's take the "modern scholarship" and look into it, shall we?

Indulge yourself

Maynman:
Are you sure you have done anything on research on CHRISTIANITY which is from Chrestianity?
And not to forget that it also comes from JUDAISM which also came from yahwism.

Surely, Judaism was the first religion God instituted for his people on earth. It painted a picture of what the ideal conditions of God's people should be.
When the time came for that religion to replaced as an old wine and wineskin is replaced by new wine and wineskin, (Matthew 9:14-17) Jesus came on scene and laid the basis for Christianity.

And I believe that I have researched into the evidences for Christianity.

Maynman:
I'm glad you also use Wikipedia.

The "historical context" that was used in Jesus case was this, lets look into them and see if they really talked about Jesus.

I'm trying to understand you?

It plainly implies that the evidence REALLY talked about Jesus.

Take note of this statement under the subheading “Modern Scholarship.”

_Scholars regard the question of historicity as generally settled in scholarship in the early 20th century._

musicwriter:
Why would an all powerful God create a religion that would need restoration? What prevented such a fool from creating a perfect one in the first place?

And why would you trust such a fool that allowed people to kill innocent people around the world just so that he'll be known?

Ah! Is worldwide violence the reason?

Well, Jehovah gave us freewill. And in respect because of that, he doesn't interfere with our decisions by much. Just because some people choose to do such and such and the Bible recorded it doesn't mean God condoned it. The Bible also records the so-called good deeds of evil people. Certain God doesn't condone that.

The Bible is like the news report whose job is to report on things that are happening, not on things they like.

Just think, God's greatest commandment to us is that we should love him.
Are you really serving God out of love if he has to spell out everything you must do on the pain of capital punishment?
True love is shown by one's doing something because he WANTS to, and not because he is told to, forced to, or commanded to.

That is why God ALLOWED things to happen—bad or good.

Now, if God had created a perfect religion, humans wouldn't even meet it because we are not perfect. Take note of what Paul said about the Law of Moses: “The Law itself is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. . . The Law is spiritual.” (Romans 7:12, 14) The perfection of the Law is why it couldn't be kept by imperfect humans. (Psalms 19:7; Galatians 3:10)

Christianity is to be frank perfect too, it just has more allowances for human imperfections than the Law of Moses had.

You called Jehovah a fool? I want to know the reason for your grievances as to why you're calling a person a fool? Did he slight you?

musicwriter:
The problem is that Jesus never existed. Or do you have any proof that Jesus existed? If you have, present it and I'll delete this thread and convert back to Christianity.

LoL. I will indeed provide proof, but I'm asking for the REAL reason. That's because I provided a link to a source of evidence, but you're still asking. If you're still asking for proof after this, I will conclude that there is a deeper reason you left. Address that reason and everything else falls into place.


This is the link I provided on the historicity of Jesus, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#:~:text=Only%20two%20key%20events%20of%20Jesus%27s%20life%20are%20widely%20accepted%20as%20historical%2C%20namely%20his%20baptism%20and%20crucifixion.%5B

and the link says: “Only two key events of Jesus's life are widely accepted as historical, namely his baptism and crucifixion.” After that it provides some citations.

I provided this link too:

https://www.jw.org/finder?srcid=jwlshare&wtlocale=E&prefer=lang&docid=1101990137
It's a long read, though. But it addresses the need for provides evidence scientific, shows how history fulfilled Bible prophecies, and tackles the need for proof from other angles too.

Did you know that the Bible foretold the existence of the United Nations organization? It foretold in striking details the conditions YOU see today.

musicwriter:
Bro, I already know your problem. Any indoctrination provides the victim the arguments to support itself.

Otherwise, a little history would tell you that if not for the Roman empire, nobody would know anything about your Jesus.

Jesus doesn't have to be a real person for Christianity to spread around the world. All it requires is the patronage of a powerful tyrant. Indeed, emperor Constantine filled that role

If Rome didn't employ Christianity as a common religion to govern their colonies, nobody would know about a Jesus. If people weren't killed, threatened, hanged, dehumanized for not accepting Christianity, it would have been a dead religion by now.

So, as far as the spread of Christianity beyond the Mediterranean goes, you should instead be thankful to the Roman empire, not Jesus, not Paul, or anyone else.

Really, if Jesus hadn't given anyone the assignment to make disciples of people of all the nations, would anyone even undertake to do so? There is no contest here, and whatever you think is the answer to that, the forced conversion by some in the Roman times fulfilled a prophecy by Jesus and Paul.

In Matthew 13:24-30 and 36-39, Jesus indicated that at some point after the apostles’ death, Christianity would get corrupted and would remain that way for much of history, until the ‘end times.’—Acts 20:29, 30; 2 Peter 2:1, 2; see also 1 Timothy 4:1, 2; 2 Timothy 4:3, 4.

But during the time of the end, all things will be restored including true Christianity, (Acts 3:21) and they will once again seriously take on the commission to preach and teach and make disciples. The restoration of true Christianity in the time of the end is why the worldwide witnessing concerning the Kingdom of God is mentioned as a sign of the time of the end. It will be carried out by the restored organization of genuine disciples of Christ.—Matthew 24:3, 14.

Maynman:
How did Matthew then know about the story if he was not present?
Where was he when this was going on, and why didn't he record that?

The disciples who saw that were strictly ordered by Jesus to keep silent on that experience until after his resurrection.—Matthew 17:9.

I really want to know why you left Christianity to begin with.
If evidence is what you are seeking, it is SO abundant. In time, I will show them all to you, because I too have examined all bases for my beliefs. If on the other hand something else is responsible, perhaps the prevalence of wickedness, the hypocrisy of the churches, etc, we can discuss those as well.

First off all, click this link for more information on the accuracy of the Bible, including the four Gospels: https://www.jw.org/finder?srcid=jwlshare&wtlocale=E&prefer=lang&docid=1101990137

Matthew 9:9 reports Jesus’ calling of Matthew to become his disciple. Both Mark and Luke report the same event, using his second name Levi. (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27)

Mark was a young man who got many of his stories from Peter.
Luke was never a disciple of Jesus during his birth. The Gospel of Luke was actually an evidence he compiled (from several eye-witness sources) in form of a letter to a man of high station called Theophilus.
While it's true that John didn't directly make reference to himself in the first person, he did report having contact with Jesus. See 1 John 1:1, 5 on this.

The apostle Peter did report eyewitness testimony where he convinces his readers that the story of Jesus is not a myth. He used the plural show that he wasn't the only one who witnessed what happened.—2 Peter 1:16-18.

The apostle Paul too faced those who were too eager to disbelieve the resurrection, and he appealed to eyewitness testimony where the resurrected Jesus was publicly seen by an assembly of over 500 of his disciples. He also used a masterful argument to show that Jesus was indeed resurrected.—1 Corinthians 15:4-8, 12-19.


As to the existence of Jesus, well-researched reports documents that a man truly existed who was: (1) named Jesus, (2) baptized by a certain John the baptizer in the Jordan river, (3) had much wisdom, (4) taught with ease and won the admiration of many, (5) was killed at the pronouncement of Pontius Pilate.

The main interest is what moved you to conclude that such men never existed and thus reject Christianity. Did something happen that caused you to double-check your stay in Christianity? Perhaps the hypocrisy so prevalent among so-called Christians and their churches?

Look at the highlighted text in this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#:~:text=Only%20two%20key%20events%20of%20Jesus%27s%20life%20are%20widely%20accepted%20as%20historical%2C%20namely%20his%20baptism%20and%20crucifixion.%5B

A vocal coach to tutor you in what?

I am someone that a few years ago passionately devoted myself to learning the intricacies of spoken English, and I can certainly teach you what I know.

Well, that escalated fast 😅
You might sense it, or maybe not, but I'm trying to prevent a potentially explosive situation.

Before I answer your question, let me iterate that I am speaking for myself, defending and providing reasons for MY beliefs. I don't seek to project it onto you as something you must accept because you are a human in your own right and you have the liberty to hold and express your own convictions.
It can be easy for me to be sooo focused on the topic of discussion that I fail to realize the PERSON behind the screen. Therefore, I still insist on asking about your well-being, your job, and your family. Do me a kindness and answer that question.

Ken4Christ:
But the phrase, Lake of fire doesn't have any Greek word than you can twist to make it mean what you want to.

I know that you don't believe it's a literal fire. You believe that souls that will be cast in there will just go into extinction. But it's not true.

The false prophet and the beast that were cast in there in Revelation 19:20 were still acknowledged to be there in Revelation 20:10. And the time space between the two passages is over 1,000 years. What do you have to say about this? Don't deviate.

I don't believe that the lake of fire is literal, correct. But the reason why is:

(1) Because of how Revelation 20:14 says that death and “the Grave” (NWT), or “hell” (KJV) will be cast into this lake.
If, as you said, “the first place of torment is hell,” why should a place of torment be cast into another place of torment? Will this place of torment also undergo torment in a worse place of torment?

(2) The lake of fire is described as the second death.
It is my understanding that the lake of fire is the symbol, while the second death is the explanation for that symbol. This is similar to Revelation 1:20 where Jesus said the the seven stars are the angels of the seven congregations (churches; KJV) and the seven lampstands (candlesticks; KJV) are the seven congregations. There is no argument that Jesus isn't literally referring to stars and candlesticks. Rather, he was using them to represent the overseers of the congregations and the congregations themselves.
It is similar to the second death. Unlike the first death which results from Adam's sin passed down to us and which is compared to sleep because it comes with a resurrection, an awakening, the second death isn't the result of Adam's sin, and it isn't compared to sleep but is a true death because with it there is no awakening. Thus, from God's standpoint and not just man's alone, such a person is dead. An irreversible judgment fittingly compared to an everlasting fire.
This is what Jude spoke about as “having died TWICE and having been uprooted,” (Jude 12) i.e, the first death resulting from Adam's sin is compared to a cut down tree with its roots intact, which can still regrow for same reason, (Job 14:7, 14) but the condition of having died a second time, having died twice, having experienced the second death, is likened to a completely uprooted tree which has no hope of ever regrowing. Now, note this interesting phrase: “for whom the blackest darkness stands reserved forever.” (Jude 13) If the lake of fire were literal, how do we harmonize a fire on the one hand with a black darkness on the other hand? I think that it is more sensible to conclude that these are different illustrations for the same point, complete nonexistence. Remember that the original punishment for sin was that we would return to the dust, and not anything beyond that.—Psalms 90:3; compare Genesis 3:19.


As for your comment that the victims of the lake of fire were still there after a space of 1,000 years, look at Isaiah 66:24. Notice that although this scripture also uses the description of fire, it in no way refers to a literal torment because it speaks of carcasses, or dead bodies.
Now, I am not deviating, but I am using a different example from the Bible to show you why my understanding is what it is. They were still there after 1,000 years because they were not let out and will never be let out. Letting them out will be tantamount to reversing their destruction, which God will not do.

Ken4Christ:
Destruction of souls doesn't mean that they cease to exist. They will experience continuous torture and pains for the rest of their lives.

For instance, when the beast and the false were both thrown into the Lake of fire in Revelation 19:20, they were acknowledged to still be there after over 1,000 years. Satan joined them in Revelation 20:10. And the scripture says that they will be tormented day and night for the rest of their lives.

Yes, True. The Scripture does say that.
Confirmed.


Yet, have a look at these interesting points:

In Jesus' parable of the unforgiving slave who was thrown into jail by the master for refusing to forgive his fellow slave, the jailers were called “tormentors,” depending on the translation of Bible you are using. The torment was in the sense of imposing forced restriction on them. It will be in this sense that the Devil will be tormented. I say this since Romans 16:20 says that Satan will be crushed, put out of existence.
Also, Babylon the Great is said to be tormented by God's jugdment against her, namely, death. (Revelation 18:8, 10) And what is the result of the torment? She will be put out of existence, never to be found again.—Revelation 18:21.



Also, everlasting fire, has been used in the Bible as an illustration of irreversible destruction. It was used this way in Isaiah 34:9, 10. Sodom and Gomorrah was described in the Bible as being put in everlasting fire, not in a literal sense, but in the sense that her destruction will never be undone; her's was a judgment with eternal significance.

Consider too that Death and Grave was cast into the lake of fire.—Revelation 20:14.
Will these abstract concepts also suffer torment forever? Or even at all? Revelation 21:4 explains the significance of that passage by saying that “death will be no more.”

On the other hand, Jeremiah 7:31 tells us that tormenting people in fire is “something that has not even come into [God's] heart.”


As to whether destroyed souls cease to exist, recall where John 3:16 tells us that the gift of God is everlasting life for those believing in Jesus. If those who will perish will have everlasting life, (surely they have to live forever to be literally tormented forever) isn't it still everlasting life?
On this note, I once overheard someone say that ‘everyone receives everlasting life, the difference is where it is spent’—in heaven or in hell.
What do you think, do you agree with that statement?




By the way, how are you doing? Your health, your job, your family and friends, etc.
Take a look at my signature text. Tnx

kenbee:
If this is your reality, how honest, dedicated and hard working are you?

I can offer you a better job but down here in Port Harcourt.

This is my reality, ma'am. I count honesty as a very necessary virtue in a decent human. As for dedication and hardwork, I will rather say that I am self-disciplined and have some organizational skills. My level of dedication and hardwork will depend on how badly I need the job which, in this case, is very intense.

As for my job experience, I have had some clinical training and can work as a receptionist, I have experience working as a school teacher, and I have experience also as a barber.

I am in Abia state, but nothing stops me from moving if I KNOW that I can get all my ducks in a row.
Thanks for reading. Consider helping me.

Can you lose your salvation?
What does the Bible tell us?

Jude 5 — Although you are fully aware of all of this, I want to remind you that Jehovah, having SAVED a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward DESTROYED those not showing faith.

If such a thing couldn't happen to Christian, there will be no reason for Jude to remind the Christian congregation of this.

Revelation 3:11 — I am coming quickly. Keep holding fast to what you have, so that no one may take your crown.

Give this whatever interpretation you may, but I think it's quite apparent and obvious that ‘taking away your crown’ implies that the crown has been reserved for you in the first place.

The post was a few months ago, so a part of me doesn't know if he will read it.
That is why I am posting my answer here, also for the benefit of others who are secretly harboring such thoughts.
He mentioned some earthly pleasures such as food, sex, and the like.
My answer is as follows:

Heaven is not a boring place at all. It is where the universal sovereign lives. The only two problems are:

(1) The mainline description of heaven doesn't tally with that of the Bible, and
(2) Heaven is not meant to be man's abode.

Let me briefly discuss the two:

Heaven basically means ‘exalted’ and can be used that way figuratively as in Isaiah 34:5; Luke 10:15; and Lamentations 2:1.
When used literally, it can mean one of three things: the sky as it is exalted in relation to the dry land, the outer space which is exalted in relation to the planet earth, and the spirit plane which is the highest and most exalted realm of existence.—Genesis 1:8; Deuteronomy 4:19; Isaiah 66:1.

The angels were created to be free moral agents, just as God is himself a free moral agent. In fact, we once see them expressing a variety of opinions on a matter. (1 Kings 22:19-21)
Thus they are not clones of one another. True, they are always singing before God and speaking of his holiness constantly, but who is to say that they are not organized into groups that take turns doing so? Read for instance 1 Chronicles 9:33 and see what I'm talking about. Moreover, one worships and praises God through various things they think, say, and do. (compare Psalms 19:1-4; 103:20) In that sense, it is possible to praise God “all day long.”—Psalms 145:2.

They have specific times for gathering before God, it isn't as if He is ALWAYS encompassed by them. (Job 1:6; 2:1)
Also, the spirit plane is an entire other universe on its own. It is as large and broad and encompassing as a different planet, and larger. Why should the angels be encompassed around God 24/7? It is only happens when a heavenly proceeding is to take place that God convenes his angels to gather round him. Notice for example Daniel 7:9, 10 where this is very well illustrated. First God sits down (meaning he isn't always sitting down, stationary and immobile), then the angels gather round him—some ministering to him others waiting to be sent on missions—and then books were opened.
Consider this illustration: is what we watch in movies what is always happening in reality? No
A movie is set to capture particular events in time. Weeks, or even months can even be skipped between the making of one scene and of another scene. Usually, real life has MUCH LESS drama than movies portray. So too with the spirit plane. Surely, heaven is a hive of activity, but the visions of heaven we read about is only a fragment of what actually takes place in heaven. We were only told what we needed to know, those heavenly occurrences that God felt we should be aware of. (Deuteronomy 29:29; Job 26:14; see also John 20:30; 21:25)



There is always room for improvement. The angels generally are eager to add to their knowledge. (Ephesians 3:10; 1 Peter 1:12) The Bible indicates that the angels even show differing degrees of knowledge. (Daniel 10:4-7; 12:5-7) They can choose to support a matter more or less strongly. (compare Daniel 10:13, 21)

There is no day or night there because spirits do not depend on light rays for sight. And remember that day and night is caused by the rotation of the earth on its axis. And if those in the outer space do not recognize day and night because they are not inside this planet, how much more will the angels whose sight doesn't take light rays into account not recognize day and night for themselves?
Also, do you know that the sun looks different out there? The yellow colour of the sun is caused by the atmospheric dispersion of blue light, leaving red and green light which in equal proportions equal yellow. That's why the sun appears red some times. It's true colour is white. That's also why the sky appears blue. Also, we see scattered light because the atmosphere disperses light. Out there, light travels in a straight path, and looking away from the bright whiteness of the sun you will see nothing but dense darkness.
If we understand how and why these different perspectives exist, it will be easier to understand how and why angels do not recognize day and night. Also, what the spirits see when they look at us is different from what you see when you look at the next person. All depends on how your sight is structured to work.

No need for food? Yes. They have no need for food. Hunger is an earthly desire. Their fuel is not glucose and material nutrients. How can it be, when they do not live in the material universe? They don't even have a literal mouth or teeth to take in food. These things are earthly, for humans and animals and plants.
Their different plane and form of existence makes things work differently there. Even their means of communication is different and transcends speech by far. Why wouldn't it? Speech depends on sound waves to be carried forth, and there is no air in the spirit plane so how will sound travel? Consider too that there is no way for sound to travel in the outer space so we found another way to make communication possible.

Having no physical bodies, (don't be mistaken, they do have bodies. Even God himself has a body, a shape, a form.—John 5:37; 1 Corinthians 15:40, 48) they do not have sex. They can't even desire it, for they have no sex hormones. True, angels did find women attractive and took some as wives, but Satan's deception was involved. (Revelation 12:4) Truth is, we don't know the whole story on that event, so we can't form an accurate judgment there.
More on this later, though.

They do feel pain. Why won't they? They don't feel physical pain because they aren't physical beings, but they feel real pain. Just think; if they can feel joy, why can't they feel pain? (Luke 15:10; compare Isaiah 63:9)


Are they constantly wearing white garments? Well, they don't have bodies of flesh that need garments over them. No, they do not in any real sense wear garments.
So why are they portrayed that way in the Bible? Answer is simple:
The Bible presented invisible matters in visible illustrations and symbolic pictures because it is only matters set in space and having three dimensions that our minds are able to grasp.
This explains why God and even his throne is described differently in different visions. Each pictorial representation was used for a particular reason specific to that vision, and it became necessary to use a different pictorial representation for a different vision, etc.
This also explains why it holds true that no one has literally seen God, that it is impossible for man to see God and live, although visions of God have been seen many times. (John 6:46; compare Isaiah 6:5) Acts 12:9 shows the difference between what is real and what is a vision.



In reality, the difference between life in the spirit realm and life on earth is the same difference between life on land, life in air, and life in water:
Each one is given a body that is perfectly suited to the environment they are created to dwell (1 Corinthians 15:38, 39). But just as you can put on a swimsuit and oxygen tank for an extended stay in sea, and take it off when you return to land, so too angels can construct physical bodies to visit the material world, and deconstruct them upon leaving. When an angel puts on physical bodies, at that moment he is not purely a spirit and it is thus possible for him to do things that humans do. Thus we read that angels who manifested human bodies ate, wore clothes, and impregnated women. That is also why Jesus, although he was a spirit upon being resurrected, (1 Corinthians 15:45) denied being a spirit when he manifested a body of flesh before his disciples. (Luke 24:39)
Naturally, each one is content where he is and does not desire to dwell elsewhere. I don't think fishes want to be birds, just as I don't think you want to become an octopus. Similarly, angels won't normally want to be humans on earth, just as you say you don't want to go to heaven and become an angel. Now, this brings me to my second point:


The earth is man's PERMANENT home. (Psalms 115:16; Ecclesiastes 1:4) Adam and Eve were put here and told to extend the borders of Eden to cover the entire globe.
Noah and his posterity were here, and it is also here that the righteous humans will dwell forever, a divine promise God gave long ago, which Jesus repeated. (Matthew 5:5; see Psalms 37:9-11, 29)
Are you familiar with what Isaiah 11:6-9 promises? Or Isaiah 65:20-25? How about Isaiah 25:8? Or Ezekiel 34:25?


The need for some humans to go to heaven is a unique need, and it does not at all affect God's purpose for the earth to be man's permanent home.
When Adam and Eve sinned, God could have destroyed them immediately. But since he had already blessed them and purposed that their offspring should fill the earth, he had to deal with them. However, he couldn't do so directly since their sinful condition is an affront to his dignity.
Thus there arose a need for an entity that will represent him before man, and will represent man before him. That is the only way he could deal with Adam's offspring without defiling his holiness. Moreover, since his sovereignty is an integral part of his being, this entity has to have sovereign power bestowed on it so that, for all practical purposes, the entity would be a perfect mirror of God and his sovereignty, while at the same time being a perfect mirror of man but without the sinfulness, thus serving to reconcile the two parties. And who will be qualified to represent man before God except someone who was once a man? In fact, this was one important reason why Jesus came to the earth as Hebrews 2:14, 17 makes clear. However, Jesus couldn't represent man in EVERY respect because he doesn't have the ‘sinful human’ experience. (Hebrews 4:15) Thus there is also a need for additional persons to be extracted from among sinful mankind, persons who will along with Jesus serve God's interests for 1,000 years, (Revelation 20:6) reconciling man to God and reconciling God to man so that by the end of that time, humans will once again become part of God's universal family and have “the glorious freedom of the children of God,” (Romans 8:21) something that Adam once had as a “son of God” but lost for himself and his offspring due to the defective condition brought on him and on us by his sin.—Luke 3:38; Deuteronomy 32:5.

Gafferde:
For me, I don’t know why people fantasize about going to heaven.

To sing, and worship forever? No day, no night, no improvements, no growth, no need for food, no sex, no pain, no motivation, nothing… just an unending sessions of people wearing whites garments singing around.

Sing for the first 10 years. Not tiring. Then sing another 2956 billion years. Nothing special. It sounds robotic and monotonous.

Heaven doesn’t sound like anything interesting to me. It may be a great venue for you. To each is own. If I should choose, I will prefer to stay dead when I die… I want to decay, and turn to elements of the earth.

I am not interested in heaven or hell. They are both bizzare and weird. In one you burn and cry without end. In the other, you rejoice without end.

Extreme cases. If they exist, I am not interested.

Of course, I would change my stance if I see a better explanation. But for now… the description of heaven is a very boring place.

#think

Cc. Ifeanyi eze

Heaven is not a boring place at all. It is where the universal sovereign lives. The only two problems are:

(1) The mainline description of heaven doesn't tally with that of the Bible, and
(2) Heaven is not meant to be man's abode.

Let me briefly discuss the two:

Heaven basically means ‘exalted’ and can be used that way figuratively as in Isaiah 34:5; Luke 10:15; and Lamentations 2:1.
When used literally, it can mean one of three things: the sky as it is exalted in relation to the dry land, the outer space which is exalted in relation to the planet earth, and the spirit plane which is the highest and most exalted realm of existence.—Genesis 1:8; Deuteronomy 4:19; Isaiah 66:1.

The angels were created to be free moral agents, just as God is himself a free moral agent. In fact, we once see them expressing a variety of opinions on a matter. (1 Kings 22:19-21)
Thus they are not clones of one another. True, they are always singing before God and speaking of his holiness constantly, but who is to say that they are not organized into groups that take turns doing so? Read for instance 1 Chronicles 9:33 and see what I'm talking about. Moreover, one worships and praises God through various things they think, say, and do. (compare Psalms 19:1-4; 103:20) In that sense, it is possible to praise God “all day long.”—Psalms 145:2.

They have specific times for gathering before God, it isn't as if He is ALWAYS encompassed by them. (Job 1:6; 2:1)
Also, the spirit plane is an entire other universe on its own. It is as large and broad and encompassing as a different planet, and larger. Why should the angels be encompassed around God 24/7? It is only happens when a heavenly proceeding is to take place that God convenes his angels to gather round him. Notice for example Daniel 7:9, 10 where this is very well illustrated. First God sits down (meaning he isn't always sitting down, stationary and immobile), then the angels gather round him—some ministering to him others waiting to be sent on missions—and then books were opened.
Consider this illustration: is what we watch in movies what is always happening in reality? No
A movie is set to capture particular events in time. Weeks, or even months can even be skipped between the making of one scene and of another scene. Usually, real life has MUCH LESS drama than movies portray. So too with the spirit plane. Surely, heaven is a hive of activity, but the visions of heaven we read about is only a fragment of what actually takes place in heaven. We were only told what we needed to know, those heavenly occurrences that God felt we should be aware of. (Deuteronomy 29:29; Job 26:14; see also John 20:30; 21:25)



There is always room for improvement. The angels generally are eager to add to their knowledge. (Ephesians 3:10; 1 Peter 1:12) The Bible indicates that the angels even show differing degrees of knowledge. (Daniel 10:4-7; 12:5-7) They can choose to support a matter more or less strongly. (compare Daniel 10:13, 21)

There is no day or night there because spirits do not depend on light rays for sight. And remember that day and night is caused by the rotation of the earth on its axis. And if those in the outer space do not recognize day and night because they are not inside this planet, how much more will the angels whose sight doesn't take light rays into account not recognize day and night for themselves?
Also, do you know that the sun looks different out there? The yellow colour of the sun is caused by the atmospheric dispersion of blue light, leaving red and green light which in equal proportions equal yellow. That's why the sun appears red some times. It's true colour is white. That's also why the sky appears blue. Also, we see scattered light because the atmosphere disperses light. Out there, light travels in a straight path, and looking away from the bright whiteness of the sun you will see nothing but dense darkness.
If we understand how and why these different perspectives exist, it will be easier to understand how and why angels do not recognize day and night. Also, what the spirits see when they look at us is different from what you see when you look at the next person. All depends on how your sight is structured to work.

No need for food? Yes. They have no need for food. Hunger is an earthly desire. Their fuel is not glucose and material nutrients. How can it be, when they do not live in the material universe? They don't even have a literal mouth or teeth to take in food. These things are earthly, for humans and animals and plants.
Their different plane and form of existence makes things work differently there. Even their means of communication is different and transcends speech by far. Why wouldn't it? Speech depends on sound waves to be carried forth, and there is no air in the spirit plane so how will sound travel? Consider too that there is no way for sound to travel in the outer space so we found another way to make communication possible.

Having no physical bodies, (don't be mistaken, they do have bodies. Even God himself has a body, a shape, a form.—John 5:37; 1 Corinthians 15:40, 48) they do not have sex. They can't even desire it, for they have no sex hormones. True, angels did find women attractive and took some as wives, but Satan's deception was involved. (Revelation 12:4) Truth is, we don't know the whole story on that event, so we can't form an accurate judgment there.
More on this later, though.

They do feel pain. Why won't they? They don't feel physical pain because they aren't physical beings, but they feel real pain. Just think; if they can feel joy, why can't they feel pain? (Luke 15:10; compare Isaiah 63:9)


Are they constantly wearing white garments? Well, they don't have bodies of flesh that need garments over them. No, they do not in any real sense wear garments.
So why are they portrayed that way in the Bible? Answer is simple:
The Bible presented invisible matters in visible illustrations and symbolic pictures because it is only matters set in space and having three dimensions that our minds are able to grasp.
This explains why God and even his throne is described differently in different visions. Each pictorial representation was used for a particular reason specific to that vision, and it became necessary to use a different pictorial representation for a different vision, etc.
This also explains why it holds true that no one has literally seen God, that it is impossible for man to see God and live, although visions of God have been seen many times. (John 6:46; compare Isaiah 6:5) Acts 12:9 shows the difference between what is real and what is a vision.



In reality, the difference between life in the spirit realm and life on earth is the same difference between life on land, life in air, and life in water:
Each one is given a body that is perfectly suited to the environment they are created to dwell (1 Corinthians 15:38, 39). But just as you can put on a swimsuit and oxygen tank for an extended stay in sea, and take it off when you return to land, so too angels can construct physical bodies to visit the material world, and deconstruct them upon leaving. When an angel puts on physical bodies, at that moment he is not purely a spirit and it is thus possible for him to do things that humans do. Thus we read that angels who manifested human bodies ate, wore clothes, and impregnated women. That is also why Jesus, although he was a spirit upon being resurrected, (1 Corinthians 15:45) denied being a spirit when he manifested a body of flesh before his disciples. (Luke 24:39)
Naturally, each one is content where he is and does not desire to dwell elsewhere. I don't think fishes want to be birds, just as I don't think you want to become an octopus. Similarly, angels won't normally want to be humans on earth, just as you say you don't want to go to heaven and become an angel. Now, this brings me to my second point:


The earth is man's PERMANENT home. (Psalms 115:16; Ecclesiastes 1:4) Adam and Eve were put here and told to extend the borders of Eden to cover the entire globe.
Noah and his posterity were here, and it is also here that the righteous humans will dwell forever, a divine promise God gave long ago, which Jesus repeated. (Matthew 5:5; see Psalms 37:9-11, 29)
Are you familiar with what Isaiah 11:6-9 promises? Or Isaiah 65:20-25? How about Isaiah 25:8? Or Ezekiel 34:25?


The need for some humans to go to heaven is a unique need, and it does not at all affect God's purpose for the earth to be man's permanent home.
When Adam and Eve sinned, God could have destroyed them immediately. But since he had already blessed them and purposed that their offspring should fill the earth, he had to deal with them. However, he couldn't do so directly since their sinful condition is an affront to his dignity.
Thus there arose a need for an entity that will represent him before man, and will represent man before him. That is the only way he could deal with Adam's offspring without defiling his holiness. Moreover, since his sovereignty is an integral part of his being, this entity has to have sovereign power bestowed on it so that, for all practical purposes, the entity would be a perfect mirror of God and his sovereignty, while at the same time being a perfect mirror of man but without the sinfulness, thus serving to reconcile the two parties. And who will be qualified to represent man before God except someone who was once a man? In fact, this was one important reason why Jesus came to the earth as Hebrews 2:14, 17 makes clear. However, Jesus couldn't represent man in EVERY respect because he doesn't have the ‘sinful human’ experience. (Hebrews 4:15) Thus there is also a need for additional persons to be extracted from among sinful mankind, persons who will along with Jesus serve God's interests for 1,000 years, (Revelation 20:6) reconciling man to God and reconciling God to man so that by the end of that time, humans will once again become part of God's universal family and have “the glorious freedom of the children of God,” (Romans 8:21) something that Adam once had as a “son of God” but lost for himself and his offspring due to the defective condition brought on him and on us by his sin.—Luke 3:38; Deuteronomy 32:5.

Ken4Christ:
Ecclesiastes is not an authority you can rely on on matters like this. The men of old had limited knowledge about spiritual things. So, some of the statements made are not true.

Jesus is the truth. So, rely more on his teachings and that of his disciples on matters like this.

The part that survives after death is the spirit and the soul of man.

But those who are not born again have a dead spirit. So, it's their soul that survives and tormented in hell.

The spirit and soul of genuine believers go to heaven after death.

Is Ecclesiastes not an authoritative source? It was written by Solomon, whom God gave divine wisdom.

Nevertheless, see what the greater Solomon had to say, the one whom God gave true divine wisdom, Jesus Christ:

In Matthew 10:28, he said that unlike man who cannot kill the soul, God can “destroy” the soul.
What does “destroy” mean? In what sense can God “destroy” the soul? In 2 Thessalonians 1:8, 9 we see that the punishment for those who refuse to know God is “everlasting destruction.”
The same way Jesus will “destroy” Satan, (Hebrews 2:14) the same way the wicked angels fear their incoming destruction. (Mark 1:24)

It can be hard to believe something when we have been trained to believe otherwise. LoL.
I remember when something similar happened with me.
But it's alright. Regardless, that's my answer to this.
Hope it's helpful.

Wujio:
Trim down. Go and serve. Go and serve. Why do you want to be oga without first serving others. Go and serve for a year money will come out from your service.


If you must start by force, you only need recharegeable clipper and cleaning items 20k. Start with home service. One month home service will give you atleast 50k monthly

I don't understand where you asked me: “why do you want to be Oga without first serving others?” I served during the months that I spent learning, or so I believe. Or what type of service are you referring to?


I will look more into that home service thing you mentioned.

portacabin:
where are you currently based?

Ukwunwangwu, Abia state.
Is there any way you want to help? I will appreciate it.

ahnie:
He thinks Nigeria is like the abroad.
Truth's it's risky taking someone in
at this moment.
Worst is a stranger you freaking don't know.

You might wake up with your throat slit,killed n your properties
Stolen.


Anyways....may the tides favour you.

You're absolutely right. Such a thing is highly probable.
Serious question: do you have any other suggestions?
I don't think I can stay here for much longer.

I am a decent barber (taught by 2 skilled barbers one after the other, each with over 15 years of experience) and also a traditional medicine practitioner (I treat cancers—this was originally a family business that I was able to learn and get licensed to practice)
I am making plans to move to Lagos before March next year, probably by January. I need an apartment that I will be able to dwell in for the first 3 months, preferably a Jehovah's Witness home. (I am a JW myself) I promise to do my best to be an asset to that house during my stay there.

I won't be coming with much funds, I will only have a few thousands to spare after calculating the travel cost and other necessary costs. I have been where I am for long enough and have only been able to keep my head above water, and so far I am not at all satisfied with the way events are turning out.
If you know of any barbers that will be able to allow me to share their space, let them know about me. I believe that during those 3 months of my stay with you, I will have attained a level of self-sufficiency that will allow me to stand on my own.

I feel like I should let you know months in advance so that there will be enough time to get to know your preferences, that I won't be a cause for friction.
If your heart moves you to help me, let me know, and I will DM you my WhatsApp contact.
Thanks in advance!

Bintabisiriyu2:
I gbadu ur format bro

Sorry, man. It's a very desperate measure because of the desperateness of my situation.
I might take down this post after a while, when I feel like it has served its purpose.
I see no value in begging people for their hard-earned money, but u know say na condition make crayfish bend.