₦airaland Forum

Maximus69:
Don't waste your energy Sir!
The case has been resolved even before you raise it!
Shadeyinka said 'i am a member of ECWA, but i DON'T believe in everything the church teaches!'

This is one the myopic statement I use to talk about you.

So the same goes to all of you, that is why you're all claiming NONE~DENOMINATIONAL as you can't vouch for the group with which you worship!

Says who?

That is NOT the case with Jehovah's Witnesses, if you're one of us you're a member to the core!

If this is true, why then some people are leaving watchtower?
I know you'll come with bad eggs excuse but forgotten that your drain brain has already generalized it.

You will never see a person claiming to be a JW yet telling you i believe in INTERFAITH, because we're 100% sure that our organization is the ONLY true one!

So you even know the mind of everyone in your organization, that's interesting and means you're God.

Besides, is it all Christians that supported interfaith?

Sorry sir, if it's NOT Jehovah's Witnesses they can NEVER be as committed as Jehovah's Witnesses!

Jesus addressed seven churches in the province of Asia in Revelations...

Despite the fact that Jesus found one thing or two wrong in their teachings yet Jesus never disowned them nor say they never belong to Him.

What is the clue from this to you that always shouting ONE GROUP?
1. It's evident that these churches never have the same doctrines as the church at Pergamos still have some who hold the doctrine of Balaam.
The church at Thyatira failed to correct the woman Jezebel e.t.c
2. Jesus aware that there are different churches (which is actually scripturally true)
3. Jesus' message shows that He didn't support your claim of ONE GROUP if not He would have addressed it while writing them.

Even Jesus whom you're claiming to be following His footsteps or take as a role model didn't condemn those churches rather encouraged them.

But anywhere you have opportunity to type you turn yourself to God and proclaim your self righteousness.

Maximus69:
Now if Jesus of Nazareth is just ONE person, how come you and your folks now agreed that there should be countless school of thoughts with contradicting teachings and conflicting doctrines all in the name of one single Bible character 'JESUS'
Sorry my friend, it is spiritual blindness and inability to comprehend the easiest concept that's affecting you and all your folks!

Do you also know that Watchtower teaching is one of the contradicting teachings within the Christendom

It's so funny to see you separating Watchtower society and group other denominations as ONE.

Why can you do it this way?

Take Catholic body as Watchtower
Take ECKWA church as watchtower

Now, this is my point...
Does Catholic Church have different teachings among themselves?
Does ECKWA Church have different teachings within them?
Does Deep life Bible Church have different teachings within the church?

Don't forgotten that the way Watchtower is, is the same way you should place Catholic or Deeper life..

1. Not only Watchtower Society didn't take Jesus as God
2. Not only Watchtower society didn't believe in the existence of Hell fire.
3. Not only watchtower society didn't follow Trinity.
And many more....

But it's so ridiculous seeing JWs making statements like "you can't even agree among yourselves" when watchtower is also part of that "Yourselves"

Maximus69:
It simply means you don't understand the Bible!
Jesus was treated badly by religious teachers of his day!
And his followers we're persecuted for teaching what Jesus taught! Act 5:27-29
Jesus said those teaching exactly the same thing will always be treated as demonistic! Matthew 10:22-25
Your friend quoted Jesus' word and applied it to invisible worshipers when there is a well known GROUP receiving that same treatment globally due to teaching what other DIVERS religious group {having contradictions amongst themselves} termed as 'heresy' Act 24:5-6

Now you said "'my friend'-(emphasis added) quoted Jesus statement and applied it to invisible worshipers...." waoooo

Anyways, your lie was about the TITLE of this thread not about the body, can you see your life outside

Maximus69:
Haba! What is your problem?
Must you trail me into all thread because i refuse to become a nonedenominational fugitive?

What is your problem too?
Must you be parading your delusions on Nairaland

Well if someone is involved in VIOLENCE { Psalms 11:5} and your brother now asked if such a person is NOW a Muslim.
My question is to verify if Muslims should always be involved in violence?
As a TRUE Christian, we're not to be trapped in any works of the flesh{ Galatians 5:20} no matter how Satan brandishes his weapons we will conquer by not succumbing to doing Satan's will {Isaiah 54:17} even if he presents VIOLENCE to make us love it in form of SPORT!

Hypocrite! You see Boxing as violent and instrument of the devil but JWs can watch football, I guess it's Jesus or Jehovah that established football.

Maximus69:
What was his religion before now?

Don't you have Google on your phone

Why can't you present your fact to enlighten or counter the OP

Maximus69:
Exodus 6:2-3
Said
Verse 2 'And God spake unto Moses,and said unto him'
Verse 3 'And i appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was i not known to them' KJV
Please does this mean that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob never knew God's name 'JEHOVAH'?
Or that statement meant something deeper than that?

How does this support your lie that the title never talked about A GROUP but Christ name's sake

Maximus69:
So according to the title of the thread, surely the evidence is proved that there is actually a group that people of all sorts will hate for no just cause! Matthew 24:9
God bless you!

You have come with your Mumbo jumbo again

Did the title say A GROUP or Christ's Name

ExAngel007:
why?

that Sea creature has almost 98.5 near human intelligence

Yet they were unable to create speed boat for themselves...

Jozzy4:
Quote it in full , Jesus spoke concerning Ressurection of the dead, has the ressurection occur?

You are asking me to quote in full, very funny!

Here is NIV version maybe it can cure your delicious.

"37 But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ 38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.” Luke 20

Notice: 1st @underlined: the statement isn't in the future tense like "the dead will arise" but "DEAD ARISE"

and the last @underlined should cure your brainwashed forever because it says "...for to him ALL ARE ALIVE"

Jozzy4:
You mean he wasn't a Mighty God before his birth ? Wow .

One thing I've noticed is that you people don't consider the center of your discussion when arguing.

Because your knowledge is small nah , Everlasting father won't have died . he ought to be everlasting ... But did the Messiah die ?
Until after his ressurection, he wasn't everlasting father

@underlined is my final point!

Isn't it obvious now how hypocritical you are?

Compare @underlined with this "Shall be called does not imply the person isn't already in that capacity"

But you have to shift only everlasting father to post resurrection simply because it contradicted your devilish doctrine.

Son was begotten before the world, didn't it say so ? Use your sense nah

Read it again and again, maybe you'll understand this time.

Are angels his son ? Job 38:7

Yes

U are sounding silly already, Didn't Angels got called Son of God before he was born, Are they not more excellent if they got the name before him ?

That's why I'll always say you people lack scriptural understanding.

That's to tell you that the person in question wasn't an angel, which proves your organization wrong that Jesus is an angel.

Angels are called the sons of God not in a sense Hebrew addressed that God Himself has never called
any angel "His Son", so it's evident from the view of the writer that when the uncreated Word of God became human, He must take FIRST POSITION in everything.

And the Son inherited the name

Read Heb 1:2 he made the world through the SON . if he wasn't son then that won't have been true.

Heb 1:2 begins with "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son..."

Jozzy4:
You have uttered this trash before and have been corrected , Nothing survives a man at death . the Bible said you can't find the living among the dead .

And the same Bible says God is not the God of the dead but of the living...who is correct, you or God?

Jozzy4:
The point is that we both agree Jesus is Mighty God before birth That already send the message needed, Shall be called does not imply the person isn't already in that capacity

Where did I agree with the @underlined

Then @color it means you agree He's already an EVERLASTING FATHER

Wonderful...

You yourself know he didn't become everlasting father at his birth . But he was a mighty God , both are different

Ole....he was a mighty God but not an everlasting Father.

What is different?
Isn't the phrase "SHALL BE CALLED" also applied to everlasting father?

You want to eat your cake and also have it.

If not because you lack comprehension, All I needed in that quote was " Son " , which the write up quoted admitted he was before his birth,

See master of the most low level comprehension talking.

Read the write up again and again to see you're just lying and couldn't comprehend what the writer meant.

Meanwhile, no where your claim is established within Trinity doctrine, then it's an evident that you don't understand what you're even fighting against.

hahaha mehn

Job 38:7 " THE SONS OF GOD " ( Angels)

They even got the name before him ? eeyah

See the mofo laughing at when you should be ashamed of your lies and lack of scriptural indepth.

>>>Wasn't Hebrew 1 distinguished Jesus from the angels, which your lying organization claimed He was?
>>>Wasn't Hebrew 1 established that God has never addressed any angel as "His Son"
>>>Wasn't Hebrew 1 established that the name "The Son of God" was inherited by Jesus which you claimed He has always been before He was born?

Image123:
This is quite a robotic response, you did not address any one of the questions. Let me ask you, please did you copy this response from somewhere and paste here?

They don't answer questions they're just dishing out what GB implanted in their heads.

Imagine, this type of statement from him: "But Israelites have polluted Jerusalem by shedding innocent blood, killing God's holy prophets and finally his only begotten son Jesus! Matthew 23:37
That is why Jesus promised to take his corulers to another destination HEAVEN where he lives! John 14:1-4
These corulers must learn so much about righteous rule from Jesus before God anoint any of them as corulers with his son! Matthew 19:28
Notice that Jesus mentioned REGENERATION or RECREATION! What he meant is that his corulers will be RECREATED for another kind of life HEAVENLY LIFE! That is why all those who are going to heaven MUST BE BORN AGAIN! John 3:2-3"

Maximus69:
It's better to have discussions based on FAITH when millions out there are busy pursuing materials things of the world, sports, gambling and lust!
So let's commend whoever create some time for spiritual things.

Irrelevant!

Everlasting father simply means Jesus have bought obedient mankind who are supposed to be Adam's children with his precious blood, that is how he became our everlasting father{by faith} in replacement of Adam our former DEAD father who passed on sin and death to all of us! Romans 5:12

Brainwashed JWs...did you read what we're talking about before you jump in like a kangaroo

Has Jesus been an everlasting Father before His birth? We are using Isaiah 9:6 as reference where your brothers agreed that to be called mighty God means he must have been God before his birth.

If you deviated from this I won't reply you.

Anyway, how was your ban?

Jozzy4:
Keep shut man

Keep blabbing boy...

You said Isaiah calling him Everlasting Father and Mighty God means He must be God

All am interested in knowing from this
Statement of yours is, has he always been God or just God when he was given birth to?

That's all.

Imagine, see the life of an hypocrite! You said calling Jesus mighty God means He must be before His birth.

Do you agree that calling Jesus everlasting Father means He must be before His birth?

Do you ? Abeg face matter

Do you agree that Jesus is an everlasting Father before His birth?

How exactly , when we know he is the beginning of the creation by God?

But the same Isaiah you are using to mean Jesus has been mighty God before His birth says He is also an everlasting Father. You can see your hypocritical face now.

You don't want to agree that He is an everlasting Father but he's a mighty God

Mr have given you enough proof, take this as well


We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons) , Lit's obvious the reason is that you believe Jesus is a mighty God before His birth but to take Him as an everlasting Father will shamble all your lies and evil doctrines. - Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed

Your claim is "the Trinitarian take Him to be GOD THE SON before creation or birth" all you're just doing is crying around like a child who missed his mum.

---

Now let me add to your confusion.

Your position will be:
1. Jesus is an angel before his birth
2. Angels are called sons of God before Christ was born.

Then, fast forward to the book of Hebrew, you see these facts:
1. "So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs." v4

Comment: Here the scripture told us That Christ INHERITED A NAME more excellent than their own.

What is the name that Christ inherited?

"For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”? And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”? NWT

Comment: the name CHRIST inherited is THE SON OF GOD according to v5.

Also see how these verses shamble all your devilish doctrines about Christ is an angel.

Jozzy4:
Mr answer his question and stop per ambulating - , Is Luke 1:35 not also about the child ?

It says the child shall be called Mighty God , Has he always been God or just God at the moment he was born ?

Like I said to your brother only a liar and dishonest person will deliberately omit something to hide under.

Why are you guys single out only MIGHTY GOD in that verse wasn't EVERLASTING Father written there too? Hypocrite!

And it's obvious the reason is that you believe Jesus is a mighty God before His birth but to take Him as an everlasting Father will shamble all your lies and evil doctrines.

Lastly, I'm still waiting for you to clear your lie that Trinitarians claimed that God the son existed before creation or birth...

Barristter07:
Just as Luke 1:35 was about the child. .

Don't forget your burden of proof rest on the statement " SHALL BE CALLED " Son of God. Which you said in your opinion means He wasn't Son of God before his birth. Despite it never says Will become .

At Isaiah 9:6 we saw the same expression " SHALL BE CALLED " Mighty God . Using the same logic, Does this not mean he wasn't a Mighty God before his birth emphasis on " Shall be called " ? That's what am asking you

Next time you remove EVERLASTING FATHER from your statement will be the end of my reply to you because only a dubious and liar will deliberately omit something to hide under...

Do you also believe Jesus was an everlasting Father before His birth? You didn't answer this.

Isaiah was about the MESSIAH not The word that became flesh...I quoted different commentaries to show you that Isaiah was directed to the MESSAIH and not His preexistence just as Luke addressed the Thing Mary will give birth to. Which means Isaiah was directed to the person of the Messiah that's even why I said "you may then ask, why using Isaiah as a proof of Jesus deity?"

You keep exposing your ignorance and evidence that you lack simple comprehension.

Barristter07:
@brown, And Isaiah wasn't directed to the child Mary will give birth to ?

The SUPER Question @ Highlighted with emphasis on your statement " He must be God " , Has he always been God ? Or only became God at his birth ?

After all my explanations you still couldn't grab it...na wa for you oooo

Now you're not after he was WITH THE FATHER...

Isaiah was about the child read it again...

The word of God became man...how does this hard for you to grab

One funny attitude of JWs is how you eat your cake and also want to have it.

You discard part of my post by removing them...why?

Barristter07:
John 3:38 established that at the point of been sent he was with the Father . so when it says God send his son, it refers to his pre human existence



While I was WITH the Father , does that ring a bell ?

If not because your brain is paining you...you'd not have said this!

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God,..."

Is it the Son that was with God?

I also asked you to show us where it was written that Son became flesh, you used style to boycot it and swept it under carpet.

What people see is a human being like them, The Word who became flesh is to be called The Son of God, if Jesus called God His Father, how do you expect Him to address people in reference to God?

The text never said WiLL BECOME SON OF GOD . as though he wasn't before, it says he shall be Called ... Compare with Isaiah 9:6 where it says the Child SHALL BE CALLED Mighty God , wonderful counselor '

Why He SHALL BE CALLED, if he was already Son before? You haven't answered this since I've been asking you...

Does that suggest Jesus wasn't wise enough before his coming to earth to be a wonderful counselor ?

To you Emusan, I ask: Does that imply he wasn't a Mighty God before coming on earth as well since it says Shall be called?

Firstly, why did you single out only Mighty God and not include Everlasting Father? You know the dubious act you play there because it'd contradict yourself and your doctrines.

Secondly, Isaiah 9:6 is a prophecy about the feature Messiah, I don't need to stress myself here, all I'd do is just to quote some reputable Bible scholars:

"And his name shall be called — That is, he shall be: for the following particulars are not to be taken for a description of his proper name, but of his glorious nature and qualities;" Benson Commentary

"And his name shall be called - That is, his attributes shall be such as to make all these applications appropriate descriptions of his power and work." Barnes Commentary

"name … called—His essential characteristics shall be." Jemeison Fausset commentary

"His name shall be; for to be called in Scripture is off put for to be, as I have noted before on Isaiah 1:26, and oft elsewhere. But this is not to be taken for a description of his proper name, by which he should be commonly called, but of his glorious nature and qualities." Matthew Poole's commentary

"and his name shall be called Wonderful: not that he should be commonly called among men by this name, nor by any of the following; but that he should appear to be, or to have that in him, or to do what would sufficiently answer to this name, and to the rest:" Gill's Exposition

"his name shall be called] The name of the Messiah consists of a series of honorific titles, pertaining to Him in His kingly capacity and expressing mainly the qualities displayed in His government." Cambridge Bible for School

" His name shall be called. It is perhaps not very important whether we view what follows as one name or several. Isaiah does not really mean that the "Child" should bear as a name, or names, any of the expressions, but only that they should be truly applicable to him." Pulpit commentary

If you take your time to read the works of these people very well, you'd notice that they expressly talk about the person of the Messiah and never His preexistence.

You may then ask, why then this verse is usually being used by the Trinitarian to proof that Jesus is God?

The simple answer is, for Bible to applied title such as ETERNAL FATHER, MIGHTY God to the Messiah means He must be God.

And Luke 1:35 is a straight forward because the angel directed his message to THE THING Mary will give birth to.

That's why I keep asking you go and learn when the scripture is talking about Jesus before He came to earth and after.

Now let me quote this from your post:

Does that imply he wasn't a Mighty God before coming on earth

If not because you're a fraudster and dubious like your father devil, why didn't you include ETERNAL FATHER here

So, you agree Jesus has been an ETERNAL FATHER before coming to earth...

I have no issues with apostle Paul statement. It doesn't change the facts

You have issue because you've been shouting that it was Son, now apostle Paul says it is Christ Jesus.

Let me use this to round up my post with you...

Jesus said: "No one knoweth the Son except the Father" and also "I have a name written that no man knoweth except Himself"

So most times Bible is speaking about Jesus is solely applicable to His person in human form, only gives us a glimpse of who He actually is before His incarnation and only a well taught Bible student can see it not the ones Satan has blindfolded their eyes.

malvisguy212:
yes. unlike other, He was raised to die NO more. long time bro.

Smile...

Long time sir!

malvisguy212:
there was resurrection from the dead in the old testament and in the ministry of Jesus. Jesus was not the first to be resurrected from the dead. so again, what is the meaning of Jesus being the firstborn from the dead ?

The first to be recreated after death, you know he was raised as spirit

Barristter07:
Here is the Text you allude to.


John 17:18, “As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.”

Emphasis on " Sent " .. Jesus disciples are from the earth . so we understand that at the moment of instructing them on what to say and their assignment, it was on earth.

Is Jesus from this realm ? Again: God send his son , from where? From where was he given instructions on what to say and speak?

One things stands out, he is a son at the point of been sent.

One funny thing from this hogwash is that you believe Jesus is a pure human nothing divine in his nature.

But all what you're being trying to prove point toward that THE PERSON in heaven is the same person on earth.

Anyways, I'm done replying you about being SENT

And He was saying to them, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. John 8:23

Does that ring a bell concerning his been sent inr the world ?

But you said Jesus is just a human and nothing divine in his nature, how come

I guess He borrowed the birth flesh just like He did after resurrection as you believe, right?

He replied to them: “Do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme ,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?”​ - John 10:36

Sanctified here means to be set apart , When ?
John 8:38 I am telling you the things I have seen while WITH the Father.

Who doesn't know?
But your John 3:38 doesn't have anything to do with that

He also said the father has told him what he is to say

And the instructions can't come while on earth.

All this occur with his been set apart for a special assignment. Yet he said while with the Father . showing he is a son..

Olodo....
From Luke 1:35 which you haven't grabbed...the angel has already established that the thing Mary will give birth to SHALL BE CALLED the Son of God...so what is the fuse all about, if Jesus addresses God as His Father?

The person called Jesus Christ was sent from where?

Look at the choice of words you used here, it means there's another person outside the person of human Christ.

Funny I can see you find it hard to explain Apostle Paul statement. But remember you've been shouting what God sent is SON now Apostle Paul says Jesus Christ.

That PERSON is the WORD OF GOD who became human and called The Son of God.

Barristter07:
I take this as no response .

Here is your statement


Are you created despite you were born ?

Are mountains BORN ?

Of course only JWs will not know the reason why human are called creation of God.

Silly you, why did you remove earth?

Yes mountains are born from your ass

Barristter07:

In addition to Galatians 4:4 emphasis on Sent . when was he sent, at that point was he a son ?

John 3:17

" God ... Send his son INTO the world "

Whom did God send INTO the world ( it was in the world that Mary gave birth to him ) ?

Christ sent His followers INTO the WORLD
Christ said every man that cometh INTO THE WORLD
After seeing the miracle that Jesus did, they said: "...this is of a truth that prophet that should come INTO THE WORLD"

Being on earth doesn't mean you can't be sent into the world.

Christ said whom the Father hath SANCTIFIED, and SENT INTO the World...was the sanctification happened in heaven or at birth?

Apostle Paul says: "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that CHRIST JESUS came INTO THE WORLD... "

So it's no more Son that came it's now Jesus Christ.

I'll continue to expose your scriptural ignorance.

Jozzy4:
In Trinitarianism this "Logos" is also called God the Son OR the second person of the Trinity. Theologian Bernard Ramm noted that "It has been standard teaching in historic Christology that the Logos, the Son, existed before the incarnation. That the Son so existed before the incarnation has been called the pre-existence of Christ."[3







https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existence_of_Christ

It will continue to haunt you

If not because you lack basic English

Your highlight says "the Son, existed before the incarnation" is it the same with "He existed AS God the Son"

Where was this statement "...He exists as GOD the Son before creation or birth" ever been made?

So far you're just a lying JWs like your father devil...

Barristter07:
Is he not first already from the dead and creation ?

Emphasis on " AlL things "

Those areas I mentioned are already established

Has he not become the firstborn in some things?

Read my post above

Are mountains and the earth born?

Yeah they were born through your ass

Now you have added earth...if I asked you to provide evidence, you'll be crying me a river.

Jozzy4:
Let me understand your understanding of the first statement was shallow

What about the second that was made to clarify it that same yesterday ?

Is that not proved ?

Why is he a Son ?

You're still lying....

From the links you provided, where did you see it written that He EXISTS As GOD the Son either before creation or birth?

Even the links you provided never claimed this... yet you're still lying boldly.

Just see how you're contradicting yourself in one post and no even place to hide your rotten shame face.

Jozzy4:
The text also ESTABLISH that he is the firstBORN of creation, did that occur when he came to earth too ?

So you didn't even get my explanation yet you're shouting like a rabies dog...

If firstborn of creation means FIRSTCREATED, then what is firstborn from the dead?

Now you'll change tune because you won't use the same meaning you have been given to "FIRSTBORN" since anymore.

Jozzy4:
By creation I mean earthly creations which you said Jesus become part of when he was born
Didn't you say Jesus become part of creation when he was born by Mary . I state my point from that angle , by born you refer to his earthly existence

. study context
2:08pm on May 28

I state clearly :


Trinitarians maintain Jesus exist as God the son before his birth


Are u so dull not to see that and understand my post in context ?

Is the highlighted not proved ?

Lying liar...now you begin to say you mean... Blah blah blah...

You now change from "Hahahaha they said he exist as God the son before creation,..." TO "Trinitarians maintain Jesus exist as God the son before his birth"

Are the two statements the same?

You need to enroll to an English class first before coming online to argue.

Jozzy4:
Let's see what might means

Is he yet to become first born from the dead ?

The text already established that "He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead,..." before "so that he might become the one who is first in all things"

And as a result of this v19 said the Father was pleased to have all the FULLNESS of Deity in Him...this is an evidence that what Apostle Paul was talking about is when the Word became part of the creation.

I just even notice something from your dubious organization...

Imagine, inserting the word OTHER from verse 16&17 only to drop it in verse 18 which is the same content...yahoo yahoo organization!

Jozzy4:
Who is identified as the second person of Trinity ? God the son! Don't be an idiot




Wikipedia



In Trinitarianism this "Logos" is also called God the Son OR the second person of the Trinity. Theologian Bernard Ramm noted that "It has been standard teaching in historic Christology that the Logos, the Son, existed before the incarnation. That the Son so existed before the incarnation has been called the pre-existence of Christ."[3



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existence_of_Christ

Dull empty skull...

Your claim was "Hahahaha they said he exist as God the son before creation,..."

Where was it claim that He exists as GOD the son before creation

Why simple English is so hard for you

Brainwashed JWs!

Jozzy4:
You just described yourself

Is he yet to become firstborn from the dead ?

Silly empty skull...

Read my post again