₦airaland Forum

Imaging saying my heart so closed when you couldn't even address a single I raised.

You're the one who opened this thread and I made a reply to your post but instead of you to address my points you couldn't but here attacking straw man.

I have copied those points again so address them or you keep silent forever.

Raymondenyi:
my brother why is ur heart so closed and bonded covalently to you narrow understanding of the scripture, u should be broad minded and willing to accept others ideas, cus in there might lie the truth, have u read the books I quoted, please read 1corr 14; read the whole chapter, U'll understand, Paul talked about the conduct in church; how in tongues, should be done "It SHOULD NEVER BE SPOKEN " in church if there re nobody to interpret... More so he(paul) stressed more on prophesy than in tongues. My issue, we hype the issue of in tongues so much and it is not biblical at all...

Also, in the book of acts, when the holy ghost came upon the disciples, Paul told the onlookers, that was one of the manifestation when the spirit anoints all flesh, many shall see vision e.t.c... so I think we should play down on tongues...

Donot speak vain words, with repitations and noise and call it in tongues..m that wasn't what christ thought us, when he taught us how to pray; if we wanna speak in tongues, it should be in our closeths(as it only edifies one's spirit)...

---

Raymondenyi:
u obviously don't or didn't understand my post....

Do you also think that you understand yourself?

My issue is we really don't understand what speaking in tongues mean;

If you really don't understand what speaking in tongues mean, how do you know that what people are speaking is vain words and blabbing? as you said below.

[size=14pt]people speak vain words and blabbing and say they re peaking in tongues...[/size]

How do you know?

in tongues re heavenly languages, that can be interpreted... u don't go speaking vain words and call it in tongues, jesus warned against it.

@underline-it can be interpreted by WHO?
Let me see your scriptural understanding here.

When the holy spirit baptism comes, it annoints people and manifest in different forms, not everybody has the gift and spirit of speaking in tongues; so speaking in tongues is only one of the evidence of baptism, they are many others... so let's not upturn the biblical doctrines, we re abusing the bible..m

You've already answered your own thread by saying "not everybody has the GIFT AND SPIRIT of speaking in tongue"

Can you show us where one was baptized with Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues was not attached to it in the scripture?

This will show you the difference between being baptized with Holy Spirit and having the gift of speaking in tongue.

Finally, let me correct this scriptural cherry picking by most people who always misinterpreted the account recorded on the day of the Pentecost which I noticed in your OP too. As I quoted here

In the book of acts 2:4 - after all men waited and the spirit of God fell upon the ; All men spake in tongues (of other languages) people from over 12 different tribes heard them speaking in their languages and were baffled as
to how they learnt such.... How many "in tongues" that are spoken by now a days Christians do they speak in other languages?

The reason I asked at beginning whether you understand yourself is this;
1. You admitted that tongues are HEAVENLY LANGUAGES, so was the language spoken by the Apostles in Acts 2 that everyone hearing them speaking in THEIR OWN languages was heavenly or not?

2. Let me hear your own side before I explain that scripture.

Raymondenyi:
u obviously don't or didn't understand my post....

Do you also think that you understand yourself?

My issue is we really don't understand what speaking in tongues mean;

If you really don't understand what speaking in tongues mean, how do you know that what people are speaking is vain words and blabbing? as you said below.

[size=14pt]people speak vain words and blabbing and say they re peaking in tongues...[/size]

How do you know?

in tongues re heavenly languages, that can be interpreted... u don't go speaking vain words and call it in tongues, jesus warned against it.

@underline-it can be interpreted by WHO?
Let me see your scriptural understanding here.

When the holy spirit baptism comes, it annoints people and manifest in different forms, not everybody has the gift and spirit of speaking in tongues; so speaking in tongues is only one of the evidence of baptism, they are many others... so let's not upturn the biblical doctrines, we re abusing the bible..m

You've already answered your own thread by saying "not everybody has the GIFT AND SPIRIT of speaking in tongue"

Can you show us where one was baptized with Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues was not attached to it in the scripture?

This will show you the difference between being baptized with Holy Spirit and having the gift of speaking in tongue.

Finally, let me correct this scriptural cherry picking by most people who always misinterpreted the account recorded on the day of the Pentecost which I noticed in your OP too. As I quoted here

In the book of acts 2:4 - after all men waited and the spirit of God fell upon the ; All men spake in tongues (of other languages) people from over 12 different tribes heard them speaking in their languages and were baffled as
to how they learnt such.... How many "in tongues" that are spoken by now a days Christians do they speak in other languages?

The reason I asked at beginning whether you understand yourself is this;
1. You admitted that tongues are HEAVENLY LANGUAGES, so was the language spoken by the Apostles in Acts 2 that everyone hearing them speaking in THEIR OWN languages was heavenly or not?

2. Let me hear your own side before I explain that scripture.

ihatebuhari:
what r u doing in kano dear?

To spend honeymoon together with the Emir and his new Bride.

adeitoro:
that is Latin or can pass as Italian, not French

Ok!

adeitoro:
Gloria patre et filio et spiritum santi.
Halleluja

Parlez-vous français?

PastorOsamede:
With what I witnessed in my brief sojourn in the North, I only laugh whenever lie mongers claim that Islam is the fastest growing religion.

JESUS is LORD forever!

This part caught my attention.

Why I was living at the western side of the country what I use to hear was that the North is DOMINATED by Muslim but since I moved to the Northern side of the country I saw the reality which means the statement Muslims DOMINATED the North is just pure lie.

comffy:
Please how can I get reccomendation letter since I av stopped working since last month? Someone shud pls advice me

Ha ha madam even if you stopped working close to a year on a good conditions your company can still recommend you.

cionon:
i did same but its not working. it goes beside the box. or do i need to delete the box?

As I've explained earlier, use word 2010 and above to fill it. The form has been designed already, so when you use word 2010 you'll only click on those check boxes and they'll automatically fill with (X).

paulGrundy:
adjustments.

You won't see them on a topic like this but just say Jesus is God or Man has spirit and watch them troop in like 144,000 before the throne.

UrennaNkoli:
Because leaders like Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, Kevin Rudd, Naheed Nenshi, Sam Adams,Boris Johnson, Julia Gillard are just too useless to be let free.

OP never lands you just prove him right!

Don't forget you'll reach their age/position one day.

ucheokpara100:
i dont understand this, many of us find it sooo difficuilt to control only our wife and kid, bt finds it easy to criticise people managing/leading a whole nation, cant we criticise constructively?

Answer to your question in a simple sentence, some youths are working for their money but forgetting their own future.

If you want long sentence answer let me know.

Shalom!

davien:
It's a derogatory term for a religion(mostly a small one)

You're wrong once again. That's why we have dictionary, so which cult do you belong to?

ceecee0703:
please friends let me understand what u all are saying

if i download the form,i open it on Ms word fill it, save it on the system, scan other documents attach them and then send to youth@africa-union.org

is that it? some one please clarify me.

thanks

Yes that's it and you can also download the other file in PDF named CALL FOR APPLICATION all the information you need is spelled out there too.

davien:
luckily none, Judaic cults based on a messiah followed several routes and patterns to endure fading out,the surviving cults became Christianity and Islam...

The @bold shows that you didn't check your dictionary before you used the word CULT.

Sorry try again later.

davien:
Weren't they from the same Judaic cults?

So which cult do you belong to?

tartar9:
how can light(Islam) and darkness(xtianity) mix

And the evidence of the true light and darkness can be seen in the world today.

Please where was Islam ever claimed to be light? last time I check Jesus Himself said He is the LIGHT of the world.

tiwasiaife:
please what's the email address one can send this application. I got a reply that my application could not be delivered. and am using yahoo mail. don't really know if I should change to gmail

the email address is: youth@africa-union.org
I used yahoo too and mine went successfully.

VICKYE:
You need to fill it in the system. I have just finished mine. On the check Boxes, you need to delete them & put bullet there. For the Sex, I wrote MALE (As putting bullet will alter the numbers). Good luck!

I'm totally not in support with this your idea you know why? The form had been designed why will you redesigned it yourself

Please anyone who is facing the challenge on filling the form especially those check boxes should get a system with Microsoft 2010 installed on it.

Using Microsoft 2010 will allow you to click on those check boxes and they will automatically fill with [X].

See screenshot below.

Eugenedimgba:
The governors knew before now that bitumen made road gives room for stealing.A concrete made road would affordable such room to continually steal funds in guise of road repairs.

Sorry bro, this your statement lacks professionalism.
Mr. Dangote's statement sounds more like a business man not as a professional because both bituminous and concrete paved roads must meet certain criteria before giving the thought of choice to choose i.e most bituminous road won't last long in Lagos and some South South states as these areas are waterside whereas bituminous road will favour Northern region.

Again, in terms of the materials use in the construction of those roads needs to be put into consideration as well for instance concrete paved roads need tons of sharp sand and imaging you need to construct a 20-25km road in the north where sharp sand is not too common that means you need to be borrowing sharp sand somewhere else.

Lastly, both bituminous and concrete paved roads have their own advantages and disadvantages which can never be over emphasized. Besides, a dishonest politician can still use the avenue of concrete paved road to steal.

Kelklein:
who knows how I can get a passport within 5 days!

I know where you can get it in a day but that'll be if and only if you reside in Abuja.

omowolewa:
If the likes of JBerger, RCC, SCC, Dantata are closing sites, the impact on the masses would be great on Human Capital Index. One of the yardsticks of measuring government performance.

Civil servant, construction worker, Banks/Bankers are all medium of re distributing money from Government to citizen. With this 'Sacky' generation. It won't be long before Nigerian start feeling the heat.

Most contractors had even borrowed money to finance the project. Now they can't pay both principal and interests. The banks are threatening to publish their name as bad debtor. After sacking staff the next stage is to sell off their assets and the pack off.

PMB act fast

My Brother you hit the nail on the head.

In late July this year my company (Construction) laid off 2/3 of her staff, now they want to do worst by closing down their sites.

I believe anyone who voted for President Muhammad Buhari and being affected by this current downside of economy won't be happy. The ironic part of it was that majority who have not seen this problem are neither affected by it.

dolphinheart:
Pls treat the abo wa ba part so we can continue our bible based discussion.

This is the point, before I address that. You also address the part that deals with this thread or didn't I raise some points there? habaaa

if you feel the organization does nothing good. Say it .
If you feel they do something good, let's hear the good things.

NOTHING GOOD (Singular) but GOOD THINGS (Plural)
You don't want to hear the lie only the good things but na lie you must hear it.
I have done so, now what do you have to say? I repeat (Pastor Russell and his follower did TEACH THE WORSHIP OF Jesus CHRIST BASED ON SCRIPTURE, true or false?).

About good thing, their lies help me know more about scriptures and the organization.

I may soon stop replying you because I hate HYPOCRITE.

dolphinheart:
So I'm right to say those words where were never used in the scriptures.
When we use words in our explanations that have different meaning to one used in the scriptures , it creates confusion.
Now to anointed christians :
Jesus footstep followers who have been spirit begotten and anointed with holy spirit can be spoken of as anointed ones.

"Now he which stablisheth us
with you in Christ, and hath
anointed us, is God;- 2Co 1:21

This ones("us" are annointed
This "us" are christians
Thus I can say those people being reffered to in that verse are " annointed Christians".

"But the anointing which ye
have received of him abideth
in you, and ye need not that
any man teach you: but as the
same anointing teacheth you
of all things, and is truth, and is. no lie, and even as it hath
taught you, ye shall abide in
him." -1Jo 2:27

[size=14pt]So I can personaly explain that those who where Anointed where also called christians and can thus be called "anointed christians " by me.[/size]
Bet you hear when some people say "touch not my anointed " when reffering to their church leaders . Are the church leaders not christians?

See the reason why I said I HATE HYPOCRITE, you accuse me of USING the word that was not used DIRECTLY in the scripture, now I challenge you to give use where the word ANNOINTED CHRISTIANS was DIRECTLY used in the scripture but what we got is [b]BRINGING MANY VERSES to prove it.

Now @bold-You have to PERSONALLY explained and AGREE WITH THE USE OF ANNOINTED CHRISTIANS not that the word as you used it CAN BE FOUND the scripture. This is HYPOCRITE in its highest form.

This you can't do with "took on flesh" as the meaning of "took on flesh" is different from "became flesh".

How do you know I can't, when you first attack strawman with false accusation and later asking me to explain myself.

This is how an hypocrite behaves, when you first saw the word TOOK ON FLESH your own is to ask "can you explain what you mean by TOOK ON FLESH?" Then if I fail to do so, you can then spew all the thrash you've been saying since.

I never claimed that my word was used DIRECTLY IN THE SCRIPTURE nor I can't explain what I mean by TOOK ON FLESH.

If something like this repeat itself I won't reply you any more because if I do I might say what I shouldn't have said.

I did not hammer on need of direct bible quotation, I only wanted to use that question to get things straight , so that others would not have use words that have a different meaning in explaining.
The word u used have different meaning from "became flesh", so I had to first made it clear that the words "took on flesh" is not in the scriptures.

Again, did I say MY USE OF TOOK ON FLESH was based on John 1:14 I see this as pure nonsense I've repeated myself many time that my use of that WORD WAS NOT ON ANY SCRIPTURE but just to EXPLAIN (which you did in above) how Jesus was not part of CREATION.

In fact you keep boiling my anger.
Like I said, the reason why you're doing this is because you've wrongfully thought I TWISTED John 1:14 with that my statement, which you're totally missed it now you're trying to justify your wrong THOUGHT by bringing up baseless point.

The issue on exact bible words are not to make you look wrong, but to clear [size=14pt]some bible phrases[/size] and let us know that the words we use, even though it is not present in the scriptures, It must has direct meaning with the ones used in the scritures and also tells the same thing as the scriptures is telling us.

@bold-The ANNOINTED CHRISTIANS you used it is bible phrase or how people come with about it?
Who took you that TOOK ON FLESH doesn't have a direct meaning as being used in the scripture?
Did you ask me to explain what I mean by that before you start your HYPOCRITICAL behavior?

I need it, it will help me to understand you better so can you post it again and tell us how the word became flesh?

It's what they call using medicine after death, you should've come low like this in your first post but since you have to find a way to cover up how you wrongfully READ MY MIND at first it has lead you to this now.

Good, I now understand that you where explaining how "jesus was not part of creation before his life on earth".
Can you now explain what the scripture meant by the "word became flesh"?

I did not ask you jesus nature before coming to earth .

You said : jesus came to earth not with his flesh?

I asked : so what did jesus come to earth with?

You said : with his divine nature.

That's y I said : So Jesus came to earth with his divine nature and no longer took the form of men again?

Cus john 1:14 says - The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of
the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
The bible also explains that jesus completely "emptied himself and took the form of men"
To me this explains that jesus came to earth not with a divine nature, but as flesh . This is why there was an actual conception in the womb of Mary.

Thank you for quoting this scripture which boldly shows how hypocritical you are! The verse says "...TOOK THE FORM OF MEN does this relate with my previous word TOOK ON FLESH?

Yet you will accusing someone of CUTTING part.
Did you read the full part that says Jesus emptied himself
Please which version did you read that USED COMPLETELY?

Those episodes are backed up with scriptural quotes . one wonders why you refuse to comment on them .

And you have to ignore those scriptures I quoted without commenting on them but you're still wondered why I couldn't comment on your own too

Read 1 cor 15: 45 - 49
"So it is written: “The first
man Adam became a living
being” f ; the last Adam, a life-
giving spirit. 46 The spiritual
did not come first, but the
natural, and after that the
spiritual. 47 The first man was
of the dust of the earth; the
second man is of heaven.
48 As was the earthly man, so
are those who are of the earth;
and as is the heavenly man,
so also are those who are of
heaven. 49 And just as we
have borne the image of the
earthly man, so shall we g
bear the image of the
heavenly man."

Here jesus is presently a life giving spirit, [size=14pt]not flesh.
Here , the man , heavenly man is as those who are of heaven.[/size] Me and you both know that those who are of heaven are spirits, only spirits reside in heaven. Jehovah, jesus, the seraps, angels and demons (previously) all reside(d) in heaven , they are all spirits . No flesh and blood among them.

What concern spirit those who are in heaven with the fact presented in that scripture?
The verse says THE MAN JESUS CHRIST since you and I know that they are spirit did I Apostle Paul who called the resurrected Jesus now in heaven THE MAN didn't know either?

Can you explain the @bold part especially, "heavenly man is as those who are of heaven"?

This is why those who will go to heaven must share in the divine nature . They must be ressurected with spirit bodies to enter heaven, for flesh and blood cannot enter there.

Can they still be referred to as MAN once there in heaven?
Apostle said "Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air..."
The "WE WHO ARE ALIVE" means those who have not experienced DEATH. We know that the body WILL BE CHANGE just as Jesus own was CHANGE but it's still FLESH.

This is why they will be among the first resurrection.
Jesus, the first to be ressurected in such manner (firstfruit) will be followed by others who will be ressurected in such manner too. For why call jesus firstfruit if there are no others ressurected in such manner.

There's no one ever DIED and came back with HIS/HER BODY by being CHANGE from mortality to Immortality this is why Jesus was the first fruit to resurrected in such manner.

New American Standard
Bible
"Yet He has now reconciled
you in His fleshly body through
death, in order to present you
before Him holy and
blameless and beyond
reproach--" Col 1 :22

New American Standard Bible John 1:1 says "...and the word was God". Do you agree?
I've noticed anytime it suit You to use other version You do but discard the same version when it's being used in another place.

Whereas what I challenged you for is FLESHLY BODIES (Plural) which is after RESURRECTION. Mr oga.

you forgot where I said angels have the power to materialise fleshly bodies. They Can also dematerialise those bodies. Remember, angels impregnated women during noah time.
The body jesus materialised was not the same that was sacrificed , he appears and dissapears at will,even when the doors where locked, something he did only after his ressurection.
He did not contradict Hebrews, no fleshly body was offered twice.

Remember what If Angels actual materialized human FLESH and married then DEMATERIALIZED THEIR HUMAN FLESH again that means many heavenly being have been given up their flesh before Christ did.

I can't stop laughing sha, but the ONE HE MATERIALIZED is HUMAN FLESH also, and your organization's claim was that the BODY OF JESUS WENT INTO GAS (which does mean DISPOSED OFF). So if Jesus materialized in Human FLESH and then disposed those so what happened to HIS FIRST BODY is still the same THAT HAPPENED TO THE ONE HE MATERIALIZED WITH MANY TIME.

No, the issue is " raised in the spirit" .
John did not say he was "raised in the spirit".
Dnt cut part of the sentence off.

Jesus died and you believed because the verse says RAISED IN THE SPIRIT means He was resurrected AS A SPIRIT notice grammatical change in that statement "IN THE" to "AS A". Then I said John who did not die but WAS IN THE SPIRIT means he change to A SPIRIT do you agree?

It is not used in the bible, the sentence can be explained using the bible . Now can you tell why Jesus is the firstfruit in relation to those ressurected.?

NOTE: Thank God you agree that IT'S NOT USED IN THE BIBLE BUT CAN BE EXPLAIN USING THE BIBLE, then the phrases "TOOK ON FLESH" did I say it can't be explain using the Bible? Mr hypocrite!

[hr /]
From here I have to start doing copy and paste, if such thing repeats itself I won't reply that part again.
[hr /]

I did not dodge ur questions, in fact I used the scriptures to explain my view .
I, like Jesus believe that the father is the only father we have in heaven. You can believe we have more than one father, you can take as many fathers in heaven as you want . But I follow Jesus teaching , the father, his father in heaven is our only father, he is the only one we should call father, he is the only true God.
When you accept what Jesus said, about the one we should call father. Then we will move on to other aspect like why Jesus will be called everlasting father.

You didn't dodge it yet you couldn't answer my questions?
So Prophet Isaiah was wrong to say He will be called EVERLASTING FATHER, right?
Has Jesus stop been an EVERLASTING FATHER simple?
Have you called Him EVERLASTING FATHER for once?

Definition of the word "incidentally " as used as part of my statement :
incidentally - /ɪnsɪˈdɛnt(ə)li/

used to add a further comment
or a remark unconnected to the current subject; by the way.

UNCONNECTED TO THE CURRENT SUBJECT...
Anyway, that's your own cup of beans.

Those verses are simple and clear, it tells me who my God is it tells me that there are many Gods, but from those many Gods only one of them is my God , my God is the father, he is the only God . Me and you agree that Jesus is not the father. I worship my God, I worship the father

I've always and will continue to tell you , do not cut part of a statement off. That method is used by those who want to give a different meaning from what the original statement is trying to tell us.
One phrase is with "of" and "in" while the other phrase is with "by". They are different phrases and not totally composed with the same words.

In the voice of Adam Clarke "Verse 6. But to us there is but one God, the Father] Who produced all things, himself uncreated and unoriginated. And we in him, kai hmeiv eiv auton, and we FOR him; all intelligent beings having been created for the purpose of manifesting his glory, by receiving and reflecting his wisdom, goodness, and truth.

And one Lord Jesus] Only one visible Governor of the world and the Church, by whom are all things: who was the Creator, as he is the Upholder of the universe. And we by him, being brought to the knowledge of the true God, by the revelation of Jesus Christ; for it is the only begotten Son alone that can reveal the Father. The gods of whom the apostle speaks were their divinities, or objects of religious worship; the lords were the rulers of the world, such emperors, who were considered next to gods, and some of them were deified. [size=14pt]In opposition to those gods he places GOD the Father, the fountain of plenitude and being; and in opposition to the lords he places Jesus Christ,[/size] who made and who governs all things. We, as creatures, live in reference, eiv auton, to him, God the Father, who is the fountain of our being: and, as Christians, we live di autou, by or through him, Jesus Christ; by whom we are bought, enlightened, pardoned, and saved." I don't need to waste my energy here but only if you can grab the point.

I did not say you said it. I'm of the view that you typed "answered " to affirm my view on the question . If my view is wrong , then pls tell us ur view on the question I asked before you typed "answered".

But why didn't you ADD in MY OWN VIEW to post so that people can see that you're the one who drawn the conclusion by yourself not me?
Not only wrong but it entails false statements.
For the last time, I've said before the Father is SUPERIOR to the Son. I don't know your problem again.

I ask a question , not asked for a point .
apart from authority , is there any other aspect in which the father is superior to the son, for example, knowledge and power? The answer to that question is important.

Honestly, I don't know why simple English is so hard for you to comprehend.
Any open-minded person reading my post knew that I've answered your question but the problem you're having with simple English is the one causing this problem for you.

Jesus is the POWER OF GOD how can God superior to His own power?
The man Jesus as Bible says that the act of Creation was done through Him, the same Bible says THROUGH KNOWLEDGE which means Jesus is the knowledge of God, can God superior to His own knowledge?

1st Q: no
2nd Q : when he began fufilling the reason he will caller everlasting father .
3rd Q: only one .

Now answer mine, why are those going to heaven called Jesus brothers, can we ever day the father has brothers?.

You agree Jesus has not STOPPED to be called EVERLASTING FATHER.
Your second answer, do you mean He has not started fulfilling the reason? The same verse is where JWs derived MIGHTY GOD. You can called Jesus Mighty God now but you believe He has not started to fulfill the reason to be called EVERLASTING FATHER.
Which one, Jesus or the Father? Since both are EVERLASTING FATHER and now in heaven.

When you quote the words in full as said in the bible, you will understand . Stop this cut cut thing you are doing .

Which words did I cut here?
It's very simple, you HONOUR FATHER in what ever way seems good to you but the fact from that scripture is which ever way you honour the Father (let conscience convince you) THE SON SAYS HONOUR HIM THE SAME WAY.

I do not twist words , that translation where you find "absolute ", he made it in reference with the authority to to judge,the verse also did not mention heaven and earth .
The verse that mentions heaven and earth when talking about the authority giving to Jesus after his ressurection did not say "absolute" . If I'm wrong , pls quote it and let's see if this is my personal twist or i said it as the verses said it .

Imaging YOU HAVE COME WITH ANOTHER LIE, "the verse that mentions heaven and earth when talking about the authority giving to Jesus after his resurection didn't say ABSOLUTE."
Then I asked you which you have been dodging since, what is the DIFFERENT BETWEEN Absolute and ALL?
Was the translation you used wrong by using the word ABSOLUTE?

The next ridiculous statement now is that the Father is the only one having SUPREME Authority the Son only has ALL Authority.

Jesus will forgive you all these things you're denying Him sha.

Q1: false, only God has supreme authority . He gave all authority to his son . (check explanation below )

Q2: yep, he was giving
Q3: just one .

Jesus has been giving all authority by the father, but Jesus is still subjected to that one that gave him all authority . Therefore Jesus is not the supreme being , the father is .
Jesus is thus not the almighty God as he (even as he is in heaven) has a superior , a God , who is the father.
The god I and Jesus worship is the almighty God.

Please where is the scripture the WORD SUPREME AUTHORITY can be found? Mr. first class hypocrite.
This is evident that you can go to any length just to use your mouth deny Jesus all what make Him equal to the Father.

ALL POWER AND AUTHORITY belong to God and since Jesus HAS ALL AUTHORITY AND HE IS THE POWER OF GOD. It's evident that He is God Almighty.

*He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming quickly." Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!*

dolphinheart:
You said something about the thread, let's focus on that and treat the "abo wa ba" part.

Since I said something about the thread so no answer to what I said, right?

I wonder where I said you "hate" the organization . Really wonder.

[quote]I asked you if there is anything good about the organization and if you can mention it , but you sha want to talk about the organization without answering me.

When you said everyone knows HOW I FEEL about the organization is it love or hate everyone knows I feel about them?

You just single out this now but your previous statement is more than just seeing anything about the organization.

And I've done justice to that.

dolphinheart:
the abo wa ba questions is what we are interested in on this thread, let's not divert .

I only asked the question about the organization cus I wanted you to tell me if they dnt do anything Good, and if they do anything good can you mention it ?
This you did not say, but the main issue is the abo wa ba part which ill be waiting for ur reply on .
There is no need to try and boycott an issue that is not the basis of our discussion in the first place.

See another excuse, was my points only on the ORGANIZATION?

At least I still said something about the thread. I know you're looking for a way out here and all the roads have been blocked.

So answer my point and don't boycott the part of the organization BECAUSE YOU ACCUSED ME OF HATING THE ORGANIZATION OR ME NEVER SAID ANY GOOD THING ABOUT THEM here on this thread. So prove me wrong with what I said about them (Pastor Russell and his follower did TEACH THE WORSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST BASED ON SCRIPTURE, true or false?). Then people can see your allegation as fact here.

dolphinheart:
Thanks for the encouragement

You're welcome!

So I'm right to say those words where were never used in the scriptures.
When we use words that have different meaning to one used in the scriptures , it creates confusion. So please others should take note, words like "took on flesh" are not found in the scriptures.

For goodness sake; did I say my word was used directly in the scripture

You know why you shouldn't be taken serious? Because you're an hypocrite! You've been talking about the WORD I used which I've said IT'S JUST AN EXPLANATION not scripture WORD but you keep hammering on it as if I CLAIMED IT CAN BE FOUND in the scripture which I was unable to provide, though not that I can't explain my statement but I see it as a strawman attack.

Whereas, you yourself have used WORDS THAT CAN BE FOUND IN THE SCRIPTURE I don't want to disturb myself search previous post but I remember this particular one vividly.

You said this: Jesus is the first fruit ressurected in the spirit and [size=14pt]annointed christians[/size] hope to follow this form of ressurection Now I challenge you to provide the scripture where ANNOINTED CHRISTIAN appears. Failure to do so show that you're really a chronicle HYPOCRITE.

I did not see your explanation on that verse 'can you post it again and tell us how the word became flesh?

You don't need since you're here to attack strawman.

Can you please explain more on how jesus took a share in humanity? I need more explanation on how the word became flesh. Cus the scriptures did not say "the word took on flesh", neither did it say "the word entered flesh " . It said it "became flesh ".

Then did I say the scripture says the word TOOK ON FLESH? I know the reason you're fighting a lost battle here is because you've wrongfully thought I TWISTED John 1:14 to mean that statement out of you own ignorance whereas I was only explaining myself about how Jesus was not PART OF CREATION before His life on earth.

That's how you keep saying "I THOUGHT YOU MEAN" as you own my MIND the same thing has landed you in another problem.

So jesus came to earth with his divine nature and no longer took the form of men
again?

Again you're still in that dark side, Jesus didn't come to earth in FLESH in my statement means "why His life before living on earth is not in FLESH. Remember there was a statement that lead to that of mine. Get life!

Now to show you why jesus could not have been raised with a fleshly body .

Jesus said: “The bread that I shall give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world,”
During his last meal with his disciples, he also said that his body will be "given ".

Jesus giving his fleshly body goes along with the this statement :Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Just as the blood of animals where sacrificed , jesus flesh and blood had to be sacrificed so that the ransom can be payed . Adam lost a perfect body, another perfect body had to be presented.

If jesus had been ressurected with that same body, then he would not have giving his body as a ransome sacrifice, a corresponding sacrifice .
Jesus did not take back his fleshly body and thereby cancel out the ransom for which it was given.

The apostle Peter testifies that Christ went into heaven, the realm of spirits, not flesh, “he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit.”. A translation say "ressurected in the spirit " and he became the first fruit of those ressurected in that manner .

Christians who have a heavenly hope, hope for these same kind of ressurection , for they died a physical body , but will be raised with a spiritual body . They will die as flesh, but will be raised and go to heaven as spirits . There are two kinds of bodies or nature, a spirit body or nature and a physical /fleshly body or nature.

After Jesus’ resurrection and Before his ascension to heaven, jesus, as a mighty,
immortal spirit person,
materialize various [size=14pt]fleshly
bodies[/size] to suit the occasion, for
the purpose of giving to his
disciples visible, palpable
evidence of his resurrection

Mary who knows who jesus is and how he looks like mistook him for the gardener.

"14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will takehim away. - ( Joh 20:14, 15)
He again appeared, entering a room with locked doors, having a body with wound marks. ( Joh 20:24-29)
Several times he
manifested himself and was
recognized, not by his
appearance, but by his words
and actions. ( Lu 24:15, 16, 30,
31, 36-45; Mt 28:16-18)
Once a miracle performed at his direction opened his disciples’ eyes to his identity. ( Joh 21:4-7, 12)
Jesus, having been
resurrected as a spirit (1Pe
3:18), could materialize a body
for the occasion as the angels
did in past times, when they
appeared as messengers.

Waooo waoooo, you couldn't prove those scriptures wrong but you have to pile up another episodes just out of your fable mind.

I will only comment on two points extracted from the above see below.

This giving of the body by jesus is why 1 Tim 2:5,6 says these : 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, [size=14pt]the man Christ Jesus;[/size] 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

So in jesus death, he had to give that perfect body as a sacrifice.

[size=14pt]He appeared with different fleshly bodies.[/size]

@bold 1-The scripture says THE MAN NOTE: This is after His resurrection, so Jesus is still MAN NOW IN HEAVEN!
Clear verse to JWs who think Jesus was raised in the spirit.

@bold 2-You accuse me of using TOOK ON FLESH because the word was never used like that in the scripture many times here, please can you show us where the word FLESHLY BODIES? directly used in the scriptures?

Lastly, since it is DIFFERENT FLESHLY BODIES that means Jesus' sacrifice was done more than ONE because those BODIES WON'T go with Him back to heaven as He was appearing to people, according to Paul's statement you used earlier "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God ". and this will contradict Heb 7:27 that says "... for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself."
This is the reason the theory of FLESHLY BODIES (Plural) is ridiculous.

This is why I sometimes have issues with you . You deliberately cut statements and remove parts or us parts to explain ur views . The statement did not say " be in the spirit " it said he was "raised in the spirit". He could not have ascended into heaven with physical flesh cus flesh and blood cannot enter heaven.

And you will continue to have issue until you begin to use everything up there. The key point here is IN THE SPIRIT For Instance, John said I was IN THE SPIRIT did he become a spirit?

Immediately after you tell why jesus is the first fruit in relation to those ressurected

Hypocrite, show me where the word ANNIONTED CHRISTIANS is used in the scripture.

Well if you feel jesus calling the father "the only true God", as nonsense, that's between you and jesus, but as for me , I don't see any nonsense in calling the father what jesus called him , the only true God .
The question should also be directed to jesus, he was the one who said the father is the only true God. That question can only be asked by someone who feel jesus is wrong to say the father is the only true God.

Again, another way of dodging question I won't allow you to do that trust me.
Isaiah 9:6 says Jesus is EVERLASTING FATHER, you believe Jesus was not before but became at a time but now that He is called EVERLASTING FATHER, IS JESUS STILL EVERLASTING FATHER in HEAVEN or Prophet Isaiah was wrong to have said He will be called EVERLASTING FATHER?
How many FATHER DO YOU NOW HAVE IN HEAVEN? Those are the questions you're trying to dodge.

I did not say "show " us , I said " helps us to know".
"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

I worship one God, just as the prophets of old worship one God and the scriptures tell me that that one God is the father , who [size=14pt]incidentally[/size] is the only true God.

Imaging a believer who can say the Father is INCIDENTALLY the only true God. So when was this INCIDENT occur?
So it only helps us not that it says the actual one to be worshiped, then did you ask yourself why Jesus was grouped together with the Father with the phrase "whom are all things, and we by him." I know you'll argue of the words OF and BY

Is like Jesus and the Father are rival because everything about the Father is also about the Him.

Answered that jesus is not the almighty God.

Where did I say it If you can't provide it the lie of your organization is working in you seriously.

You did not answer my question : apart from authority , is there any other aspect in which the father is superior to the son, for example, knowledge and power? The answer to that question is important.

The point I raised on this is as crystal cleared but for fable mind like yours you'll still find it hard.
Jesus is the Power of God and through (Jesus) knowledge the world was made.

I think your question is based on a need to argue. Jesus said there is only one father, who is in heaven . Does this not show you that jesus being Called "evalasting father" [size=14pt]does not mean he is our father in heaven?[/size] Why do you think that those going to heaven are called "jesus brothers"?. We are discussing Bro , not trying to create a base for argument.

You agree that Jesus is in HEAVEN NOW!
Isaiah said Jesus is called EVERLASTING FATHER, then I ask has Jesus stopped being an EVERLASTING FATHER? If Yes! When? If No! Then How many FATHER DO YOU HAVE IN HEAVEN? Simple!
These are the simple thing have asked you but you keep perambulating since.

I've explained to you my own view of honor giving to the son just as its giving to the father. I worship the father cus he is the creator , the supreme being, I do not worship his representative

You only differentiate the honour you give to the Father and that of the Son you didn't say the honour you give the JUST AS YOU GIVE THE FATHER Jesus said "that all should honor the Son JUST AS they honor the Father." and DEEP DOWN YOUR HEART YOU KNOW HOW YOU HAVE BEEN HONOURING the Father so Jesus said HONOUR HIM THE WAY YOU HAVE BEEN DOING TO THE FATHER, that's scriptural TRUTH.

In that verse, it say jesus was giving the authority to judge, I did not limit jesus authority, I'm only following what that verse says
Again, as long as you use words that the verses in the scripture did not use, and cut sentences to suit ur view, we will always be having issues . The word "same" or "way" or "same way" are not found in the scriptures. Quote the scripture sentences completely and then explain from there.

OK! But limiting your point to that verse alone is far from it when you know Jesus said else where that (Not only on earth as you're trying to twist the scripture but IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH) ALL AUTHORITY... which I asked is there a difference between ABSOLUTE and ALL which you couldn't reply.

Answered that as jesus is in heaven now, The father is still superior to him.

I've already told you The Father is SUPERIOR TO THE SON.

In fact Jesus claimed HE HAS ALL AUTHORITY means He is God since ONLY GOD CAN HAVE ALL AUTHORITY.

Whether the AUTHORITY WAS GIVEN OR NOT, HE still has IT since you agree that The Father has not collected the Authority.
Answer my questions and don't boycott it,
-ONLY GOD has ALL AUTHORITY, true or false?
-DOES JESUS HAVE ALL AUTHORITY?
-How many people do you have in heaven HAVING ALL AUTHORITY?

dolphinheart:
Will wait for the abo wa ba

This is what you can do to bail yourself out from those points I raised up there, keep it coming!

Now go back to that post and address my points if not for get about yours because I don't why you want me to address your points but ignore mine.

I know you want to boycott it because I've said what your founder and his predecessor did.

That's one thing new generation JWs don't want hear.

Jozzy4:
Can you imagine the underlined ! The septuagint or english translation you read , had it been you paid attention to the literal rendering of that passage in the septuagint , you will realize why its said that the LXX greek admit two renderings

" the throne of you the God into the age of the age" .

This literal reading permit it to be rendered " God is thy throne" as seen in many english translations . And this is the most correct because the person been addressed has a God . (verse 9 ) .

as usual always twisting word.
Let me repeat myself once again, the point here is HOW THE SEPTUAGINT RENDERED THE VERSE not how PEOPLE INTERPRETED IT.

If we should go by interpretation there are many ones out there, that's why I even challenged you TO SHOW US HOW scholar, B. F. Westcott interpreted Proverbs 8:22 (which you agree with on rendering of Psalm 45)

But you boycotted that part as if you didn't see.
So do yourself a favour by focusing on how SEPTUAGINT RENDERED IT which is the point here.

How can God have a God ? God's God ? God annoint God ? God have God ? this is serious .

This is another unscriptural understanding.

According to you the literal rendering of that verse is "the throne of you the God into the age of the age"

No one will argue that this isn't referring to Yahweh not matter how it being rendered in Psalm 45 so the author of Hebrew QUOTED THE VERSE WORD FOR WORD no paraphrase which means it supposed to be rendered as it was in Psalms 45

Which will read literally: About the Son He said; "the throne of you the God into the age of the age".

I think the question to ask ourselves is, why a verse that is referring to God in the Old Testament DIRECTLY QUOTED AND APPLIED TO THE SON?

Jozzy4:
The greek word used in the LXX conveys " days of age" not everlasting ! Check Micah 7:14 where the same greek word appears in the septuagint , it doesnt mean isreal have been feeding on bashan and gilead from everlasting .
It depicts ancient times since the context indicates he has an ORIGIN.


Whereas the greek word used at proverb 8:22 directly mean CREATE ! LXX

Keep dancing around!!!

So if the Greek word used conveys "days of age", wasn't the same Greek word used in Psalm 90:2

But you must find a way of twisting Micah but Psalm still remains even when we also read about the Father as THE BEGINNING which you interpreted as ORIGIN here

And the Greek word used in Micah directly means EVERLASTING!!! LXX

Jozzy4:
I can see you are indeed a frustrated man , how does your post address the op , meanwhile regarding psalm 45:6,7 arent you aware that The renowned trinitarian Bible scholar, B. F. Westcott, wrote:

Yeah and I'll continue to be frustrated over the kingdom of darkness who trying to twist the Word of God.

The next thing is to run back to Scholars, please what does this scholar say about John 1:1 and Proverb 8:22?

" The LXX [Septuagint] admits of two renderings [at Ps. 45:6, 7] : [ho theos] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (`thy throne, O God, .... therefore, O God, thy God...') or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case ('God is Thy throne,' or `Thy throne is God...'), and in apposition to [ho theos sou] in The second case (`Therefore God, even Thy God...') .... It is scarcely possible that [elohim] in the original can Be addressed to the King. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho theos] is a vocative in the LXX [Septuagint]. Thus on the whole it seems BEST to Adopt in the first clause the rendering: `
God is thy Throne' (or, `Thy throne is God'), that is, `Thy kingdom Is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.'" -The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1889, pp. 25, 26.

I think you're missing the point here and this is another way to deviate from the point you raise in the OP.

The point here is HOW SEPTUAGINT LXX RENDERED A VERSE not HOW PEOPLE INTERPRETED IT? so if you can be fair enough I challenge you to provide how scholar, B. F. Westcott interpreted Proverbs 8:22 whether he interpreted it as the Wisdom being created or not

English Septuagint I read on Psalm 45 rendered it as "Thy throne, O God..." now compare this with how an organization rendered it in BOTH PSALM 45 and Hebrew 1 where the writer applied it to Jesus.

Jozzy4:
But Time indefinite was used both at psalm 90:2 and micah 5:2 , stop this lies . They render it the same way .

Meanwhile , its interesting that Micah 5:2 in the LXX says " whose going forth were from the beginning" , going forth refers to ORIGIN " ; the ONLY God dont have an origin.

In the first place how do you know the organization I'm talking about?

You need more of basic English, I didn't compare the two verse BUT HOW THE VERSE WAS TRANSLATED IN LXX and their own.

Lol...going forth refers to ORIGIN but the ONLY God is the beginning (ORIGIN). So what about the second phrase? "FROM EVERLASTING" Does EVERLASTING mean ORIGIN too

Beside him AS A MASTER WORKER!

When He was actually not the one doing it according the that chapter.

The LXX directly said jesus is created ! Proverb 8:22 , do you agree?

The LXX directly said Jesus is from EVERLASTING Micah 5:1, do you agree?