₦airaland Forum

haibe: Flesh and blood you say, how are you So sure the spiritual body has blood?
. Flesh and blood used in that context by apostle paul was to mean our corrupt earthly body, not a spiritual one which christ ressurected with. Infact apostle paul made it clear that saints will put off the corrupt body and put on incorrupt body, thats it, jesus resurrected bodily, not in the spirit as you think. I know different attempts have been made by JWs to equate Jesus with an angel but that will only trick the little ones which has been tricked

"Because Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, to bring you to God, by being put to death in the flesh but by being made alive in the spirit. " - 1Peter 3:18 (New English Translation)

haibe, can you please answer the following two questions:

1. Was Jesus put to death in the flesh?

2. Was Jesus made alive in the spirit?

OLAADEGBU: This is not the whole truth. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the only One with a glorified body and the next batch of saints will only get this body after the rapture. The comparison Jesus made with resurrected saints and angels is in the sense that our glorified bodies [/b]would be immeasurable and [b]immortal as the angels who neither marry nor are given in marriage. That marriage is only for mortals while immortals do not get involved in marital relationships.

Are angels immortal? If yes, how?

frosbel: Yes , he was resurrected in the same body in which he died.

"because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay." - Psalm 16:10

Read Deuteronomy 34:5-7 and Jude 9 regarding Moses body and tell us what God did to prevent abuse and misuse of his body and grave. Besides, do you even imagine God would allow the fleshly body of His only begotten son to decay, after absolutely submitting to Him till death? Far from it!

frosbel: Yes , he was resurrected in the same body in which he died.

"because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay." - Psalm 16:10

You are wrong, bros. After his resurrection Jesus appeared to his disciples on different occasions in various fleshly bodies.

According to Luke 24:13-32, 34-43, Jesus walked with some of his disciples, discussed with them at length, yet they could'nt recognize him. Why?

John 20:13-18 shows that Mary Magdalene couldn't recognize Jesus - just three days after his death. She even mistook him for a gardener, just imagine! She couldn't recognize her Teacher by sight, but by voice. What do you think was the reason? Recall that this was Jesus' first physical appearance to humans after his resurrection and happened at the grave yard.

Think of someone that is very close to you. If he or she dies and is resurrected after three days, what would make you not to recognize him or her?

To convince those who doubted, he used the material/fleshly body with nail wound to provide a stronger testimony to the truth of his resurrection.

frosbel: Jesus Christ rose in BODILY FORM before he was 'caught up ' to meet the Father .

1 Corinthians 15:6
New International Version (NIV)
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

Luke 24:41-43
New International Version (NIV)
41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.

New International Version (©1984)
Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." - Luke 24:39

Have you ever thought of the kind of ridicule and mockery unbelieving Jews and Gentiles would have made of the first century Christians if there were no physical and irrefutable proofs of Jesus resurrection?

Remember, teachings about his death and subsequent resurrection after three days were among the things critics of his time mostly ridiculed.......they acted like atheists on NL....lol.
If Jesus did not materialise the way he did, what proof would the first century christians (like apostle Pual) have to silent critics/ridiculers of their time and make new disciples and strengthen the faith of old and young believers? Please read 1 Corinthians 15:3-8;12-19.

ijawkid repeatedly quoted 1peter 3:18 as proof that Jesus was put to death in the flesh, but was being made alive in the spirit but you pretend not to see. Can you show how you understand that 1peter 3:18? What people saw was materialised Jesus. Once a spirit being is materialised, he can eat and do what every other flesh is doing, as explaned by truthislight.

^ ^ ^

Well done brothers!

Oyawuni: to me,the bible is not totally accurate.
Reason been that,it was written by persons who had selfish intentions.
So many faacts and truth were removed.
To me,with little faith science is more accurate.

Scientists have long believed that the earth revolved around the sun, which was stationary. This caused them to scoff at the following verses which, they said, taught the opposite…

"Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world.In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoices like a strong man to run its race. Its rising is from one end of heaven, And its circuit to the other end;And there is nothing hidden from its heat". -Psalms 19:4-6 (NKJV)

However it was later discovered that the sun is in fact moving through space at an average velocity of 828,000 km/hr. It is traveling through the heavens and has a "circuit", just as the Bible says. It is estimated that its circuit is so large, it would take 230 million years to complete one orbit.

This discovery is very recent when compared to when Psalm 19:4-6 was written......more than 2000 years ago.

Oyawuni, the bible is not a science textbook, but it's almost always ahead of man whenever it deals on scientific issues.

Please note, when God created man, He never said they should not explore the universe and discover what He has in stored for them, provided they do not go contrary to His will, like what Nimrod and his men attempted to do many many years ago.

Man is creative simply because God created man in His image.

Niflheim: @joagbaje,so you are finally admitting that your bible was not inspired by god,but by the understanding of the illiterates at the time right?

The Bible stated that kind words and laughter are good for one's health: In recent years, American newspapers have published various reports that laughter releases chemicals within a person's body that can contribute to one's health. And, that depression and stress can weaken the immune system and contribute to various health problems. But, the Bible knew of the health virtues of laughter roughly 3000 years ago when the Bible's book of Proverbs was recorded:

"Pleasant words are like a honeycomb, Sweetness to the soul and health to the bones." -Proverbs 16:24 (NKJV).

"A cheerful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones." (Proverbs 17:22, NIV).

Who is illiterate, he that advanced you with thousands of years in knowledge, or you, though with eyes but unable to see, read and understand what was written thousands of years ago?

Delafruita: i have always suspected that you have poor comprehension skills.now i can confirm that its getting worse.someone claimed that the bible explained the water table long before vitruvius explained it.i decided to show him that the books of job,ecclesiastes and amos weren't written 1600years ago.they were actually written after vetrivius had explained the water table.hence the bible incorporated a phenomenon that had already been explained.how is that derailing the thread?

My friend Delafruita, are you sure you really understand the meaning of 30 BC? It's difference from 30th Century BC.

Marcus Vitruvius Pollio was born c. 80–70 BC, died after c. 15 BC. He was a man of 1st Century BC. A man of 2nd Century BC was decades older than him.

Moses wrote the book of Job between 1657 and1473 BC, but you claim it was written in about 5th Century (c. 500 )BC. Remember, 1 Century = 100 years; 5th Century BC = 500 BC

Since Vitruvius explained the water Cycle in about 30 BC, and Moses wrote the book of Job in about 5th Century BC (about 500 BC), according to you. Therefore, Job's explanation of the water Cycle predated Vitruvius's by at least 500 - 30 = 470 years. Remember also that the time Job explained the water Cycle predated the time Moses wrote it. The truth is, Vitruvius did not even exist when Job explained the water cycle.

Below is the actual time the book of Job was written.

Name of Book: Job
Writer: Moses
Place Written: Wilderness
Writing Completed (B.C.E.): c. 1473
Time Covered (B.C.E.): Over 140 years between 1657 and 1473 B.C.E.

mkmyers45: Yes the bible did try but not without obvious mistakes Is the earth flat/stationary? Psalm 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. 2. (Prov 8:26-27 NRSV) when he had not
yet made earth and fields, or the
world’s first bits of soil. When he
established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, 3. (Dan 4:10-11 NRSV) Upon my bed this
is what I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth. ...

Brother, the bible has never given any mental picture of a flat earth. Rather, it had being a well known science mantra.

You may be surprised to learn that the Bible revealed that the earth is round. Job 26:10, Prov 8:27, Isaiah 40:22, Amos 9:6. Today, we chuckle at the people of the fifteenth century who feared sailing because they thought they would fall over the edge of the flat earth. Yet the Bible revealed the truth in 1000 B.C. 2500 years before man discovered it for himself!

In various verses, the Bible says the earth is round and hangs in space. It took a long time for science to catch up and reach the same conclusions. Copernicus made the discovery in 1475. But the Bible always knew. Here is a related Bible verse that was written more than 2500 years ago, and more than 1000 years before Copernicus:

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22,NIV). (By the way, the Hebrew language at that time did not have a word for "sphere," only for "circle."



It's a bit funny the way you quote just a section of Nebuchadnezzar's dream at Daniel 4: 10-11 and take it literally. Please read from verse 20 for the interpretation of the dream.

That great tree is not literal. In the Scriptures, trees can symbolize individuals, rulers, and kingdoms. (Psalm 1:3; Jeremiah 17:7, 8; Ezekiel, chapter 31) Like the immense tree of his dream, Nebuchadnezzar had "grown great and become strong" as the head of a world power........Babylon as the world power.

inurmind: To show u how inaccurate and basless the bible is, here is an example:
in revelation, John said he saw STARS fall from the sky to the earth.lol.

Mind u some stars are even bigger than the sun which is so many times bigger than earth.
So tell me how that is possible.

My friends pls start thinking and do not be limited to the circumstances of ur birth.
The bible is just a bunch of fairy tales by people limited to the undertanding of their time.

The book of revelation is full of symbolic expressions. Your comment shows the depth of your ignorance regarding this fact. See below and tell me who is behind who in the knowledge of stars?

The Bible stated that the stars cannot be counted: For centuries, scientists and astronomers thought they could count the precise number of stars in the universe. Brahe, for example, said there were 777.

Kepler claimed the total was 1,005.

Hipparchus said there were 1,022 stars.

Ptolemy raised the number to 1,056.

Eventually, scientists, including the great Galileo, concluded that the stars could not be numbered, just as the Bible had always claimed:

"I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore" (Jeremiah 33:22, NIV).

"He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars--if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."" - (Genesis 15:5, NIV).

Questions: Between bible writers - Moses /Jeremiah - and scientists, who were the first to know that the stars could not be counted? Who were the ones limited in knowledge?

Once again, though the bible was not written as a science book, but when it touches on science, it does so irrefutably.

Delafruita: in essence the bible wasnt written by friggin inspiration but by men who wrote based on the prevailing knowledge of their times.finally we agree on something

The water cycle was not fully understood until about 30 B.C. by a Roman engineer named Marcus Vitruvius. Yet every aspect of the water cycle was fully revealed to mankind in about 1600 B.C.! The Bible's description is in perfect harmony with modern science. Eccl 1:6-7; 11:3; Job 26:8; Amos 9:6. Vitruvius was about 1600 years too late!

Was the knowledge of water cycle prevailing in the time of Job, Solomon and Amos among their contemporaries?

Where was Vitruvius when Job uttered the following:

"For He draws up drops of water, Which distill as rain from the mist, Which the clouds drop down And pour abundantly on man". -Job 36:27-28 (NKJV)

thehomer: The Bible is a collection of stories and myths. Science is a tool we use to understand the universe we find ourselves. They cannot be compared.

"He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing". -Job 26:7 (NKJV)

When did Job made the above statement and when did scientists finally fathom that the earth is hung upon nothing?

Were the people then, and even those of later centuries not holding the mythical view that the earth is supported by four big elephants who stood on sea turtles?

Though the Bible was not written as a science book, but when it touches on science, it does so in a way that cannot be refuted - not even by modern science.

[quote author=OLAADEGBU][/quote]It may be easier to squeeze a square peg to fit into a round hole than to squeeze any unbiblical doctrine to fit into the clear teachings of the Bible, however hard one may try and sincere he may seem.

I praise your efforts, but sadly, what you are trying to do is beyond you, as you have humbly admitted.

It appears you are beginning to see Jesus the way Isaiah prophetically saw him at Isaiah 9:6; and the way Jesus saw himself at John 14:28; and the way apostle Paul saw him at 1corinthians 11:3

My question for you is: since the father is subordinate to none, and all are subordinate to Him, do you believe that He (the father) alone, is the Almighty God?

Again, I think you need more research on what the holy spirit truly is, for the great mystery surounding the trinity seems to hinge mostly upon the true identity of the holy spirit.

inurmind: Its quite funny to know that all the people in the link that mentioned him never met him physically but are just putting down what they heard decades and centuries after his death.

I personnally believe he existed, but thats all.
He was a normal man with a human father who was inspired by the many revolutionarists before him but took a very different and quite intelligent approach(non violence, gentleness and tolerance).
Obviously that approach has paid off.

But if u study the new test, u'll notice alot of inconguencies or rather differences in the synoptic gospels of matt, mark, luke and john.
It only goes to tell u that there is no such holy spirit guiding them in their writing. They are only humans most probably exaggerating the works of their master to make it seem more appealing.

Please accept the truth.
It might hurt but its for the good and progress of the world.

How sure are you that it's not your prejudiced mental disposition that makes it seem less appealing to you.

What can you say about writers who wrote about Jesus hundreds of years prior to his birth, were they not inspired?

OLAADEGBU: Consider the biblical verses below:

"For unto which of the angels said He at any time," "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?" "And again, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to me a Son?" "And again, when He bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, He saith," "And let all the angels of God worship Him." -- Hebrews 1:5-6

And

"And Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God" -- John 20:28

With the verses above, can you sincerely say that Jesus is not God and if you say yes then:

Why would God the Father tell His angels to worship Jesus? I believe you are aware that it is only God that we are commanded to worship.

Why did Thomas call Jesus "My Lord and my God" and Jesus did not rebuke Him for calling just a man God?

Answer these questions if not here but in your heart and come to the conviction of the truth that will make you free from all the erroneous fallacies that has been projected from the pit of hell.

Hebrews 1:6

First, we have to understand what Paul meant here by worship. He used the Greek word pro·sky·ne'o. Unger's Bible Dictionary says that this word literally means to 'kiss the hand of someone in token of reverence or to do homage.' An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W. E. Vine, says that this word "denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to man . . . or to God." In Bible times pro·sky·ne'o often included literally bowing down before someone of high stature.

Consider the parable Jesus gave of the slave who was unable to repay a substantial sum of money to his master. A form of this Greek word appears in this parable, and in translating it the King James Version says that "the servant therefore fell down, and worshipped [form of pro·sky·ne'o] him [the king], saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all." (Matthew 18:26) Was this man committing an idolatrous act? Not at all! He was merely expressing the kind of reverence and respect due the king, his master and superior.

Though KJV and few other translations use the word "worship", however, a few rather retain the literal meaning of the creek word "pro·sky·ne'o", instead of using the word, "worship" at Hebrews 1:6

"and when again He may bring in the first-born to the world, He saith, 'And let them bow before him -- all messengers of God" - Hebrews 1:6 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

Again, Jesus has a father - someone older and greater than him. He was begotten - is a creature, hence, has a beginning. Considering even these few facts alone, it would be illogical to refer to Jesus as "the Almighty God".

The Bible clearly indicates, however, that our worship—in the sense of religious reverence and devotion —must be addressed solely to the Almighty God. Moses described him as a God exacting exclusive devotion.

Jesus certainly occupies a pivotal role in true worship, one worthy of honor and respect. He is the only way through which we are able to approach Yahweh. Such honor and respect is what apostle Paul meant at Hebrews 1:6, but not worship in the sense of religious reverence and devotion. The usage of the word, "worship" at Hebrews 1:6, is the same as that found at Matthew 18:26 - KJV.



John 20:28

Thomas answered him, "my Lord and my God!" World English Bible (WEB)
Thomas replied to him, "my Lord and my God!" New English Translation (NET)
And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”(NKJV)

Thomas' replied by exclaiming those words the way people sometimes exclaim today: "O.....h my God!" or "Je......sus!"

However, some translations have omitted this exclamation mark for obvious reason. Read from verse 26 and picture the scene to see what naturally would have been Thomas' reaction at that instance.......Exclamation!

Nevertheless, exclamation mark or no exclamation mark, there is no objection to referring to Jesus as "God," if this is what Thomas had in mind. Such would be in harmony with Isaiah 9:6 which prophetically describes Jesus as "Mighty God," but not as the Almighty God.

What would you say about Moses being referred to as "God" at Exodus 4:16? Is he the almighty God? Should Moses be worshiped? Would you add him to your 3-in-1 God to make it 4-in-1?

There is only ONE Almighty God, our heavenly Father and the Father of Jesus Christ. At John 17:3 Jesus referred to Him as "the only true God". Was Jesus wrong?

OLAADEGBU: It is clear that all the words in red were spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ and the rest speaks about Him.

Was Jesus the one that put those words in red. Were they not put by men like you who twisted & squeezed up things to fit into a certain doctrinal framework?

Remmyode: Dear Nlanders, I've read so much about the bashing of an Apple product on this forum in time past and I decided to share my opinion/experience about the iGadget. I'm not an advocate for high pricing mac product but I'm someone who loves gadget to a fault. Talking about phones, as much as I dislike the high pricing of iPhone/Mac products, that's how much I appreciate the DURABILITY of iPhones/ mac product. A lifes span of an iPhone/mac product is more than 6years if used 14hrs a day the way I do which gives it value for the money. I've used all sort of gadgets ranging from mp3, laptops, phones, games, cameras but the Mac experience stand out as other gadget will wornout before an Apple product. Before I bought my MacBook pro 2years ago, I used to change laptop every year but the experience has changed with Macbook pro. The system is still as intact as ever and I'm sure is going to take me to another 3years. Now buying a laptop for #150k every year for 6years and buyin a MacBook pro for #300k-400k for 6years which one is economically sensible? The thing is apple comes with a class and quality that other gadget marker has not match in recent innovation and that's why they will remain most patronised for years to some. iLike it or iLeave it!

Yes I like it

Fr0sbel: You ignored my own question , but I will humbly answer yours.


Let us start with verse 4 and 5a :

4 John,To the seven churches in the province of Asia:Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits[a] before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.

1. Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come
2. and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead


Here we see a clear distinction made by John between our beloved Father who is, and who was, and who is to come and Jesus Christ our Lord faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead





Now let us moved to verse 5b to 7b

"To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever ! Amen.7 “Look, he is coming with the clouds,” and “every eye will see him,even those who pierced him”; "

1. Him who loved us and has freed us from our sins by his blood - This obviously refers to Lord Jesus
2. made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever

Here again we see a clear distinction between Father God Almighty and Lord Jesus Christ. God is even called the God of our Lord Jesus.



Finally to your point your verse quoted is not referring to Christ Jesus but Almighty GOD.

Compare 4a to 8a.

8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Please read the bible with your lenses and not that of deeper life.


Blessings.

Good one!

Again, if you compare translations regarding verse 11, you will see that some translators, likely, were trinitarians.

Naval sadiq: SONS REPLACE THEIR FATHERS.THAT IS THE TRADITION IN NNPC.

That is the thinking of many. I used to think the same way, but it's not like that. I would advice you to apply and review the past test questions.

frosbel: He did not pre-exist.

Do you mean Jesus did not exist as a spirit being or creature in the heaven before coming to the earth?

Goshen360: @ truthislight,

Let us start with this scripture of the Holy Spirit/Ghost being called God. Let's start here and if time permit me, I will show your more, okay.

But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back [part] of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. Acts 5:3-4 Kjv.

What do you see of this scripture? Tell me your understanding here and we will continue from there.

The holy spirit is not God. It is a possession - something that belongs to someone. It belongs to God. He uses it to accomplish His purpose. God can empower you with it to do great things. This explains why it is often sent by God. It also explains why one can pray to God for holy spirit and not vice versa. See the scripture below:

"Do not cast me away from Your presence, And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me." -Psalms 51:11 (NKJV)

The expression: "your Holy Spirit" shows it is a possession of God. Does it not remind you of the expression: "the spirit of God"? Both expressions imply that God is the altimate source/supplier of the Holy Spirit.

If one talks abusively of it, he is abusing its source.

How did Peter know that Ananias was lying? It is because God had already revealed everything to Peter through His Holy Spirit. Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit in the sense that whtat he presented to peter contradicted the revelation by God through His Holy Spirit to Peter. In reality, it means lying to God, the altimate source of that revealing power or force.

Hence, when Ananias lied to the holy spirit, he in actuality was lying to the provider/source of the holy spirit (Jehovah). That is the import of Acts 5:3-4 you quoted. That scripture does not in any way imply that the holy spirit is God.

See below the case of Ananias' wife and notice how the Spirit is used as the "Lord's" or "God's" possession.

Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” -Acts 5:9 (NKJV) ......... Is it different from its usage at Psalms 51:11? Not at all! Should one therefore conclude that this spirit of understanding from God that enabled or empowered Peter to decipher the truth of the matter is God? No, for that would be illogical conclusion.

[quote author=Goshen360

FMK: i do'nt think so, the dust or skull will hear the voice if there is not anylife after death, then also there is no heaven

What is your opinion on Genesis 3:19 and Ecclesiastes 9:5-6?

FMK: last time in our municipal church yard we went to dig a grave to bury one of our brother of the organization(choir) but it happened when we have been digging we found bones and skull of someone had been burried several years before blunkets and some woods of cofin we wonder ourself questining each other what happens when someone dies ? not sure that we get a life in hale and scheol where we go when we die ?

What happens when someone dies is what you saw - decomposition of the body back to dust. If the dead person had gone to somewhere, you wouldn't have seen his skull and other bones.

Have you consulted the giver of life for explanation? See below for what he says:

"In the sweat of your face you shall eat breadTill you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken;For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.”
-Genesis 3:19 (NKJV)

"For the living know that they will die;But the dead know nothing, And they have no more reward, For the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished;Nevermore will they have a shareIn anything done under the sun."
-Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 (NKJV)

Life after death will only be possible through resurrection by Jesus Christ.

"Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation."
-John 5:28-29 (NKJV)

frosbel: Nobody is twisting my friend.

The truth is that Jesus Christ did not descend spiritually into Hell as that will contradict scripture.

On this point anyway, no one has the absolute truth and it is does not affect our salvation.

By the way are you BORN AGAIN of the Spirit of GOD ?

There are some twists! You have subtly avoided the expression: "in the spirit", as it is used at 1Peters 3:18-20 that you quoted. Also, the resurrected Jesus preached to "the spirits" and not "souls".

I think truthislight has said something worthy of consideration.

Ihedinobi: I know I pissed you off too. Sorry. But I'm going through the thread again to see things I overlooked.

Per the bolded statement, it may be necessary to define what it means to be God. I think that we all agree that that which is God is that from which everything that exists comes. That there is no power but power that it gives, that there is no knowledge but is derived from it, that there is no place hidden from its presence. In other words, God is that which is greater than the universe and all creation, spiritual and material and from which it all proceeds.

Anything that fits that description is God, I daresay. In that sense, Islam's Allah can claim Godhood among other religions. But how we can separate one claim from another to know which indeed is the true God is to compare the qualities assigned to them individually and see if there is coherence in those qualities.

However, "Godness", if I dare use that word, is a quality or an ability. The Concept of the Trinity says that there are three Beings that possess this quality of Godness, all three are all-powerful, all-merciful, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-wise etc etc and are one in essence.

Ihedinobi, I praise you for the highlighted word. When I went through my last post in a more relaxed mode, I saw some elements of thoughtlessness in my use of words.

Please, I'm sorry.

Area_boy: y do you keep confusing yourselves chasing white peacocks?. Using the word "belief" is for religionists and their apologetics!

don't get it twisted

Why are you sounding so hypocritical? Are you not a religionist? Science religionists or atheists "believe" in physical/universal laws?

How do you convert others? Is it not by preaching and quoting some set of "beliefs"?

cyrexx: these guys are so blindfolded to the truth, almost hopelessly.

they will rather kill and be killed than see anything as true that is against their religion.



Islam has the strongest mind control mechanisms among all religions, in my opinion.

Please kindly remind me of that popular saying about a black pot and a kettle....lol

MacDaddy01: Great point. I agree until the last part. It is not almost impossible to rescue a muslim. It is only harder because of it's totally submissive nature and death penalty for apostacy. [b]I believe that many muslims are converted to atheists by the arguments on NL but many are afraid to confess. [/b]See Avicenna's case- He even had to get a new ID so that no one would know who he was/is

Hmmmm..., the ministry is growing.

Nimshi: Nimshi: Maximus85: it is quite brave of you to come up here to defend your religion.
I have some questions for you.
1) Why is 1914 very important to your religion? BECAUSE IT MARK THE END OF THE SEVEN TIMES. BEGINNING FROM 607 BCE. Google the year Babylon destroyed Jerusalem. http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm IN 1914 JESUS CHRIST BECAME KING AND HE SENT SATAN AND HIS ANGELS AWAY FROM HEAVEN DOWN TO THE EARTH.

**** What link? See this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(587_BC) And, for your information, it is bunk to refer to some nonsensical link as proof. I am now convinced you only repeat what your masters in Brooklyn tell you to say; you have no knowledge of the relevant issues.

Recognized authorities accept 539 B.C.E. without any question as the year Babylon was overthrown by Cyrus the Great. The following gives a small sampling from books of history representing a cross section of both general reference works and elementary textbooks. These brief quotations also show that this is not a date recently suggested, but one thoroughly investigated and generally accepted for the past one hundred years.

"Cyrus entered Babylon in 539 B.C." (Encyclopœdia Britannica, 1946, Vol. 2, p. 852) "When Cyrus defeated the army of Nabonidus, Babylon itself surrendered, in Oct. 539, to the Persian general Gobryas."—Ibid., Vol. 6, p. 930.

"In 539 B.C. Babylon fell without a struggle to the Achaemenid Persian, Cyrus the Great."—The Encyclopedia Americana, 1956, Vol. III, p. 9.

"Babylon was captured by Cyrus in 539 B.C."—Yale Oriental Series · Researches · Vol. XV, 1929, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, Dougherty, p. 46.

"The Persians took the city in 539 B.C." (The World Book Encyclopedia, 1966, Vol. 2, p. 10) "In 539 B.C., the Persians conquered Babylonia." (Ibid., p. 13) "Nabonidus, the last king of Chaldean Babylonia, who reigned from 555 to 539 B.C."—Ibid, p. 193.

"The downfall of Lydia prepared the way for a Persian attack on Babylonia. The conquest of that country proved unexpectedly easy. In 539 B.C. the great city of Babylon opened its gates to the Persian hosts."—Ancient History, Hutton Webster, 1913, p. 64.

"In 539 B.C. Babylon, too, was captured by Cyrus."—The Story of the Ancient Nations, W. L. Westermann, 1912, p. 73.

"In 539 B.C., however, Cyrus advanced for the conquest of Babylonia. . . . Sippar was taken without a blow and, two days later, the van of the army of Cyrus entered Babylon."—History of the Hebrews, F. K. Sanders, 1914, p. 230.

"It is not likely that there was a long interval between his [Nebuchadnezzar’s] death and the fall of the Chaldean Empire before the onslaught of Cyrus in 539."—The Biblical Period, W. F. Albright, Reprinted from The Jews; Their History, Culture and Religion, edited by Louis Finkelstein, 1955, p. 49.

"Cyrus entered Babylon on October 29, 539 B.C. and presented himself in the role of the liberator of the people."—The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, 1965, p. 193; see also pages 93, 104, 198, 569.

"Nebuchadnezzar had surrounded Babylon with huge walls, but after the defeat of Belshazzar’s army the city surrendered with slight resistance in 539 B.C."—World History at a Glance, Reither, 1942, pp. 28, 29.

"When the Neo-Babylonian Empire fell to the Persians, Babylon opened its gates to Cyrus in 539 B.C. without opposition."—The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1962, p. 335.

"In the seventeenth year of Nabonidus (B. C. 539), Cyrus captured Babylon."—The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopœdia and Scriptural Dictionary, Fallows, 1913, Vol. 1, p. 207.

"Cyrus the Great, in 539 B.C., added the Babylonian to the other empires which he had acquired and consolidated with magical ease and celerity."—A New Standard Bible Dictionary, 1926, p. 91.

"The city [Babylon] was taken by surprise B. C. 539."—The Universal Bible Dictionary Peloubet, 1912, p. 69.

"539 B.C. marked the collapse of Semitic hegemony in the ancient Orient, and the introduction of Aryan leadership which continued for at least a thousand years. This conquest of Babylon by Cyrus laid the foundation for all the later developments under Greek and Roman rule."—Darius the Mede, Whitcomb, 1959, Introduction, p. 2.

"It was Cyrus, also, who conquered Babylon in the year 539 B.C. and thus became master of Mesopotamia and Syria."—Ancient and Medieval History, Hayes and Moon, 1930, p. 92.

"Nabonidus (Nabunaid) . . . was the last King of Babylon (555-539 B.C.)."—The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907, Vol. 2, p. 184.

"In 539 the kingdom of Babylon fell to Cyrus."—The New Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia, 1952, Vol. 10, p. 3397.

"The Chaldean Empire, with its capital at Babylon (Second Babylonian Empire), lasted, . . . until 539 B.C., when it collapsed before the attack of Cyrus."—The Outline of History, H. G. Wells, 1921, p. 140.

"Cyrus conquered Babylonia in 539 B. C."—The International Standard Bible Encyclopœdia, 1960, Vol. 1, p. 367.

"In the year 539 Cyrus conquers the city Babylon, Babylonia becomes a province of the Persian Empire."—Translated from the German Bibel-Lexikon, edited by Herbert Haag together with associates, printed in Switzerland, in 1951. See page 150 under Babylonia.

With the date 539 B.C.E. so firmly fixed and agreed to by so many scholars, now let's consider the following scriptures:

'And this whole land shall be a desolation and an astonishment, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. ‘Then it will come to pass, when seventy years are completed, that I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, ’ says the Lord; ‘and I will make it a perpetual desolation.' -Jeremiah 25:11-12 (NKJV)

'For thus says the Lord: After seventy years are completed at Babylon, I will visit you and perform My good word toward you, and cause you to return to this place.' -Jeremiah 29:10 (NKJV)

"Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia" (at least before the spring of 537-B.C.E.) ..."the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia"... He issued the famous edict permitting the Jews to return and rebuild God’s temple. - Read Ezra 1:1-4 (NKJV)

It is now a simple formula to determine when the seventy years began. One has only to add 70 to 537 to get 607.

Now, let compare the two dates (587 and 607)-B.C.E. to see which is in harmony with the scriptures.

607 - 537 = 70..........................................number of years that the Jews were in exile (it's in harmony with the scriptures)
The book of Haggai and Zechariah were written in 520B.C.E. and 518-B.C.E. respectively (years after the Jews had returned to their homeland). Biblical chronology of 607-B.C.E. fits in perfectly with the above dates.

587 - 537 = 50...........................................number of years that the Jews were in exile, according to secular chronology. (False and it's out of harmony with the scriptures).
Again, if 587 is correct, the desolation would have ended in 517-B.C.E. (587-70 = 517), when houses had already been built and crops grown for some 20 years in Jerusalem before their return.This would also suggest the Bible books of Haggai and Zechariah which were written in 520B.C.E. and 518-B.C.E. respectively, were written before the return of the Jews.(Huge discrepancy!)

Considering the above, 607-B.C.E. [/b]is the only date that fits perfectly with the Bible as the date for desolation of Jerusalem, [b]not 587-B.C.E.

Nimshi: .
.
Links to Jehovah's Witnesses' child r.ape enlightenment

These are links to www.silentlambs.org, an organisation floated by Jehovah's Witnesses tired of the policy of their organisation as a haven for child r.apists

For seeking reform, the Jehovah's Witness organisation booted these people asking for justice out of their congregations

1) http://silentlambs.org/OaklandLawsuit.htm - $21 million punitive damages against Watchtower

2) http://silentlambs.org/Mcleantoronto.htm - Ministerial Servant Jehovah's Witness hiding from police for raping children

3) http://silentlambs.org/Kozelisky.htm - Ministerial Servant, son of City Overseer, molester of childtren

4) http://silentlambs.org/Brotherallen.htm - Jehovah's Witness Brother Allen

5) http://silentlambs.org/BrotherCook.htm - Jehovah's Witness Brother Cook

6) http://silentlambs.org/Perfettobustedagain.htm - Jehovah's witness Brother Perfetto

Note: Jehovah's Witnesses do not prevent known rapists of children to carry a bag and 'preach' from house to house

Note: the above cases are reports from Western countries

Note: the problem exists in Nigeria too

.

Remember: "This story illustrates the key issue with p.aedophiles. They never stop and the average molester will hurt over 200 children in their life time. "

.

Is it not glaring that you are shying away from something?

What stops you from answering my post? The source you are feeding from fits you perfectly - sites from apostates aimed at tarnishing the image of the witnesses.

Prove you are not a liar by answering the question that arose from some of your previous links.

Like I promised you, I will keep reposting it so that all will know what you are running away from. It's the post that closely follows this.

Once again, if you are not lying against the witnesses, I challenge you to show how 587-B.C.E. blends perfectly with various scriptures that relate to it like I have done regarding 607-B.C.E.