₦airaland Forum

vickyO: What do you think you're doing?
Make I answer for you,
Cherry picking.
smh.

No, its tacklin issues one by one, as against throwing many things into the air without anything useful to pick at the end of the day.

vickyO: Clothing like trousers, buttoned down shirts, hats, suits e.t.c. were men's before they started making females .
Females then wore only dresses...
Sorry I didn't elaborate my point in that post.

yorubas will say "o pari". We have no arguments. The bolded is what i've being trying to say with many words.

haibe: You are now becoming emotional!

All you have said now doesn't make sense, please re post whatever comment you think I skipped.

you can as well condemn Jesus foe exposing hypocrisy of the pharisees because they are leaders.

Talk about being emotional. Go back to page 4 or 5 and do the research. If someone says that you did something wrong, you ought to cross check, don't be lazy na. i have not condemned you, do not feel so. Take to correction if there is any you see. i'm almost out of here.

vickyO: Ok then Mr. Serious. Males started wearing it before us. As a matter of fact they started wearing most of the clothing before us.

Why don't you start wearing the gowns worn in the days of Jesus or in the 1800's
Which one is men job and female job again?
So if I do your so called men's job I'll go to hell.

Oh you mean you people were clothless all that while? Come vicky, take time, no let me give you name oh.
You get the point, the styles are changing, so do not forget the past or history.

aujile: just understand that we live under grace and no longer under law. We'r saved by grace and no our self righteousness

i understand that perfectly, thanks.

haibe: I didn't skip any part, yes that doesn't free people from slavery, my intent of opening this thread is to expose the hypocrisy of the law keepers.

Go back and check the post, i think it is page 4 or 5. You did skip. There is no hypocrisy exposed, you are simply promoting carnality. That you think you have light on an area or aspect is no right for you to throw in a banana peel for others. i don't know how many people will be edified by this compared to those that would be hardened, and those who would begin to look at others and even their spiritual leaders with suspicion and the hypocrisy stamp.
Rom 15:1 We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.

vickyO: By saying shirt we mean button down shirt.....
Men started wearing it first before we follow join.

So the logic is, let us score zero instead of 1/10? i do not get it exactly. i'm not interested in the facade and boring talk about whether trouser is a sin or going to hell. My straight focus is, was trouser known as man's wear and even still known so in some places? If yes, that makes Deut 22v5 clearer. But it seems all folks here are interested in is pointing out other places/things. Its like telling someone that stealing is wrong, but the person then talks about a thousand OTHER wrong things as an excuse to steal. Stating that if he stops stealing, he will be an hypocrite. That is how this is going.

Candour: No wahala bro. His reply to your accusation of love of money was just to let you know he had nothing financial he was benefiting from his stance against tithes as he's even on a disability package and despite all, he still remained faithful to God. I believe he wasn't seeking a pity party.

You know we are used to accusing ourselves of love of money so if na Goshen or DrummaBoy, i'm sure it wouldn't have appeared in such an insensitive light.




So you're one of those who didn't read Chinua Achebe's books? The bolded is an Igbo proverb in 'Things Fall Apart'. I only quoted it to drive home my point.




Really it doesn't. I am less than a year old on NL. That should tell you i had a life before coming here and would definitely have a life when i eventually leave. I just don't like the idea of somebody dictating how i run my life or my hands on my keyboard.

If it's to avoid a prejudice against our discussion, then you'll have a case which is why i made the concession of staying away from other tithe discussions for the duration of our discussions.

My dear, recheck again. you and your comrades post as much as i do on those threads. Infact in my spare time 2 days ago, i checked the ratio of all our individual posts. You can check yourself. i'm sure you wont make that statement again after you do.

Okay, no qualms too. though love of money is not about how much one has in one's account or purse. i've seen very poor people who had love of money before.
Not read Achebe, watched the play though. i do not not about comrades or what not, but as for me, the ratio is 'impressive'. The concession is fine.

haibe: You said in the other thread that I shouldn't depend on logic but you know what, sometimes without logic we make no sense.

So because your dictionary called shirt a clothing for upper body means all upper body garments are shirts?


like Candour said, if a toyota corolla is a car,,does that mean all cars are toyota corolla?

Using your poor logic, I can as well say since trousers are lower body garments, then all lower body garments are trousers, including skirts.

Can you see how absurd this your reasoning is? All in the name of not wanting to admit that just like trousers, shirts were also initially made for men.

Image its better you free yourself from this slavery and hypocritical notion. Just like shirts, trousers are right for christian women given that they are decent.


I also want you to note that the definition you gave says: clothing for upper body and not clothings for upper body, perhaps this is where your confusion is coming from

You managed to skip the part where i quoted the dictionary stating that the blouse is a shirt. Enjoy the play of words. The funny thing is that you are both men. It is not what women wear or do not wear that frees people from slavery, ehn. i guess now you feel free from slavery because you changed your opinion.

Candour: Shirts are upper garments doesn't mean all upper garments are shirts. Just like Toyota corrollas are cars doesn't mean all cars are Toyota corrollas.

Blouse is an upper garment that resembles a shirt. The dictionary doesn't call blouses shirts. If you still don't see the ridiculousness of your argument, too bad.






All you wrote there is grossly inadequate to substantiate your claims of all upper garments are shirts.

Did they include blouse as a type of shirt? What about Coat? What of the jacket of a a suit?

I repeat, not all upper garments are shirts.







What about the Arab woman? Or the Indian woman? Also what about the Scottish man with his kilt that is obviously a skirt? Is he in violation of Deut 22:5 too?

Every body knows trousers wearing would have started with men and i admitted that much , but shirts wearing too started with men. You pointed out when women started wearing trousers in the western world. If you want to be thorough, tell us when camisole and other female shirt versions entered the fashion scene and language.




I brought up those verses to show you the hypocrisy of picking which Mosaic law was convenient for you while dropping another. We've argued endlessly that the old testament is for learning, not for doctrine to a Christian saved by grace. Paul used the example to make a case that ministers should be supported by the gospel, not to replicate the exact same practice.

So verse 5 was written for our sakes, then for whose sake were verses 9 & 11 written? Confusion will always arise when you mix grace with the law because it only makes hypocrites of Christians. When you mix the Torah with your Christianity, it becomes ridiculous.

If you truly asked the holy Spirit for guidance, he would have shown to you that not all ladies wearing trousers do so to entice men or reverse nature. Well maybe you can't hear him on this because you're not a Lady.

Have you been to a rig site or oil treatment plant in the creeks of Niger Delta before? If you have, you'll know a female engineer wearing a jeans under a coverall isn't making a fashion statement. She's only applying common sense, the same way Paul asked Timothy to apply sense and take wine for his infirmities. Hope you know the coverall is fashioned like a trouser?

You've said a lot of nonsense that i did not say or intend to say. Good though to see that the bold agrees with what i am saying. i have given you a dictionary and links that CLEARLY state that a blouse is a shirt. i'm not here to make a law for you or anybody, neither do i have to start making defences on false accusations of what i did not say or teach. Good bye and enjoy the traffic.

haibe: If Jesus went to paradise immediately he died, how come he said he has not yet ascended to his father? did he lie?

Yes he can't even go to paradise with his earthly physical body but a glorious body, neither can he go to heaven without this glorious body..

If Jesus could go to paradise without his glorious body, what is the essence of him ressurecting before his ascension to heaven? infact what is the essence of ressurection as a whole if we can be with God in a so-called spirit form?

What is the essence of us ressurecting in an immortal body if we are already immortal in a so-called spirit form?

No, He did not lie. He has a spirit, soul and body just like you have. His body was in the grave, but it ascended a few weeks later in the presence of His disciples. When He resurrected, His disciples thought it was just His spirit but He explained that He was in body too. He in His completeness was yet to ascend to the father. It is the same for every believer that dies. Stephen's body was buried but God received his spirit, same thing would have happened to Paul when he went to be with the Lord, same thing with the souls under the altar. But we all come back at what is popularly called the rapture into our bodies. A spirit needs a body even if it is a spiritual body(1Cor15). You see that is why evil spirits look for bodies to possess. Spirits would prefer even animal's body than to be without a body. They are not convenient without a body, that is the state of evil spirits and dead sinners sort of. But saints have rest, they are not restless.
BTW, Paul did not know if he went to paradise with his body or not, so i do not know where you saw the rule that one cannot go to paradise without body. Our spirit is not our whole being, resurrection takes us as our whole being to be with God and act in full capacity in pleasing God.
Joh 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Candour: Image, it was a very uncharitable, ungracious and very cruel way to talk to a disabled person. No man can blame you if you feel you have heard enough of it but the sensible thing to do was to have simply ignored him.

If it was me or the other usual suspects you threw such at, we'll laugh and give it back to you but this is a blind man and at least you've made him prove it once to you.

Did you even re-read what you typed and posted? Those whose palm kernels are cracked for them by a benevolent spirit should not forget to be humble. Pls always remember this

Whether we stop for 2 months or 2 years makes no difference. You've been on NL since 2008 and you're still talking on tithe. Some of your comrades have been here longer than that and they too refuse to give it up so I wonder what a 2 months abstinence from 2 people will achieve.

Oh its the hearing enough of it that is the problem? Thanks. i asked him to show me what the cruel thing was but he did not. i read and re-read the post, i was thinking the offense had to do with the kidding i made about windows of heaven. Anyways, sorry for that. It was just that i was talking about something else, about love of money or so, and he was telling me about how his condition is and how much he has to spend and this and that. That was why i thought he should not bring that in. Again, sorry about that. i do/did not wish or intend to talk negatively about his disability.
About the bolded you said i should remember, i do not recall saying that. But no wahala, i will try to remember that. If your stopping for 2months or 2years makes no difference, you should not find it that hard a request or a tying of hands. Neither i nor my comrades(whatever that means) talks about tithe every month and week, and on every tithe thread, making circular arguments.

jdilight: Jesus began his ministry after 30 long years.

Why did he had to wait that long before going to do the job he came to earth to do in the first place.

30 year no be beans, it is a long time to wait. What do you think?

Jesus was busy pleasing God for 30 years na. Is that not what He expects from us? He wants us to follow Him as our example in the daily things we face in life which He also faced. is not expecting every follower to walk on water or feed 5000 with five loaves or raise the dead or any such thing. he expects us all to live as He lived and walk as He walked so that the Father can say of us "I am well pleased".

Candour: Image, i'm not trying to trap you. Its just the way you and i talk when we discuss. I could accuse you of same you know?

Did you see the definition of Blouse? Don't you think buba fits more with blouse? My bro, i wish you'll drop this line of thought because it's simply ridiculous. How can you say all upper body garments are shirts? You wear a coat and you'll feel comfortable calling it a shirt? C'mon Image

The point i made was that all upper garments are generally and basically shirts. i have given a dictionary that says so, proving that i'm not just imagining things. Wiki is also some general knowledge. Here is what THIS LINK says about blouse being shirt.
[4] Traditionally, the term has been used to refer to a shirt which blouses out.
[1] Today, the word most commonly refers to a woman's shirt
i'm not the only one that defines a blouse technically/basically/generally as a shirt.

If i'm forced to make a choice on who started wearing shirts, i'll not hesitate to say a man. whom will you choose if told to make a choice? will you say they started at the same time? Shirts didn't become unisex immediately they appeared. You know this, which is why you're trying to stretch the definition to even include buba

They started at the same time. It is modern fashion that makes this basic meaning to be lost on many. Call it garment, robe, clothes, apparel or whatever archaic name. The basic definition of a shirt still matches all upper body clothing. BTW, here is another wiki link It also says that there are different TYPES of shirts. Among the types of shirts it listed are dress shirts, t-shirt, long sleeve shirt, sleeveless shirt, polo shirt, sweatshirt, A-shirt(which is also known as vest or singlet), camisole, tunic, halter top etc. The point is that they are almost inseparable etymologically, you cannot compare that to trousers that even you would agree that it was generally known as male's wear few decades ago globally, and is still being thought as a male's wear in some circles.

I understand where you are going but i'm sure when shirts made their appearance, women were forbidden from touching it. But the situation is different now. It's not about my views. There are a lot of things in the Torah that will entrap you and i today if we have to be judged by Moses. I might not fully understand that verse, but it's better to keep quiet about it than stretch the truth about shirts just to enforce it like you're doing now. There's nothing about trouser in that verse. If trousers is an abomination for ladies because men started wearing it, then so are shirts.

Actually it is you that seems to be stretching the truth. from common knowledge, we know that trousers have for long been known as belonging to men, and the aim of the verse seems to be to avoid eroding dissimilarities in dressing. Here is yet another wiki link again. i do not depend on or love giving unnecessary links. i'm just showing you that this things are general knowledge, not things coming out of my imaginations. Some statements from the link below.
trousers have been largely worn by men and not by women until the early 20th century.
In Britain during the Second World War, because of the rationing of clothing, many women took to wearing their husbands' civilian clothes to work
In 1969 Rep. Charlotte Reid (R-Ill.) became the first woman to wear trousers in the U.S. Congress.

Also, here
Western women are often seen wearing trousers, ties, and men's hats. Nevertheless, many cultures around the world still prohibit women from wearing trousers or other traditionally male clothing.

what would you say about the following verses

Deuteronomy 22:11 KJV
Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

Deuteronomy 22:9 KJV
Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.

Do you obey them?

i do not think it right to build a bible verse interpretation on what an individual does. The verse in question is Deut 22v5. Propping up other verses to cancel it or make it seem ridiculous is not the way out. To be short though, i will quote a new testament commentary on a similar verse.
Deu 25:4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.
1Co 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
1Co 9:10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

The new testament does not pick up this OT verses to point out its ridiculousness. It does not even say that they are irrelevant or useless. In fact, it says in this case that they are written for our sakes. If 25v4 is written for our sakes, is there not a probability that 22 might have been written for our sakes too. Why do we not instead ask God for its personal application and interpretation in our life and grace to do His will? Have you considered that passages like 2corinth 6v14 are applications from this same 22v9-11 that you are asking about? i do not think any scripture irrelevant or a tool to cancel out other scriptures that i do not like or understand. i instead ask God for grace and understaanding. And when He gives it, i do not go about condemning or lambasting others that do not have light or understanding or my view point. that's what i can say as regards those verses.

haibe: Never, it doesn't fit into any of them.

1. A buba doesn't have a collar and button, This refers to shirts like TM lewin and co.

2. it is not sowed in a stretchable material or typically used for sport. This refers to t-shirts or what you call polo which is also worn casually .

Your definition showed that a shirt is A garment for the upper body made of cloth. It may have few or no buttons. Anyways, i gave you a dictionary that shows the general definition of a shirt. It's just the post above.

haibe: Where does your encarta dictionary agree that a wear like a lady's buba is a shirt.

please post those words the dictionary used with your source.

There is a microsoft encarta dictionary software on the computer i am using to type. They are not my words.

shirt [shurt]
(plural shirts)
noun
1. clothing for upper body: an item of clothing for the upper part of the body, usually made of a fairly light material and fitted with a collar, sleeves, and buttons down the front

Microsoft® Encarta® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

In this definition, all upper clothing qualifies.

blouse [blowss, blowz]
noun (plural blous·es)
1. woman's shirt: a woman's shirt

Same dictionary for blouse. The blouse is a shirt, a woman's shirt. i hope you at least agree that the buba is a blouse?
Again, all these talk about buba or shirt is not really what we were talking about. You're bringing up shirts to try to prove that they are men's wear. But no, they are not. There are men shirts and there are women shirts. It has always been so basically and generally.

haibe: Jesus did not go to paradise that day

John 20 : 17
(17 ) Jesus saith unto her , Touch me not ; for I
am not yet ASCENDED to my Father : but go to
my brethren , and say unto them , I ascend unto
my Father , and your Father ; and to my God ,
and your God .

Actually, He did. He said He would.
Luk 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.
(CEV) Jesus replied, "I promise that today you will be with me in paradise."
(DRB) And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee: This day thou shalt be with me in paradise.
(GNB) Jesus said to him, "I promise you that today you will be in Paradise with me."
He used a similar definite "today" earlier in the same book for zaccheus.
Luk 19:5 And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for today I must abide at thy house.
That phrase "Verily i say unto" is used 77 times in the four gospels ALL by Jesus Christ. Only Luke 23.43 has the word "today" with it. He did not have to go to paradise with His physical body, just like the thief on did cross or Lazarus or Paul. His body laid in the grave, though it ascended some weeks later.

Paradise is in heaven presently

2 Corinthians 12: 2 -4
(2 ) I knew a man in Christ above fourteen
years ago, ( whether in the body , I cannot tell;
or whether out of the body , I cannot tell: God
knoweth such an one CAUGHT UP to the third
heaven.
(3 ) And I knew such a man, (whether in the
body, or out of the body, I cannot tell : God
knoweth
(4 ) How that he was CAUGHT UP into paradise ,
and heard unspeakable words , which it is not
lawful for a man to utter.
Revelation 2 : 7

(7 ) He that hath an ear , let him hear what the
Spirit saith unto the churches ; To him that
overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life,
which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

And I John saw the holy city, new
Jerusalem, COMING DOWN from God OUT OF HEAVEN, prepared as a bride adorned for
her husband. rev 21:2


Now that you know paradise is up in heaven presently and that Jesus had not gone to heaven after ressurection, what does that tell you?

i did not initially say that paradise was down before. It is evident that Jesus's spirit went to paradise, God always heard Him, and He prayed the Father to receive His spirit.
Luk 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Mark Miwerds: Thank you, frosbel.

I am saddened that one that names the name of Christ could speak so cruelly. But then again I have to expect it more and more. We are living in the time that the prophet Isaiah spoke of in 740 B.C.; a time when men would put forth darkness for light, calling good evil and evil good.

i hope to see you show me the cruel things i spoke at least so that i may learn that such things are cruel. Again, quite sorry to offend you. Your continual reference to your disability was disturbing too.

Candour: Are you also trying to catch some fun with Mark's post?

Hope you're still exulting in the ecstacy of the enjoyment you've just had at his expense?

You make fun of a blind man and tell him not to take offense? Your value system beats the imagination

I hope your enjoyment lasts very long indeed

i did not make fun at his condition. It's good to see that what was being driven at is come to light. i simply kidded with him on NOT GIVING TITHE. It's a line that i can jokingly direct at you or frosb or any of the antitithers here. If you or the others have learnt anything from what i teach, you would have smiled over it rightly and not have condemned the guiltless. i know for certain that some folks here would gladly send me to hell if it was in their power, na so the tithe thin pain them reach. lets see how the cop out plays.

Mark Miwerds: Did I say I was looking for sympathy? No, I did not. If I were looking for sympathy, I would be giving people on this forum my address and asking for cards and money. I have not done that, nor do I plan to.

It takes money to survive. My disability check is less than 600 dollars a month. Rent takes 400 of it, electricity, 105-112 a month depending on whether it is winter or summer. The rest is groceries. Have you tried to live on 85 to 90 dollars worth of groceries for a month lately?

Keep up with your false accusations. I'm sure the Lord is pleased with them... NOT!

spare me the details. Thank God for His Spirit. As if i knew what was behind already. Every one, lets sympatize please, sympathize. Nothin insultin or wrong with what i said. Again if it offends you, sorry.

DrummaBoy: Image123 please before you go consider the rules you put down.

1. How does it affect the discussion at hand?

2. Does is not bind the liberty of others? The rules I suggested you propose should pertain to these thread alone and not other threads.

In the light of this, I suggest that the rule you proposed be modified to:

Discussants are not permitted to quote an opposing discussants in other threads; nor are they permitted to refer to this thread in other threads in the duration in which the discourse ensues.

If this is fine with you and Candour/Miwerds, then we would make it law. If not, we may just as well shop for another tither to do the job.

i do not see it a thing of liberty to continue talking about tithe every day of one's life. i'm helping these fellows with self discipline and control.
Okay, i will have a rethink and get back to you tomorrow, if the space is still vacant.

debosky: I say well done to you all. . . .not sure there's much to be gained from yet another tithing discussion, but I guess you have your motives.

The positions of the main discussants here is fairly clear and I suspect that will not change on the basis of this discussion.

if you do get it off the ground, I will be interested to see where the discussions go.

exactly debo, exactly. i sincerely do not understand this peoples's fixation.

Mark Miwerds: no love of money here at all. Disability check is gone by the third of the month every month; paying Rent, electric and groceries. No luxuries.

Any other false accusations you want to throw out there?

Btw, Where did you say we could find that verse in the Bible that tells us God requires us to tithe our money?

mr, you're not the first disabled fellow. Stop using it for sympathy talk. Sorry but the whole section does not need to know or be reminded about your status. Take it graciously, no bi my fault say windows of heaven no open for your room joor. Your check is gone by 3rd of the month, hose fault or business na. i do not mean to offend you anyway, sincerely. But pls save it.

Candour: OK image, if I may ask, how did you arrive at 2 months abstinence?

Why not 1 or 3 months? Why not just the duration of the discussion?

What is it about the 2 months?

Nothing special about the two months oh. abi make we make am 3? i'm tryin to help folks deal with their addictions na. lol
But really, if the goal of the thread frm the OP is a finality to these endless tithe talk, strive and back and forth that is said not to be helpin readers, what is the big deal in abstaining from debate for just 2months. BTW, even the proposed discuss might enter two months na. i'm sure if you had agreed, mark will have followed. na you dey waste our time oh abi una dey fear discuss with me. i see, make i go call zukky then.

Mark Miwerds: it seems this discussion is at an impasse. When a discussant makes terms that tie your hands from being true to God, and they will not relent, you can see the real motive behind the terms.

We may not get any to coherently and respectively discuss the issue of tithes with us.

By the way, I received your email, and am working on adding that in. Great suggestion!

oh tell us more about being true to God. You seem to think its about making endless circular talk about tithes, ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth? What is the big deal about staying off tithe talk on NL for just two months? Don't you have anything else of importance to say? Meanwhile, you were even allowed to continue saying all your discuss on this thread. When tithe talk is made akin to tying your hands, its clear to the discerning where your treasure really lies. Like mr C said, it's a question of honour, you cannot serve God and mammon.

OLAADEGBU: Don't mind those creepy crawlies, they are used to biting themselves many atimes.

Listen on to this conversation between two descendants of vipers:

Snake #1:  "Are we poisonous?"

Snake #2:  "I don't know. . . . Why asking?"

Snake #1:  "I've just bitten my tongue." 

(Who said that the old serpent shot himself in the foot? no wonder he had no leg to stand on)

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha, my brother Ola. Na wa oh

Candour: My dear, you can see i'm not begging for a discussion. I was even just chosen as an ally, the same way Gombs chose Bidam so come down from your high horse.

Because i'm discussing with you, i should forget every other thing abi?

You gave conditions bordering on the ridiculous and i refused, why take offense?

Not offended oh, those are my little terms. Bye and take care.
BTW, you should realise that the terms also affect me and my supposed ally.

haibe: Jesus wasn't lieing, only that there is a punctuation error in that statement.

What Jesus obviously meant is that: I say unto you today, you will be with me in paradise.

paradise is a future event.

you can answer me now

Why would He say unto him TODAY? What is His purpose of adding the word TODAY naa? Here it is again.
Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Yes Jesus went to paradise that day. Like Stephen, He went commending His inner man into God's hands. Paradise is not just future, remember Paul also was caught up there and he wrote of it.

frosbel: where is paradise now ?

Is there paradise?

haibe: Does that mean when a sinner dies, he goes to hades and start burning in fire immediately or that those in hell can view those in heaven crying for water?? or that there is a big gulf fixed between both places.

Jesus means what He says and says what He means. If the Bible says it, i believe it and that settles it for me. you can go ask god for logical explanations, thanks. If you have real questions, do ask. But if all you want to keep asking me in different forms is if God's word is true or possible, count me out.

haibe: What the disciples experienced at the mount of transfiguration was a pure vision which depicted how glorious we would be at the ressurection. This isn't so different from peter vision of the unclean beasts.

you didn't answer my question, did Jesus go to paradise that day?

i'm waiting for my answers na. see my questions again.
Did Jesus lie when He told the thief that they will meet in paradise that day? In fact, did Jesus even say anything about paradise to the thief, and what did He say if you think He said anything?

it appears you are reading me selectively as well, not wholly. So, you are saying that Moses and Elijah did not appear to Jesus, or God ddid not speak? What is wrong again with vision. When gabriel appeared in vision, did he not appear.
The Bible showed us that Elijah is not unconscious when it showed him come to Jesus on the mount of transfiguration to speak of His demise. It also tells us that a cloud of WITNESSES are around us. Witnesses are not unconscious, knowing nothing. The Bible is filled with all these illustrations and passages. Paul talks about being in a strait, wanting to depart and be with the Lord. the souls under the altar are not unconscious knowing nothing.

haibe: My point is simple, do not take that parable literally or else a lot of questions would arise.

i take it possibly, and no wise unanswered question so far since i took it so.