₦airaland Forum

@Retired service man from Kogi

Excellent comprehension skills you got, and whatever drugs you experimented with in your soja days you have clearly since given them up.

Carry go, sir. Na you biko.

Double post.

@JeSoul
Things are good here. Thanks. You?

Just so I know I'm understanding you, can you please describe the "primary ingredient that constitutes" biblical faith?

JeSoul:
Au contraire - it is ignorance borne from poverty that is fed by greed - that's not faith according to the bible. And the rest of your quote below:

Strong underlying factors, these. Faith gives the push. You know, sometimes these factors are not even present. I seriously doubt you can take faith out of it.

[quote author=aloy@emeka]They tell events in history and from that, one can guess their age. It is like a young girl who told you she was little during the gulf war, you can easily guess her age from that fact.  May be the woman successfully told the story of world war I or how Mary Slessor used to bring her wrapper and akwette.[/quote]Good you said maybe. I can bet this woman hasn't told them any WWI stories or Mary Slessor's favourite colour. There are many 100 and 120 year old women all over the place in Nigeria. Our people lie a lot about these things.

success4:
120 years ke? People are at it again!
With this picture I see, she is not even near 100yrs

Right.

Your closing summary is tendentious and uninspiring. The supercharged quest55 said I failed to get it because I lacked the Holy Spirit. Now you say it's because I don't preach. Why do you people resort to this when there are no facts to rely on or logic fails and the thinness of your argument becomes clear?

No, I don't need to be a Witness or do the house to house preaching to know what sending someone out to preach and telling him not to go house to house means. The isolated territory thing has been addressed in my post. And I have asked if you know of people who move accommodation daily and where this has posed a problem to preachers such that Jesus had a pressing need to warn against it.

If you don't accept the verse where Jesus forbade house to house preaching, how about the personal examples he set? I understand that the verse in question, once highlighted, would come as a shock to rank and file Witnesses, which explains why you had to rush to the Insight book. But rather than give you some insight the material only confused the situation further. Unfortunately you can't spot this, having ascribed superiority to its authors, perceiving them as the link between the Holy Spirit and you. Not being able to read the Bible or think without funneling it through some men must be a tough situation to be in!

TrueSeeker:
Since you call for my help, lets start this way.
We are to use TBS as Town, then stores as houses on your analogy. Lets break it down this way. Assuming that your Ngozi will do what the disciples will do that is staying there for a while. She will find a place where she can use as her shop, or store at that location people can come to her to buy bread, people in other stores can equally invite her to sell bread to them, she will have to leave her store and give it to them. Is she transferring from store to store? Perhaps in the evening she might decide to do some hawking, after hawking round the stores she come back to her store. Has she transfer from store to store for hawking around? Since she is only using one store as her own. can you say she is transferring from store to store? But you will quite agree with me that she will be transferring from store to store if she stays in one store in the morning, another in the afternoon, and yet another in the evening.
Do you now perceive the meaning of do not be "transferring from house to house"?

This is what Deep Sight calls a summersault.

What you have done, sir, is bring in a different analogy in which we see, not only vast change to the scenario, but actors egregiously casting aside specific instructions out of presumptuousness.

I said she was sent to TBS, a park, to sell, not asked to relocate to another town. If Jesus sent them to relocate to another town and the instruction was to camp in one place and preach house to house from there, why tell them not to transfer? If Iya wanted Ngozi to go and open a shop from which she could hawk, why tell her not to transfer? The petty traders I know either rent a small shop or hawk. Do you know any that stay in one shop in the morning, another in the afternoon and another in the evening, such that instructions have to be given against that anytime principals are sending out their helpers?

Apply your mind to the analogy and get the parallels. Jesus sent the men to PREACH. Iya Ngozi sent Ngozi to SELL. Jesus did not send them to camp like Boy Scout, or move house. That is why in my analogy, Iya Ngozi did not send her to (i) open a shop (ii) do some hawking. Jesus asked them to find the best place and stay there. Iya Ngozi asked her helper to do the same. And both then added that there should be no moving around. In fact, it doesn't require much perception to see that Iya Ngozi was against hawking (transferring from place to place) either because she considered it an unprofitable way to do business or thought it was inherently unsafe for Ngozi, or both.

Instructions say: “Do not transfer from place to place.” (There is something called a general advice. There is something else called a specific instruction.)

TrueSeeker says: “Perhaps in the evening she might decide to do some hawking.”

What can I say to that than to remind you of 1 Sam 15:22,23 (NWT):
To obey is better than a sacrifice, to pay attention than the fat of rams; 23 for rebelliousness is the same as the sin of divination, and pushing ahead presumptuously the same as [using] uncanny power and teraphim.

Please try again.

stoutlady:
'At 50 Britain was still battling with King Arthur and the Knights of the round table, so Nigeria is not doing too badly (or something similar to that effect)- Diezani Madueke

This has got to be the dumbest.

TrueSeeker:
@ MyJoe
Why not prove the interpretation wrong.

Because this is becoming circular, and when that happens I usually leave it. I already proved the interpretation wrong by what I wrote. The interpretation is wrong and doesn't merit to have much time given specially to it since Jesus' instructions were primarily directed at evangelism, the purpose of the outing, not procedure for receiving and processing hospitality.

And I did not attack "the source". I only stated it and passed a comment on how you receive and process materials from its authors.

TrueSeeker: Read all my post again. I have provided a bible base explanation to that earlier. Unless you need to understand the meaning of not “transferring from house to house.” is different from don't preach from house to house.

Yes I do. Use this word problem.
Iya Ngozi to Ngozi:
Ngo, PDP's women wing's having a rally at TBS. Carry this tray of bread and mayonnaise to go sell. Make sure you find where they relax and stay there. Don't be transfering from place to place.
I need to understand that don't transfer from place to place is different from don't SELL from place to place. Help me.

TrueSeeker:
I think you get concluding part of the interpretation wrong. Ask yourself what will Jesus disciples do if they were not accepted in the first house they knock? They will move to the next house.

That is a likely scenario. They enter a city and finding no aggreable venue decide to enter the house of a complete stranger. But they are not well received, so they try another house. Yes, a likely scenario. But flip the question and ask yourself: what will Jesus disciples do if they were accepted in the first house they knocked? They will stay there and preach to the crowds. Remember Jesus at the house of Nicodemus.

TrueSeeker: Is that not house to house preaching?

No. Certainly not as enunciated by the JW.

TrueSeeker: Mind you Jesus has asked them to find the deserving one in the city or the town or village they enter. They will continuing searching for the deserving one in the village, town or city in each of the houses?

What then did Jesus meant by saying to them not be “transferring from house to house.”?

It may be noted that Jesus always imparted spiritual blessings when enjoying the hospitality of his host. (Lu 5:27-39; 19:1- For a similar reason he told his disciples whom he sent out that when they reached a town, they should stay in the home where hospitality was extended them and not be “transferring from house to house.” They should not be thus seeking a place where the householder could provide them with more comfort, entertainment, or material things.—Lu 10:1-7; Mr 6:7-11

Finally, we have a considered response to “Do not be transferring from house to house.” (NWT) I observe it's lifted verbatim from page 1151 of Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1. I would have preferred your own response, but Witnesses appear to have this thing about letting the leadership of the church think for them. Those who have bought a Brooklyn bridge, thinking it’s a bridge to God, believe that God speaks through some men in Brooklyn, have absolute faith in these men’s interpretation of the Bible, God and the cosmos, and believe that whatever they pronounce right is right, and whatever they pronounce wrong wrong. But that’s another matter and is hardly unique to the JW, so no wahala.

TrueSeeker: Jesus is telling his disciples that they should not be transferring base in the village, town or city. They should stayed with the person that first show hospitality to them. That does not meant they will stop they preaching work their, but from their new house they can go  round the town to carry out Jesus commandment, namely to preach God's Kingdom.

Nowhere does it imply that they were to go around. They were to stay in one place. That is what the scripture text says. Not only did it say stay there, it says, “no house to house”.

TrueSeeker: (Matthew 10:11) 11 “Into whatever city or village YOU enter, search out who in it is deserving, and stay there until YOU leave.

Highlighted sums it all up quite neatly. Stay in one place like Jesus did and anyone who wants will come hear you.

The Halleluyah Diet is good if you intend to do it for a short duration, or short durations, that is, some weeks or months a year. No, it does not cure all ailments, but it appears to cure such nasty ailments like diabetes with ease. It is even said to cure cancer, but I am still trying to get more info on that one. The thing  with HD is that it takes all animal and fish products out of your diet. This is beyond vegetarianism, since most vegetarians eat stuffs like eggs and milk. This is veganism. The problem with that is that your body is starved of essential irons and vitamin B12. Vegans and Hallelluyah Dieters have been known to suffer from ailments relating to iron and vitamin B-12 deficiency. You will find a vegan in the US suffering from ailments you only find in places like Somalia.

So if you have a troublesome ailment you believe HD might give you relief from, you may try it. But set yourself the duration so that you can resume consumption of animal and fish products before you suffer any serious damage.

If you are considering going on a diet, I suggest you research your options before deciding on one. There are several - Ayurvedic Diet, the Atkins Diet, and several others I can't recall right now. Personally, I think your Ayurvedic Diet is great. Yes, I have tried stuff like this.

And, whatever you do, don't go on HD if you are pregnant or think you may be pregnant!

______________

And, please watch it with Missy_B. I'm a jealous lover. If you ignore this warning I will personally force you to go on the Halleluyah Diet for 10 years.

Ijogz K:
I wasn't that direct,  If anyone took it that personal it's probably due to low self esteem "LST"

No, you were just trying to "describe poverty" as a disease of public university folks.

I see that your problem is very complex - like all mind problems are. That is why you think my self esteem is the problem here rather than your ability to think properly. Godspeed and have a field day in your delusions.

Ijogz K:
I don't know Y u guyz are hating on the OP,  And don't take the kerosene Issue "P" I just didn't have a better way to describe poverty  

So you think the kerosene is what is wrong with what you wrote, not the fact you tried to "describe poverty" in the context you did. Okay, lemme help you find a better way to describe things. How about: later on some poverty addled kids with lazy and poverty stricken parents will come and hate and complain about rich kids like me whose rich parents worked hard to send us to Covenant University,  Shouting and Barking like Dog's that Covenant University Standard is low because they produced 85 First class graduates.

Ijogz K:
I don't know Y u guyz are hating on the OP,  And don't take the kerosene Issue "P" I just didn't have a better way to describe poverty  

So you think the kerosene is all that is wrong with what you wrote. Okay, lemme help you find a better way to describe things. How about: later on some poverty addled kids with lazy and poverty stricken parents will come and hate and complain about rich kids like me whose rich parents worked hard to send us to Covenant University,  Shouting and Barking like Dog's that Covenant University Standard is low because they produced 85 First class graduates.

[quote author=Evil_Brain]Why don't you ask yourself how a major leader of the opposition and "proven theif" can still be walking around freely buying airlines and being a thorn in the ruling party's side? Maybe its because there's no serious evidence against him. Or maybe there's evidence but our chief security officer is too busy being rètarded to do anything about it.

Or perhaps GEJ doesn't want to set the precedent of sending a fellow ex-governor to prison. Maybe he knows that his own immunity won't last forever and that his cup (as well those of 90% of his PDP friends) is full to overflowing.[/quote]Good points. We need to consider these.

[quote author=Evil_Brain]I'll be glad to see Tinubu go to prison for corruption as long as all the PDP ex-governors, ex-ministers, ex-presidents, Turai Yar'Adua and Dame Dr. Mrs. Jonathan go first.[/quote]Your point is: Mr Tinubu should go to jail but must be the last person to do so?

So those who went to Federal and State universities had kerosene background and lazy parents while those who went to Covenant University had electricity background and hardworking parents. Great post.

toba:
Anyone who calls samson a suicide bomber is a mumu.

No, they are not. Besides, calling those who disagree with you names is a method of debating much discredited.

toba: He did what he did out of revenge cos they would have killed him anyway and of course his eyes were plucked out.

So if a man is going to die, he should take as many as possible with him, is that it? Today's Islamic suicide bombers will love your thesis.

toba: The video of the boko haram that we say shows no one attacked the mumu who was asking God to aid him to kill innocent pple that did him no wrong

You, like the other posters, have not addressed the issue of whether Samson was a suicide bomber or not. I would say Samson invented suicide bombing, and in Gaza of all places!

As someone correctly observed, he did not plant any bombs, so he was no bomber. But in bringing down a building on himself in order to kill his enemies, including their wives who came to watch him being humiliated, he was the perfect model for today's suicide bombers in Gaza and elsewhere.

tbaba1234:
For Q1.
",  Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly [with them], then only one, " Q 4:3

The above verse permits a man to take more than one wife on the condition that he can deal justly with them.  So justice  between wives is a precondition to marry more than one,  This offers a practical solution to some of the societal problems. For example, In war torn regions of Africa, there are many widows caught in tough financial conditions because they have to take care of their kids alone. The Islamic model offers them Justice in a family environment.  In the African American community in the U.S., there are so many men in prisons that the ratio of men to women is unfavourably skewed. We have many women without husbands and end up being mistresses and 'baby mamas'. It is a practical solution to problems societies face.

Also, Islamically a man provides for his family,  Whatever a woman earns belongs to her and she has the freedom to do whatever she wants with it.

A muslim woman who doesn't want to be in a polygamous marriage can include the condition in her marriage contract. With that in her contract, her husband can not take more wives.

Sound.

Deep Sight:
Do you regard sharia punishments such as amputation in cases of theft, stoning in cases of adultery, etc to be humane punishments? Do you not think that these are rather archaiaic punishments which ought to have been since phased out? Do you think it is ideal for modern societies to adhere strictly to codes of punishments set out by very ancient traditions?

As a followup to the above or to rephrase it, do you think that precepts, a system of ethics, code of conduct or laws developed in the 7th century can work successfully in the 21st century? Should Islam be "modernised"?

*Sighs*

I ought to ask you the following questions and leave the matter.
Did Jesus preach from house to house?
Did Jesus ask anyone to preach from house to house?
Did Jesus leave the house of Nicodemus and knock on the next door?

But I will venture further, since I am unlikely to respond to your next post.

quest55:
I don't think JWs officially or unofficially say this. It is your own ignorant conclusion. I have not come across any such equation. they only belive it is an effective modern method , having tried public preaching, radio preaching etc. i guess you either don't know this or you ignore it[/b].

I was pursuing your line of thinking, not what you say “officially or unofficially”. Read what TrueSeeker (who I have a lot of respect for for his calmness and sincerity) wrote and my response to it again. And I was not expressing an opinion as to whether house to house preaching is good or bad, effective or infective. I was pointing out that asserting that Jesus or the apostles preached house to house or instructed anyone to preach house to house is one bold argument that cannot be sustained. It is an error. Note, not preaching at a house or houses, but preaching from house to house, knocking from door to door.

If you had a "traditional" wedding at Isuikwuato village and someone who had a “white” wedding keeps telling you to go get married, would you not conclude that to his mind you are not married?

This is from the Awake of April 22, 1970:
The true religion can further be identified by its preaching of God’s kingdom. Jesus Christ also set the example in bearing this fruitage, for he journeyed “from city to city and from village to village, preaching and declaring the good news of the kingdom of God.” (Luke 8:1) And his first-century followers imitated him, calling with the Kingdom message “from house to house.”—Acts 20:20, 25.
Who, then, are taking the Kingdom message to the homes of the people today, and doing it in the way Jesus and his apostles did? When you see a minister calling from house to house and you hear him talk about God’s kingdom as mankind’s true hope, with what religion do you usually associate him?

Since the ”true religion” (Jehovah’s Witnesses), to your minds, can be identified by its preaching, is there a chance that the “false religions” are also preaching?

And, oh yes, since you brought it up, the Witnesses do “officially and unofficially” say they are the only ones preaching. This is from The Watchtower of June 1, 1994:
An important way in which we show love for our fellowmen is by witnessing to them about God’s Kingdom. Only one group of people is doing this work that Jesus foretold. (Mark 13:10) These are Jehovah’s Witnesses. 

I can cite more than 20 instances of the above claim from your publications. How about you take your ignorant statement and the guessing one and flip them around at yourself? 

quest55: You ignore the shreds of evidence and turn to say it is not there.

There is no shred of evidence that house to house is a more effective method of preaching than other methods. If there is, bring it forth. On the contrary, evidence abounds that it is not.

quest55: Jesus encouraged his disciples to enter into houses and linger there.

Yes, but what did he say about going house to house? Did he (i) say "do it", (ii) keep silent on it, or (iii) say "don't do it"? But I can see you are quite resourceful. So, perhaps, you can find us a way to make "linger in a house" mean "move from house to house".

quest55: Your quote does not exist in John 10: 6-8 try another scripture verse!

It exists in the Bible. Luke, not John. Were you unaware of that, was just being devious, or this is your idea of being clever?

quest55: This is a typical example of turning the bible upside down! The lord says enter into the house. Ordinary man like you say Jesus hates it, because you fail to pray for the spirit of anointing as you read it. hatred of one group of Christians has covered your eyes from being objective.

Yes, Jesus says enter into the house. Did you miss where I acknowledged that and offered a simple enough explanation to dismiss what some sincere folks from the house to house tradition might see as a contradiction? Tell me, sir, did Jesus leave the HOUSE of Nicodemus and knock on the next door? Did he leave the house of Mary and Martha and go to the next house? Did he meet and call the twelve while preaching house to house? Indeed, is there a single record of Jesus preaching house to house?

If you think before typing and know the meaning of the word “objective”, please highlight general and specific examples from anything I have typed here remotely indicative of any hatred for your group. Thank you.

quest55: "Do not move around from house to house"

Does this mean don't PREACH from house to house? How will they enter one house in the first place if that was the meaning? PRAY for interpretation. I have.

So to your mind sending someone out to PREACH and telling him “do not move around from house to house” does not mean “do not PREACH around from house to house”. Tell us what it means, please. And permit me to say that if all you got from your prayers is that “Do not move around from house to house” means “preach from house to house, didn’t you see that in the previous verse?” you need to stop what you have been drinking or change that prayer mat of yours or both.

quest55: Empty philosophy don't you think.

No. But if you say so, show how it is empty, please. It is the only explanation offered so far, so as long as you have not offered a counter explanation, it stands. You know, I can pick on any post around here and call it empty. But I would have placed upon myself the burden of demonstrating such emptiness. And, of course, your “empty philosophy” quip is not original – it’s an old cliché from your clan. Meaning what? Meaning that you have failed to offer any response that is minimally cerebral or sensible to my explanation.

quest55: The missionaries never followed Jesus. they were slave merchants and businessmen. Crusades has its place if done NOT solely to attract church attendance.

You don’t think much of the missionaries? Neither do I. But that is another topic, please. I was making a comparison of preaching methods not talking about Witnesses are good people or missionaries were slave traders. Or do you deny that the missionaries won millions of our people over to the churches? If you want to talk about the quality of Christians they created or evaluate modern day Christianity in general, that would be an interesting topic. Open a thread. I will be reading the thread and may even participate in it.

quest55: Until you personalize evangelism people will just hear you and many will not take action. it is an ineffective way of conversion from the heart.

Stay in one place – mountain, HOUSE, synagogue, under the udala tree, bank of River Osun, inside a molue, beside Iya Wosila's buka, anywhere hospitable - and attract a crowd. That is how Jesus preached. How, in your esteemed opinion, does preaching that way preclude personalization? When he preached to crowds at the Mount of Olives, or the house of Nicodemus, people were not forbidden to ask questions. He gained 120 disciples besides many others who put faith in him. When church people preach through crusades today, they distribute tracts and collect phone numbers for follow up and personal evangelism with people who had already demonstrated interest.

quest55: JWs score a high point on that. other Churches send their members to study their methods by inviting them in for a discussion. personally I detest that woman with loudspeaker repeating the same sermon when I want to lay back in bed on Saturday morning!

So do I. But you do have a mirror, don’t you? Maybe you were born a JW and so have never been at the receiving end of having someone knock on your door when all you want to do on a Sunday afternoon is sleep. Do you know how aggravating some find the house to house to preaching? And there are many, perhaps most people, who, while trying to observe a rest, would pick a woman droning on impersonally in the streets with a public address system over a knock on the door by two folks bringing the same message to try to recruit them and their kids.

quest55: FALSE!!!!!
1. The verse is a report of ALL his activities.
2. the brethren were initially non believers, Jewish proselytes or Greeks.
they later became believers. so paul gave a summary of that progress.
3. He "declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus" In your own church does your pastors and members continue to need this basic teachings? HABA
PRAY ON THIS BELIEVE ME!
4. Also is it an issue to KNOCK ON DOORS!

Do you admit that Paul was in that verse talking to fellow Christians? Yours is a case of finding an explanation that fits your beliefs – or rather, the beliefs dictated to you.

quest55: This is NOT what Paul meant. What you mentioned above is "the visitation of the converted brethren for encouragement" and is different from general preaching to win souls and to correct the errors of those who are perishing and snatch them from the fire of eternal destruction.

Yes. It’s different. Where have I said it isn’t? What I said is that Paul was in that verse talking to “the converted brethren” about his relationship with them. It’s a shame we have no verse where he boasted about having preached house to house to strangers in Antioch or to unbelievers in Thessalonica.

quest55: Over to you.

If you respond like what you did above next time, sir, forget about handing over to me. Thank you.

brogabriel:
e. 12 percent of adults believe that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife

That was funny.

brogabriel: b. We reward the wicked (movie stars, entertainers), depriving
            the good (teachers, etc.)

You, or the person that wrote this, do have quick opinions, sir.

TrueSeeker:
Jesus did the preaching, his disciples were under obligation to do same.

Right. But the problem, I think, is that you people equate “preaching” with “house to house preaching”. In your minds, anyone preaching house to house is preaching; anyone not doing so, even if using other methods of preaching, is not. This stance is strange, particularly when you consider the fact that there is no shred of evidence that house to house is a more effective method of preaching than other methods. But that is by the way. If you read your write-up again you will find that you did not actually show from Bible that Jesus commanded anyone to preach from house to house. Whereas I can show you that Jesus forbade house to house preaching without mincing words.
John 10:6-8 (NIV)
5 “When you enter a house, first say, ‘Peace to this house.’ 6 If someone who promotes peace is there, your peace will rest on them; if not, it will return to you. 7 Stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.

Since Jesus did not want his followers to preach from house to house, why did he say in the earlier verse “when entering into a house, greet”? Even a cursory reading will show there is no contradiction. Since there was preaching from town to town and village to village, it was inevitable that houses would be entered. In the olden days when you got to a town as a stranger, it was not uncommon to find the house of a village head, priest, anyone with some authority, or anyone who is hospitable. We have records of Jesus in people’s houses – Martha and Mary, Nicodemus, Peter’s mother-in-law, etc – even though he never preached from house to house.

Some churches today declare a crusade to which people who want to hear the message are invited. The early missionaries that came to Africa used to stay in one place – the chief’s house, the market square, etc - to which anyone interested would come and listen to their message. This is more line with the tradition of Jesus and the apostles. This was what Jesus did at the Mount of Olives, at the house of Nicodemus and other places.

You wrote this:

TrueSeeker: Jesus himself did the preaching work

You did not add “from house to house”. Why? Because Jesus never preached from house to house! We have records of him preaching at the mount of Olives, at Martha’s house, to the woman at the well, but not from house to house.

The apostles, in line with Jesus’ clear directives, did not preach from house to house. They would have been going against Jesus’ directives if they did. At least, there is no evidence that they did.

And there is no reason to conclude from that Paul knocked door to door. Let us look at the verse you cited:
Acts 20:17-20 (NIV)
17 From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church. 18 When they arrived, he said to them: “You know how I lived the whole time I was with you, from the first day I came into the province of Asia. 19 I served the Lord with great humility and with tears and in the midst of severe testing by the plots of my Jewish opponents. 20 You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house. 21 I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

That verse does not talk about visiting strangers. It talks about visiting fellow believers in their houses. It is a Christian talking to other Christians, and it appears a deliberate misreading for anyone to cite it in support of house to house to preaching. In the first century, there was a tradition of visiting fellow Christians to encourage them and Paul did this. In Lagos, Pastor Itua Ighodalo when he was at the Christchurch parish of the RCCG used to visit his parishioners at home to teach and encourage them. This was what Paul did and spoke of here.

The only biblical ground for house to house preaching, then, is Acts 5:41-42. But that is only when you do a surface reading. Comparing scripture with scripture (apologies to HisChild) you find that the disciples did not preach from house to house. And if you read verse 25 of that chapter you find that when the apostles were arrested in that instance, they were preaching, not from house to house, but at the temple courts.

Edit
The records we have of Jesus at peoples' houses were appointed visits. Martha and Mary were friends. Nicodemus' was by appointment.

kabasa77: @ My Joe, Please Sir kindly point out the areas that are wrong in my post and as for the divinity part,do you know the definition of the word DIVINITY?   Everything i wrote about the doctrines of JW is true and am waiting to read otherwise

Ok.

1. “The Witnesses don’t believe in the Divinity of Jesus.” This is wrong. The way I understand it, they believe Jesus is not the same person as God the Father, but that he is (i) the son of God (ii) came from heaven (iii) is godlike, that is, has the nature of God (iv) is a god. Now, that’s how “divine” you get.
On whether angels are divine or not, I don’t like quibbling over words very much. While we can debate that, it will not add or remove anything from what I just wrote above.

2. “Trinity”. You are right on this one. But you seriously want to tell someone Witnesses are not following the Bible and you bring up Trinity? Sure you can argue Trinity into one or two verses of the Bible, but you will only get away with it if there is no 5 y/o Witness around to ply you with 10 scriptures countering the doctrine.

3. “They reject the concept of heaven and hell.” This is wrong. They accept the concept of heaven and hell.

4. “They believe heaven is meant for only 144,000 with everyone else damned. This is also wrong. They believe heaven is meant for God, Jesus, the angels and 144,000 humans. They believe the rest of the good people will enjoy in a paradise earth.

5. “They share brotherly love.” This point is not entirely true. The Witnesses appear to share a conditional kind of love. But, yeah, from a distance, all that glitters may be gold.

Image123: Here comes MyJoe, the defender of the universe.

Lol. If I didn’t dislike titles so much I would have considered this one.

I thank God there are no 5year olds on NL, what a relief.

Don't be so sure.

quest55: 99% truth + 1% poison is still poison. Your summaries are biased and misleading but worst of all  FALSE.

Would you be so kind to point out a single biased and misleading point in the post under question?

olaolaking: But Jehovah witnesses see it as a must for them to do as responce to Jesus order (go from house to house and teach people). What other way can a religion show that it is no part of the world. Jesu said it too. For the issue of TRINITY, HELL etc. Ask them about it and they will support whatever they say with bible. [i]They will buttress thier ponits with bible qutations with references. [/i]But ask other religious group why they beleve in trinity and they will not be able to explain using bible.

Bolded is a direct lie which you can’t support “with Bible quotations and references”. Nowhere did Jesus ask anyone to preach from house to house, is there?

Chrisbenogor: Trust me freecocoa you are better off on your own that join any organised religion, you have shown that you can think for yourself. Dont stop there by joining people who will start doing the thinking for you. STAY ON YOUR OWN!

Unfortunately, there are people who can’t do without organized religion. We are raised to believe that you must belong to something. Most of us never get out of this thinking. The challenge then becomes how they can protect themselves from the crack salesmen of spiritual goods who go around with their bagful of pseudoscience and the religious highwaymen who hand out serpent when their flock ask for fish.

STACYM:
Hellooo, I just want to let u know dat I was once like u (stunch catholic) and also went to other churches. I met with d witnesses and started studying with them, my dear, it was then I realize the truth about God and his purpose for mankind and I made up my mind to be in dat kind of organization. (Now unbaptise publisher).
Jehovah's witness people re been criticize for no reason just cos they know the TRUTH (as Jesus said in mathew 24:9 "u will be objects of hatred on the account of my name" . Make up your mind to join, is a WISE decision dat u will never regret, I am enjoying the benefit of my service to Jehovah, do well to join us

cocoduck:
At poster look let me tell you. If u know d truth it shall set u free but you must open your mind to know d truth. And jw always refer to d bible. Do like the beoreans who after hearing from paul went and investigated d bible on their own. Do not rely on them say. People can say what they like. These oda persons hav closed dia minds. OPEN your MIND AND INVESTIGATE WHAT U HIA ABOUT GOD 4ROM D BIBLE

Would any of you be so kind to explain this TRUTH about God you now know from the Bible through the instrumentality of the Witnesses? Thanks in advance.

Image123:
Kabassa77 has given a good post.

No, he hasn't. His post is mostly untruths and freecocoa will spot them for what they are. How, for instance, can you say someone doesn't accept the divinity of Jesus and turn around to say the person says Jesus is an angel? Since when did angels stop being divine?

While there's no church that one attends that guarantees heaven, there are however good places where the probability is enhanced. Sorry JW's not one of them. They have good and enviable fellowship BTW. Their issue is poor foundation. What's the point/good living in a beautiful mansion that has poor foundations? They miss it on fundamentals of the christian faith. They have real issues with basics like been born again, water baptism, prayer, the person of Jesus, the holy spirit, who's going to Heaven etc. I'm yet to see a perfect denomination unfortunately, but JW no near sorry.

A 5yo Witness would tear up what you have written without breaking his stride.

Cuddlemii: How can individual mistakes be attributed to all Nigerian ladies, why must men bite more than what they can chew and expect us to cater for the blotted outcome. People should learn to take responsibilities for their actions and stop disrespecting Nigerian ladies. If a lady does something, its the lady & not Nigerian ladies.

You have not contributed anything to this discussion. Op, which I seriously doubt you read, was taking, not about an "individual mistake" but about an insidious pattern of behaviour he noticed among the girls he took out in Nigeria. Did you read op? He never blamed "all" Nigerian girls, he said the ones he met. If you have the same experience with successive Nigerian ladies you come across and you notice a pattern that is not preponderant in other climes you are familiar with, what is wrong in asking questions about "Nigerian ladies"? And can you please explain how he bit more than he can chew?

Actually, materialism has destroyed the thinking process of the average Nigerian girl. What we have is a case of inverted morality where girls would call their fellow girl a "fool" if she went out with some guy without extorting anything from him. They have such a distorted value system they can no longer think properly. And it is a Nigerian problem, not just the girls.

hackney: The poster took his experience of naija chicks too personal.
Dude, you need to see it as a game.
Naija girls cannot seperate going out with a man from obtaining money and all the things they need.
when you approach them, the assumption is that you are ready to take over at least most of her financial needs; dont panick or get upset.

This is what to do:
the moment you talk to a naija girl and u start going out, as soon as she starts pushing for material things, start pushing for s.e, x.

If she stops , you stop.
If she wants things before sleeping with you then you draw up the conditions like she's a call girl.
this is just so that there are no misunderstandings.


If she wants to know if you must sleep with her, im sure u want to know if u must buy her things.
It balances up and eventually u will come to an equilibrum where you will then see the real her.
(what kind of person she really is, what she really is about,if she likes u, etc)

This is so funny.

Pastor AIO:
I was not to sure about GoldmanSachs either.  According to some other people it JP Morgan.

Lol

Anyway, I don't think the guy meant that Goldman Sachs doesn't care about the Euro package in the sense that they are not interested in what happens.  They care that whatever happens it makes them money and gives them more control over the planet's assets and resources.  Whether this is a Bull market or a Bear market.

Barely a few hours to the PDP presidential primaries of 2007, some Nigerian power brokers, including Aliko Dangote, Nasir el-Rufai and others were locked in a midnight meeting. Their purpose? To persuade "Baba", that is Mr Obasanjo, to drop Peter Odili as running mate to the anointed walking mate, Umaru Yar'Adua, and instead use either Goodluck Jonathan or Andrew Azazi. What did they have against Mr Odili? He was "too" corrupt. What did the likes of Dangote care about corruption? Interesting question. They don't mind a corrupt person becoming president, but they did not want someone "too" corrupt. They realise there is so much the country can take and being master strategists who are smart enough to subsume their interests within that of the country, albeit not all the way, they will do anything to prevent armageddon. I believe the same applies to the JPs and GSs of this world.

And while I share the view about the stock markets and the rest of them being an elaborate debacle, houses of cards kept standing up by well-coordinated government and private hypes, I do not believe for a moment that a single entity - finance houses, governments, the Bretton Woods people, witches and wizards - control the world. I think a lot of things make this broil thick and tick. Capitalism is real to a great extent. [END OF POST] or a Bear market.
[quote][/quote]Barely a few hours to the PDP presidential primaries of 2007, some Nigerian power brokers, including Aliko Dangote, Nasir el-Rufai and others were locked in a midnight meeting. Their purpose? To persuade "Baba", that is Mr Obasanjo, to drop Peter Odili as running mate to the anointed walking mate, Umaru Yar'Adua, and instead use either Goodluck Jonathan or Andrew Azazi. What did they have against Mr Odili? He was "too" corrupt. What did the likes of Dangote care about corruption? Interesting question. They don't mind a corrupt person becoming president, but they did not want someone "too" corrupt. They realise there is so much the country can take and being master strategists who are smart enough to subsume their interests within that of the country, albeit not all the way, they will do anything to prevent armageddon. I believe the same applies to the JPs and GSs of this world.

And while I share the view about the stock markets and the rest of them being an elaborate debacle, houses of cards kept standing up by well-coordinated government and private hypes, I do not believe for a moment that a single entity - finance houses, governments, the Bretton Woods people, witches and wizards - control the world. I think a lot of things make this broil thick and tick. Capitalism is real to a great extent. [END OF POST]

Sweetnecta:
My wife does not bear my family name, but hers. She does not pay any of the bills. You are a mrs and you contribute to the upkeep of your household. That is abuse, with the fact that you have to do the cooking, laundry, etc. My wife does not have to do that. This is just part of marital freedom enjoyed by muslim women, while you are being enslaved by your husband. Sharia would have protected you instead of the bible that gags you that you must not speak.

I need some clarification on this, Sweetnecta. Sharia "protects" a woman from having to bear her husband's family name, cook for him, and contribute financially to household expenses all at the same time?

Well, here's what a guy called Mark Gongloff thinks:

The Internets are ablaze with amazement over some fella named Alessio Rastani, who left jaws agape on both sides of the Atlantic by going on the teevee and saying scary things. But what he said was really not all that shocking.

There was initially a lot of debate about whether Mr. Rastani, identified during his BBC interview as an “independent trader,” was for real or a prankster. He is clearly unpolished in the BBC interview, in which he admits to going to bed every night dreaming about a recession and the rich money-making opportunities it will bring, but he appears not to be a hoax. This long interview with Emily Lambert at Forbes makes that case.

So what’s he saying that’s so mind-blowing? Kid Dynamite breaks it down and finds it shouldn’t be all that shocking:

Rastani says:

1) “Markets are ruled by fear.” Yes indeed – a well known axiom – fear and greed.

2) “The big money and the smart money…they are moving their money away to safer assets.” Well, that’s probably true – just look at Treasury yields

3) “If I see an opportunity to make money, I go with that.” Well, duh.  That’s what traders do.

4) “I go to bed every night I dream of another recession.” Is this the comment that has people up in arms?  The guy is prepared for his view of reality: that things are not as good as the talking heads want you to believe they are, and thus he’s ready to profit from a bear market.   As a fellow trader, I took Rastani to mean that he’s not positioned for the next great bull market.

5) “This economic crisis is like a cancer – if you just wait and wait hoping it’s gonna go away, just like a cancer it’s gonna grow and it’s gonna be too late. “ He goes on to say that wishful thinking won’t solve the problem and that people need to be prepared.  COMPLETELY reasonable, in my mind, especially for anyone who has been paying attention to the United States for the last three years.

Rastani then takes the view that “the Government doesn’t rule the world, Goldman Sachs rules the world.”  I’m not so sure about that one, and I don’t think he’s right that GS doesn’t care about the Euro rescue package.  It may be the case that GS doesn’t think the Euro rescue package will work (although I have seen no evidence that they believe that), but they certainly care about anything impacting markets.

Mr. Dynamite then gets to the heart of the matter here, why we media types have been forced to retire to our fainting couches over some of the things Mr. Rastani is saying:

Is our mainstream media so used to bullish talking heads – mutual fund managers talking their books and their careers – that anytime someone injects a dose of reality into a conversation, it becomes newsworthy? …

Educate yourself, be prepared, be informed.   What a radical idea…

Highlights mine.

Pastor AIO:
Okay, so what is it?  Really.  Do they government of this world rule the world?  Or does Goldman-Sachs rule the World?

Who is the ruler of this world?  What does the bible say?

Satan. That's what it says.

Great thread! This is worth every of its bandwidth in gold.

Deep Sight:
I am Deist, and I draw this position from both logic and intuition.

Yes: because God exists – perhaps simply not in the manner conceived by the Religious Theist. 

Why not?

The best current cosmological scientific thinking for the commencement of the universe is the big b.ang theory which indicates that the universe commenced expansion from a singularity. The critical questions are –

1. What caused such an expansion?

2. Where did the energy therein come from?

It doesn’t make any sense to ask where God came from and yet refuse to ask the very same necessary question with regard to the singularity and the energy inherent in it from which the expansion that brought the universe as we know it commenced.

Now given the law of cause and effect, it is only rational, indeed, painfully obvious and logical, that the cause of such an event must –

1. Have preceded the event

2. Is not the event itself

We are therefore left with the logical conclusion of the existence of a preceding causative element – which is what God is said to be.

Given the foregoing, clearly not.
I am sorry, but I don’t see how the logic of a preceding causative element will lead to an unlearned world.

It would indeed interest you to know that virtually all the leading innovators who drove modernization through novel technical and scientific creations were theists.

Thus your suggestion is eminently presumptuous and utterly unfounded.

Did acceptance that “God did it” stop all the theist scientists in history from investigating human anatomy and developing medicinal solutions?

Why then should an acceptance of the existence of God impede the continuation of scientific inquiry into the universe? Does the nation that leads space research today – the United States – not have as its motto – “In God we Trust?” Does that stop them from continuing with space research?

Please stop making these huge assumptions and logical leaps.

I am not religious and I do not support such fundamentalism.

The bolded words make you agnostic – and that is fair enough.

Certain and convinced atheism is what is rationally ridiculous. It requires omniscience.

Quite agreed, and as said before, I am deist.

That is the conundrum of the infinite regress. But it is not a problem for the mind who understands that the preceding causative agent is an eternal element. Eternity by its very nature is self-existent: it is therefore uncaused. This is why the creative element is referred to as the uncaused cause.

Do some light philosophical research on the distinction between necessary things and contingent things.

As stated above, this is factually incorrect. Learning throughout the ages did not stop on account that men believed in God: and it remains on record that most of the most important scientific breakthroughs have in fact been accomplishments of men who believed in God.

@Deep Sight
In the light of your write-ups in this thread and our recent exchange where I sought to maintain that while the existence of God is both intuitive and logical enough for some, including me, I am not convinced that what is logical for one person may be for another, what do you think of the findings of this research?

He he. See maths winches and wizards.

Frazy:
I guess I'm silly. But I believe in God. Even if you don't believe in God, and you think Jesus was just a man. You can't deny that this one man has had a profound impact on billions of people over the last 2000 years. Who else can you say has had that much influence on mankind. And he is still revered today. That many people can't be wrong.

I think that is a wrong strategy for life.

frosbel:
For dare believing in GOD and going further to accept his SON Jesus Christ makes you a wise person automatically.

Lol.

I agree with the writer of this article. Mr Ghadaffi will soon return to his position, the one he resigned from in 1979, and rule for another 42 years. Then his seven sons will hold the position for 42 years each. Great write-up!