₦airaland Forum

Kobojunkie:
But there were no Semitic nations in Genesis 10, so? So, how can Gentiles there refer to non-Semitic nations when all that was referenced was the family of Japheth who are written to have occupied the area at the time? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Why Mention "Semitic"?

1. Shem as the Ancestor of the Israelites:

Shem is traditionally viewed as the forefather of the Semitic peoples, including the Israelites (descendants of Jacob/Israel), Arabs, and others in the ancient Near East.

The Bible traces the lineage of the covenant people—Israel—through Shem, making him crucial to biblical history.



2. Distinction Between Lineages in Genesis 10:

Genesis 10 lists the descendants of Noah's three sons (Japheth, Ham, and Shem) and their respective geographic and linguistic distributions.

Japheth’s descendants are labeled "Gentiles" in this passage, but the descendants of Ham and Shem are not explicitly given that label.



3. Implications for the Term "Gentiles":

In Genesis 10, Gentiles is applied specifically to Japheth's descendants, but as the term evolves in Scripture, it comes to mean any non-Israelite.

The distinction between Semitic (descendants of Shem) and non-Semitic peoples becomes important when understanding later biblical uses of terms like "Gentiles."

Kobojunkie:
Did you ever take a class in Logic for instance? If you did, this would be a good exercise for you to exercise your critical reasoning abilities as opposed to spewing religious gobbledegook any further.



What do you think would be the most reasonable conclusion from all of the above proclamations made by the person of Jesus Christ?


You are free to take your time — days even — to respond. 🤔

Introduction to Logic, haha, an interesting course in my first year as a computer science student. I read M.Irving Copi's book.


Let's look at your logic and analyse using Copi's ideas:


Argument Restatement (Using Copi’s Framework):

1. Premises:

Premise 1: Jesus said He was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 15:24).

Premise 2: Jesus warned against giving what is holy to the dogs (Matthew 7:6).

Premise 3: Jesus instructed His disciples to avoid Gentiles and Samaritans, focusing only on Israel (Matthew 10:5-6).

Premise 4: After His resurrection, Jesus commanded His disciples to go and make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19-20).



2. Potential Conclusion:
There seems to be a tension between Jesus’ initial restriction to Israel and the later command to reach all nations. The goal is to determine whether the premises logically support a coherent conclusion.


Logical Evaluation (Using Copi's Methods):

1. Testing for Validity

The premises must logically lead to the conclusion without contradiction.

A key question is whether the shift from exclusivity to inclusivity represents a contradiction or a progression.


2. Clarifying Terms

Lost Sheep of Israel: Refers specifically to Israelites who were estranged from God.

Dogs: A metaphor used in a specific context, often to denote those outside Israel at that time.

All Nations: Refers to all ethnic groups (ethne in Greek), extending beyond Israel.


3. Analyzing Logical Consistency

Premises 1, 2, and 3 consistently emphasize the priority of Israel during Jesus’ earthly ministry.

Premise 4 introduces a broader mission, which could imply either:
a) A contradiction in Jesus’ commands, or
b) A deliberate progression from a specific mission to a universal one.


4. Avoiding Logical Fallacies

Fallacy of Hasty Generalization:
Assuming Jesus’ initial focus on Israel excludes the possibility of a later universal mission would be premature without evidence to the contrary.

Fallacy of Equivocation:
Misinterpreting terms like “lost sheep,” “dogs,” or “all nations” without considering their context could lead to flawed reasoning.


Copi's Deductive Approach:

Step 1: Logical Formulation

If Premise 1: Jesus was sent only to Israel.

If Premise 4: Jesus later commanded His disciples to teach all nations.

Then: The shift suggests a progression in His mission, not necessarily a contradiction.


Step 2: Assessing the Argument’s Form

The argument can be framed as a hypothetical syllogism:

1. If Jesus’ mission initially focused on Israel (Premise 1),


2. And if He later expanded it to all nations (Premise 4),


3. Then His mission was first particular (to Israel) and later universal (to all nations).



Step 3: Establishing Validity and Soundness

Validity: The structure is logically valid. The premises support the conclusion that Jesus’ mission evolved in scope.

Soundness: Depends on the truth of the premises. The biblical texts confirm both the initial restriction (Premises 1-3) and the later expansion (Premise 4).

Conclusion (Based on Copi’s Principles):

The argument is valid under deductive reasoning: Jesus’ earthly mission was initially focused on Israel but expanded to include all nations after His resurrection. This does not represent a contradiction but a progression in God’s salvific plan.

Kobojunkie:
1. You quoted Genesis 10, and a clear examination of that passage would reveal that the term Gentile was used in that passage in reference to the family of Japheth.
As you can see, the term Gentile was used there about a family, clan, or people, in this case, the family of or sons of Japheth.

The same can be observed in the reference from Isaiah 49 where Isaiah, a Jewish-born Israelite, proclaims to all of Israel — not just the Jewish subset of Israel — that He was sent to all of the House of Jacob — all of the tribes of Jacob/Israel.
As you can see, the term Gentile was used there about a family, clan, or people, in this case, the family of/tribes of Israel or Jacob.

3. Wrong! 🙄

4. Don't jump the gun here. We first need to understand the context as set by Jesus Christ Himself whom His disciples claim they followed before we can then move forward to try to understand what His servants meant, shouldn't we?

As far as the Gospels are concerned, Jesus Christ made clear that He was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel aka the 12 tribes of Jacob, leading us to understand that the family/clan of focus in this case is the House of Israel/Jacob still. So where do you come off believeing instead that the term Gentiles, as used by those who claim to believe in Jesus Christ should apply as far as those who are not even of the family that was decreed by Jesus Christ?

1,
"Gentiles" in Genesis 10

In Genesis 10:5 (KJV):

> "By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations."


This verse refers to the descendants of Japheth and their spread into territories, specifically the regions around the Mediterranean and beyond. Here, Gentiles is used to describe non-Semitic nations—those distinct from the descendants of Shem (who would include Israel).

The term Gentiles here reflects ethnic and geographic separation rather than theological categorization. The original Hebrew word "goyim" is often translated as nations, referring to peoples outside Israel in a general sense.

Kobojunkie:
You just lied! Either that or you believe Jesus Christ of Israel is a liar! So, which should it be? 🙄

It depends on the translation you're reading I guess

The question I would ask if I were you would be that, "Why was he focused on Israel first?"


I'd leave you to do your due diligence if you will. I will not speak on it.

Kobojunkie:
1. Jesus Christ clearly said in Matthew 15 that He was sent ONLY to the Lost sheep of Israel — a universal statement that proclaims that all the Gospel of Jesus Christ of Israel belongs only to those descended from the bloodline of Jacob aka Israelites. Why do you deny this?

2. First of all, Jesus Christ never mentioned that His other sheep were non-Israelites in all of Matthew 10. Second, in Matthew 28 Jesus Christ of Israel's message to His followers was that they go forth into the World ... That statement does not in any way suggest a nullification of His previous warning to the same that they do not give that which is Holy to do dogs, nor does it nullify the fact that He was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. To suggest that the teachings and commandments previously given by Jesus Christ to the very same were nullified, you would need to provide explicit proof of this, which is nowhere to be found in the entirety of the Gospels.

2,



Jesus commands His disciples in Matthew 28:19-20:

> "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."


Does This Nullify Matthew 15?

It does not nullify Jesus’ earlier focus on Israel but rather builds upon it. The Gospel’s trajectory follows a progression:

Phase 1: Ministry to Israel (Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 15:24)

Phase 2: Extension to All Nations (Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 1:8 )


The Apostles followed this pattern, beginning their mission in Jerusalem and Judea before spreading to the Gentiles, as shown in Acts (e.g., Peter with Cornelius in Acts 10, Paul’s ministry in Acts 13:46-48).

Regarding "Dogs" and Holiness:

Matthew 7:6 warns against giving holy things to those who will not appreciate them. However, this is not a blanket exclusion but a caution about discernment. When non-Israelites showed faith (e.g., the Roman centurion in Matthew 8:10), Jesus acknowledged and rewarded it.

3. Was Jesus' Mission Universal or Exclusive?

The Gospels portray Jesus’ mission as initially focused on Israel but ultimately intended for the world. The exclusivity of Matthew 15:24 reflects the immediate priority of Jesus’ ministry, not an eternal limitation.

Extra:
Old Testament Prophecies: Numerous prophecies (Isaiah 42:6, Zechariah 8:23) anticipate the inclusion of non-Israelites in God’s salvation.

The Early Church: The Apostles, led by the Holy Spirit, understood the Gospel as universal (e.g., Galatians 3:28, Ephesians 2:11-22).

Kobojunkie:
1. Jesus Christ clearly said in Matthew 15 that He was sent ONLY to the Lost sheep of Israel — a universal statement that proclaims that all the Gospel of Jesus Christ of Israel belongs only to those descended from the bloodline of Jacob aka Israelites. Why do you deny this?

2. First of all, Jesus Christ never mentioned that His other sheep were non-Israelites in all of Matthew 10. Second, in Matthew 28 Jesus Christ of Israel's message to His followers was that they go forth into the World ... That statement does not in any way suggest a nullification of His previous warning to the same that they do not give that which is Holy to do dogs, nor does it nullify the fact that He was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. To suggest that the teachings and commandments previously given by Jesus Christ to the very same were nullified, you would need to provide explicit proof of this, which is nowhere to be found in the entirety of the Gospels.

1,

Jesus explicitly states in Matthew 15:24:

> "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

I do not deny it.

This is a clear and unambiguous statement regarding the primary focus of Jesus' earthly ministry. His mission was indeed to Israel, fulfilling God’s covenant promises to Jacob’s descendants. However, this statement does not necessarily preclude the eventual extension of the Gospel beyond Israel.

Contextual Clarification:

"Lost Sheep of Israel":
This refers to the scattered and spiritually wayward Israelites, consistent with Old Testament themes of God’s restoration of His covenant people (e.g., Jeremiah 50:6, Ezekiel 34:6). Jesus came to fulfill these promises.

The Canaanite Woman’s Case:
In Matthew 15:21-28, while Jesus initially highlights this exclusivity, His ultimate response to the woman demonstrates the reach of God’s mercy even to those outside Israel, emphasizing faith as a key factor.


The Larger Biblical Context:

While Jesus’ ministry began with Israel, Scripture reveals a progressive unfolding of God’s plan to include others:

Prophecy: Isaiah 49:6 declares the Messiah will be "a light for the nations" so God’s salvation reaches "the ends of the earth."

Fulfillment in Christ: Jesus Himself hints at this expansion, e.g., John 10:16, where He speaks of "other sheep" not of the Israelite fold, who will also hear His voice.


We see in his command to his disciples to go into the world his reason for being focused on Israel first; digression: it's a theme we find in the old testament book of Exodus how that the Israelites were meant to be a representative of man to God and God to man.

Exodus 7:16, 8:1; so they may serve me

Kobojunkie:
If an idea cannot be proven or has no facts to back it, then it should not be traded as a fact or a truth. An opinion, for instance, cannot be proven unless there are underlying facts to back every part of the opinion.

2. The same methods you would use to verify whether toothpaste can clean your teeth or not. Test it to verify if it works as stated or not.

If you're referring to the Bible, I'm glad to tell you the bible can be proven, it is the only book in the world that has the audacity to hang its credibility and authenticity on its record of recording history before it happens.

Kobojunkie:
1. How can the application of the term dogs as used by Jesus Christ of Israel in Matthew 15 be said to apply specifically to Canaanites when the world that Jesus Christ of Israel said He was sent to is that which consists only of the lost sheep of Israel, a world that goes beyond just the Canaanites who are also non-Israelites?

2. Again, Jesus Christ of Israelite never insinuated in all of His Gospel that non-Israelites were those referred to as Gentiles in Scripture. You cannot arbitrarily assert this without some evidence to back it up.

Question 2:

Does Scripture use "Gentiles" to refer to non-Israelites?

Your assertion that Gentiles does not refer to non-Israelites is important to explore. Here’s the evidence for how the term is commonly understood and applied:

Old Testament Usage:
The Hebrew word goyim (translated as "Gentiles" or "nations" often refers to non-Israelite peoples:

Genesis 10:5: “From these the coastland peoples spread in their lands...each with its own language, by their clans, in their nations [goyim].”

Isaiah 49:6: “I will make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”


In these cases, Gentiles clearly refers to non-Israelite nations.

New Testament Usage:
The Greek word ethnos is similarly used to refer to non-Israelites:

Romans 3:29: “Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too.”

Ephesians 2:11-13: Paul contrasts Gentiles in the flesh with the covenant people of Israel, highlighting their former separation from God’s promises.


No Restriction to Israelites:
Nowhere does Scripture indicate that Gentiles refers exclusively to Israelites who were not part of the Jewish subset. The overwhelming evidence from both the Old and New Testaments demonstrates that the term refers broadly to non-Israelites.

Kobojunkie:
1. How can the application of the term dogs as used by Jesus Christ of Israel in Matthew 15 be said to apply specifically to Canaanites when the world that Jesus Christ of Israel said He was sent to is that which consists only of the Lost Sheep of Israel, a world that goes beyond just the Canaanites who are also non-Israelites?

2. Again, Jesus Christ of Israelite never insinuated in all of His Gospel that Non-Israelites were those referred to as Gentiles in Scripture. You cannot arbitrarily assert this without some evidence to back it up.

I hope I understand your first question:

That; Why apply "dogs" specifically to Canaanites when Jesus' mission was to the Lost Sheep of Israel?

Jesus' words and actions in Matthew 15:21-28 must be understood within the context of His earthly ministry, which He explicitly described as focused on the Lost Sheep of Israel (Matthew 15:24). Here’s the reasoning:

Immediate Context of the Canaanite Woman:
Jesus encountered a Canaanite woman who was outside the covenant community of Israel. His reference to "dogs" reflects the broader cultural understanding of the time, where Israelites (especially Jewish-Israelites) distinguished themselves from surrounding nations, including Canaanites.

Universal Application of "Dogs"?
While this particular statement was directed toward a Canaanite woman, it is not explicitly stated that the term "dogs" applies universally to all non-Israelites. Jesus' focus in this passage was on demonstrating the woman’s humility and faith, rather than creating a broad theological classification.

Jesus' Larger Mission:
Although Jesus’ earthly ministry was centered on Israel (Matthew 10:5-6), His ultimate mission extended beyond Israel, as shown in passages like John 10:16 (mentioning "other sheep" and the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19). This encounter foreshadows the inclusion of those outside Israel in God's redemptive plan.

Kobojunkie:
Gentile is a term used in Scripture to refer to Israelites who were not of the Jewish subset of Israel. So, to claim that the Canaanite woman was a Gentile is to be in error. So, you are still in error in your use of that term.

The term Gentile is derived from the Latin gentilis (meaning "nation" or "people" and is commonly used in English translations of the Bible to represent the Hebrew word goyim and the Greek word ethnos. These terms typically mean "nations" and are often used in Scripture to refer to non-Israelites.

However, you are raising a specific point: that Gentile in certain contexts could refer to Israelites who were not of the Jewish subset (i.e., non-Judean Israelites).

Historical Context:

1. Jewish Subset of Israel:

The term "Jew" (from Yehudi) originally referred to those from the tribe of Judah or the southern kingdom after the split of Israel into two kingdoms; south and north (Judah and Israel).

Over time, particularly after the Babylonian exile, "Jew" became a broader term encompassing all Israelites who identified with the religious and cultural traditions of the southern kingdom.



2. Gentile Misinterpretation:

In biblical translations and interpretations, Gentiles are almost universally understood as non-Israelites—nations or peoples outside the covenant God made with Israel.


Regarding the Canaanite Woman:

The Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:21-28 is explicitly described as belonging to the region of Tyre and Sidon, which was historically a non-Israelite area. She is a descendant of the ancient Canaanites, who were enemies of Israel and not part of the Israelite covenant.

Therefore, based on the text, she is neither a Jewish Israelite nor an Israelite of another subset. She is a non-Israelite.

The Canaanite woman is not described as a Gentile Israelite in Scripture, but as a non-Israelite entirely. While "Gentile" in some contexts might refer to non-Jewish Israelites, this passage does not support that usage. Instead, it clearly positions the woman as outside Israel's covenant community.

Kobojunkie:
The fact that you are pushing ideas that cannot be proven is the major problem here.

What ideas cannot be proven?

What method do you have in mind to prove it?

My use of Gentiles assumed you knew non Jews were also referred to as Gentiles.

Sorry for that.

Kobojunkie:
😂😂😂😂😂😂

1. All of these private interpretations you Christians spew ehn... it seems you all believe this book called Scriptures gives yu some invisible mandate to violate the rules of literature and context whenever it suits your private delusions.

The book in question remains the Book of Matthew. The author of the book is assumed to be the same one who authored chapters 7 and chapter 15. And nowhere in all of the 28 chapters of the book of Matthew is it indicated that he altered the meaning of any of the metaphors that he used. This implies that there is no contextual change of meaning of any of the terms used in the book from the beginning to the end. So, I ask you, why do choose to disregard what is written — the intended message of the author — to assert your ideas in its place?

2. First of all, the only Israelite who also happened to be a Jewish-Israelite, who referred to non-Israelites as dogs was Jesus Christ. The Canaanite woman — a non-Israelite — also affirmed that where the Israelites were concerned, she was a dog. No mention of the term Gentiles in both contexts. So, why do you disregard what is in fact stated in Scripture choosing instead to assert your own private delusions instead?

My comments have been based on an understanding of scripture in general.



Thank you for pointing that out. Let’s engage deeply with what is actually stated in Scripture and reexamine the context carefully without projecting interpretations beyond the text.

You’re correct that in Matthew 15:21-28 and Mark 7:24-30, the dialogue does not explicitly use the term Gentiles but focuses on the identity of the Canaanite woman in relation to Israel. Let’s break this down faithfully:

1. Jesus’ Statement:

Jesus said, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs" (Matthew 15:26).

"Children" clearly refers to the Israelites, whom Jesus initially focused His ministry on.

"Dogs" refers to those outside this covenant community. While it could imply non-Israelites in general, it specifically addressed this Canaanite woman in the immediate context.

2. The Woman’s Response:

She replied, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table" (Matthew 15:27).

The woman herself recognized her position relative to Israel’s covenant blessings. She humbly embraced the analogy, showing faith that even those outside Israel could receive God's mercy.


Why Interpretations Use "Gentiles"?

While the passage does not use the term Gentiles, biblical interpreters often use it to summarize groups outside of Israel, including Canaanites. However, you’re right that this term is not stated explicitly in this text, and it’s more accurate to stick with the direct language of the passage:

Israelites = children

Non-Israelites = dogs

The focus should remain on the immediate conversation, where Jesus is testing the faith of a specific Canaanite woman, not making a sweeping theological claim about all non-Israelites or Gentiles. It’s also vital to let Scripture interpret Scripture, avoiding unwarranted extrapolations.

Kobojunkie:
Unwilling to learn falsehoods aka lies? Well duh! I only deal in facts... aka truths which you have so far revealed you have none of.

2. But that is exactly what you have been doing. You have been truing to get me to swallow up your ridiculous private interpretations as facts... that is what zombies/religious gullibles do. They ignore the facts and consume only the lies fed them by others including their many scammers-in-the-lords. That is the ridiculousness of religion right there.

My intent is not to push things down your throat, I'm sorry your encounter with many here has been like that. I'm in a conversation with you and expect you refute things with your own study, so I learn and review or so I can refute with mine. It's been an endless attack since.

Kobojunkie:
You finally admit that these noxious fumes of religion you spew can only work on those who are pliable? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

No, you already have your mind made up, and seem unwilling to learn, I'm not asking you to submit your senses to me and be zombified, I want to know if I'm speaking to one who is willing to learn and sharpen another in same manner.

Kobojunkie:
1. It is sad that Jesus Christ of Israel, the Truth of God of Israel, made clear that there were only two types of people —sheep and dogs —in the world and it was only the sheep that he was sent to?

2. So the woman was a dog — a non-Israelite— and his statement applied only as far as that particular non-Israelite? Are you for real? What baffles me is how you all think it an insult for the woman to regard herself as a dog and for Jesus Christ to affirm this too yet you think almost nothing bad of him referring to the Israelites as sheep. 😏😏

2. Clearly, you seem to be the one in need of this studying yourself since your particular claim does not add up one bit. In Matthew 7 vs 6, the same Jesus Christ warned His disciples not to give that which is Holy to the dogs — non-Israelites— declaring that they are incapable of handling that which is Holy. 😏

Matthew 7:6, where Jesus says:

> "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them
In this context, "dogs" metaphorically referred to people who would disdain or reject sacred or valuable things (like the truth of the gospel).

Jesus was cautioning against sharing holy or precious truths with those who would not appreciate or respect them, as their rejection might lead to harm or ridicule.

At the time, Jews often referred to Gentiles (non-Jews) as "dogs," symbolizing their exclusion from the covenant blessings meant for Israel. Jesus used this term to reflect the prevailing Jewish perspective and test the woman's faith.

Jesus' response wasn't to insult but to challenge the woman’s persistence and demonstrate her humility and faith. Instead of taking offense, she replied:

> “Yes, Lord, but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table” (Matthew 15:27).





It's interesting that the woman wasn't confused by the term dogs—she knew that's what non Jews were referred to as.

I should have asked before engaging you, I'll ask now:

Do you have your mind made up, and are you unwilling to learn, seek reproof, correction, be instructed in our conversation?

Kobojunkie:
Religion and its many lies... see how this one just brushed Jesus Christ of Israel aside as a liar; but he still expects us to believe he lives by the word of this same Jesus Christ of Israel. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

It's sad, Jesus said what he said, he referred to the woman as a dog. I do not deny it.


What I'm saying is for you to go and do some study on why he would refer to the Canaanite woman as "dog", and why he would say he was sent to the lost sheep of Israel.

Kobojunkie:
Maybe you should look up the word experience so you know what an experience is from a delusion. I mean even those who have no desire for God equally desire things and have those specific things happen for them as they imagined. Having something you desire to come to pass is not proof of a divine. Thinking it is, is a delusion in itself.

2. You have yet to state any truth since the beginning of this conversation with you. Oh, you are most definitely your typical Christian, always quick with false statements and slow with facts. Christianity boasts of over 45,000 different types of Christianity. So, you can't surprise me one bit.

3. You could never have been were I am right now because you don't even know where I am; maybe in another life for you.

"I mean even those who have no desire for God equally desire things and have those specific things happen for them as they imagined[/b]. Having something you desire to come to pass is not proof of a divine." — Yes!, you're correct! Haha.

It isn't exclusive to Christians. However, pray tell, what would be the science of it, if it be not divine or ethereal?

Kobojunkie:
🙄 Do you believe that the opinions of the majority serve as validation for opinions and ideas? Better go get your head examined this 2025 before it is too late for you. 🙄 🙄

2. You are nothing but an ignorant religious dog —non-Israelites— deluded enough to believe that the Gospel of a man who made clear He was sent only to the Lost sheep of Isreal, going as far as to declare that His Holy Gospel cannot be handled by those He referred to as dogs , applies to you against His very own declaration. 🙄 🙄

3. The most religious country on the earth has been quickly turned into a failing state all thanks to the many religious delusions of the people in it. You mean this is not seen by you still?

please get help for your delusions this 2025!🙄 🙄

So many errors in aspects of Jewish cultural contexts, the goal of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. I pray, please go and study for yourself, critique it, then come and speak based on your study.

You ask of my experience(s), I tell you and you call me a liar. Then why ask for it?

You were never going to believe me at all. You already have a decided mind within you. Adamant against the truth, unwilling to let go of the darkness. I am not a cliché Christian. I have done my homework, I used to be where you currently are Kobojunkie. It's a terrible place to be, do your homework instead of coming on NL to refute without evidence or study, like a fool. Swift to speak, slow to hear.

Kobojunkie:
1. Ohly a fool would choose to believe in idea without having in hand or through experience the proof of such an idea. You should not believe me if I told you that boiling and filtering dirty water can in fact kill off all of the germs that could harm you in it until after you have in fact tested the hypothesis to show it to be correct.

2. Please stop wasting Internet space and bandwidth on this bloody arse lies you lot are notorious for spreading ignorance believing this foolishness is worth gold to your kind. Look at Nigeria today to see the end result of all of that broadcasted for all to see.

1. If you're not seeing as others are seeing or claiming to see, perhaps it's a YOU issue, a review of the heart should be done, "Am I willing to see if there be anything such as a higher power in a supposed spiritual realm?" "What am I to do therefore?", this is how you test/examine for yourself. I take it you have not actually studied what you condemn.

2. I'm a believer in the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, I believe he died, and rose the third day according to scriptures, it is indeed foolishness to the natural man. What is the end result of that which was broadcasted to Nigeria—and what was broadcasted?

These things are spiritually discerned, the natural man can never come to the knowledge of truth.

Kobojunkie:
Beyond the tales you have been fed of this so-called unseen world, have you yourself experienced or had a knowing of it? The vast majority of those who claim to understand this fabled world are merely talebearers themselves with no real experience beyond their very own mental delusions.

Such unbelief and sadness in your words. You would not believe even if I say I have experienced it first hand; had dreams that served as warnings to avert evil in the waking experience/reality, seen visions, prayed for a thing and seeing that specific thing happen.

Go to the plants you unbeliever, how they grow by the rotations and revolutions of the planet. Who could have put such a system in place?

The spiritual; the unseen world. It is real and around us. It is unwise not to know this.