₦airaland Forum

annawhite: When they can no longer satisfy diff women everyday
Empty headed men

spicy v: That's the basics. Are you asking for the availability of a perfect man or the readiness of a man for marriage?

penzino: they shud beta gve castiel his essence bk o, i hope dat prophet wud just find out hw to get castiel his essence. And sam? I hope he doesnt struggle for life after what happend to hm wit crowley.

ebuka Otika: when he starts having erection ... And wen he starts growing hairs on his johnthomas capable of housing SNAKES

spicy v: A man is ready fro marriage when:

He has a plan for his life

He has a source of income

He has his OWN apartment

He can make sound decisions for himself and on behalf of another adult.

passionate88: So without Messi barca no fit score many goals?. Chai. One man team

Mighty Sparrow: This kind of thread is and can only be given by JW's. All I have noticed about them is that they memorize a small brown book titled ' Reasoning from the Scriptures' and a more recent one ,which they distribute while the other is for doctrinal defence. This they do religiously. I have a few of them in my family.
My
observation is this, if you are one and honest with yourself as I asked those close to me: Have you taken time to read the Bible alone without any other books may be three to four times. While doing that, ask the Holy Spirit (Oh, you do n' t believe in His being a person)
no problem, ask Jehovah to explain the scriptures to you.
I challenge any one of you who would do this most sincerely that you will come to testify of your findings on NL
Just be honest with yourself. A no of you guys I have met, mostly those that have over thirty years in it. I ask them this simple question, ' have read the Bible cover to cover alone without any human interpretations? Of course, the answer in always 'NO'.
Until you do that you do not know the beauty of Christianity. You are just follow - follow.

vingi: Very well. Have two of my mum's wrapper,used one for my first n second child wen changing their diapers. She neva got to see dem bt d wrapper is their contact wit ha. kept one for myself n use occasionally, wil kip for as long as i live.

JMOI: 1. Barca wins 98% of their matches so it's always a thing of joy when they lose.

2. Chelsea fans boast a lot so it's a thing of joy for their rivals when they are forced to shut up.

JMAN05: Having an archangel's voice. This agrees with the context.



I hope i am not speaking with a kid here? So you ve not read Jesus asking logical question before? Nawah o! Do you want me to show you where Jesus used logic to reason with people? 'Overrighture'.



Oga dont run from my question. What you wrote below has no relation to it.

I repeat:

"It says the lord comes "with an archangel's voice".
Viewing this to mean that a voice was accompanying
Jesus, Is that not to say that Jesus' own voice cant
raise the dead , that it lacks command? In the future,
did Jesus say he will resurrect the dead with another
person's voice?"



God allowing satan has no relation to my question at all. God had a prophesy on when to destroy satan. Ur so called almighty Godman also said he will raise the dead in the future, not angels. John 5:28, 29.

So your almighy Godman needs an angel to accompany him so as to raise the dead he promised to resurrect?



Will the MC anounce with the voice of the couples?

Again. I see that as an attempt to boycott the question.

I repeat:

" Does it make sense to state that one who has authority
like Jesus would need an angel's voice to resurrect the
dead? Who is more powerful, Jesus or the angel?"



When I saw all your replies i planned to make that statement after my response. What you said above just describe what you do not me. Am happy others are reading all these. The sincere mind will tell himself the truth.

You are right, even my translation calls him Jesus in verse
10, however, the statement there is made by an angel
not John. John didnt call him Jesus, rather he was
describing him. To me I think John writes according to
what appears in his eyes, not that he doesnt know whom
the person is. At chapter 12, Jesus appeared as an
archangel , so he has to call him by that name.



Let me pretend and assume that you forgot the comment that resulted to that reply.

Read your comment:

"
Now,what am i saying here? John
stayed with Jesus throughout His
earthly Ministry,infact,he is the
"Beloved" ,that Jesus even had to
handover His Mother to him.....
Now tell me,how could[b] John see
Jesus[/b] and not recognise Jesus? How
could he see his master and call
him Michael? Is like you staying
with ur mum for years,and then
you travel,and when you come
back,you mistake your Mum for
your little sister...."

That was what you said, and i gave you Rev. 19 and asked why John didnt also call him Jesus in that chapter, rather he was only describing him. Does it also mean he didnt recognize him. I said all that just to prove to you that John is writing the revelation as it appears in his eyes. Not that he doesnt recognize him. At Rev 12 he appeared as an archangel, that was why he didnt bother calling him Jesus. Sometimes John is shown things he knew with symbols.

Now, you said that you saw Jesus in verse 10, and I agreed with you, but i now said that it was an angel that called that Jesus not John. Even the angel there did not see Jesus, he was just explaining to John why he shouldnt bow to him. After that, you jumped into saying:

" I dont know,so Jesus is now confusing his angels with his
personality too?"

How doest that question relate to my reply?

As for your question whether he changes to michael and then changes to Jesus cbrist. In revelation he even has some other descriptions apart from these two.

Pls pls pls, respond according to the issue being discussed so that i dont waste my time reminding you all agan.



Are you sure that is what your translation says? Consult it again and correct yourself.

Now. The scenario are totally different, as such i dont think it is a good analogy.

Jesus wasnt discussing with the devil. So i dnt think it's wise to compare it with a situation where Michael met the devil face to face. Even if we see such areas, that doesnt mean that a behavior in a certain circumstance cant change to a different one. Compare luke 4: 8-13.



Notice the word "something", not somebody. That second definition applies when we talk about something, while the second definition comes in when somebody/something accompanying something else.



So archangel's voice is in Jesus?

Ok, the identity of your God is a mystry. Until you get to know the almighty, the bible says you will miss alot. I know my God.



How?



1. Of course archangel didnt appear there. That doenst change the truth that michael is that archangel, cos the word appears in the singular. And he is the only one called archangel. Jude 9.

2. You right by saying that the chapter mentioned the name of Jesus and Michael separately. Of course, there is no contradiction. After satan is cast out, the kingdom has been established etc etc. however, note that the statement was made by an angel after the casting. It is a statement of joy as the devil is no longer in heaven etc, christ's authority and rulership has began.

How does this come into the point am making here?

I dont see how it conflicts with my point.