₦airaland Forum

johnw47:
ecc_7:6  For as the crackling of thorns under a pot, So is the laughter of the fool

lost fraud jw janosky
talk about dunce, you false jw's take the prize for that every time

the Word, and angels, and humans, are not the same beings,
the Word isn't a angel, just as a human isn't a angel, oh as dum as they come one,
if your bible has translated angel of the Lord referring to Jesus then it is wrong,
it should be messanger of the Lord when referring to Jesus, and it should say
messanger of the Lord when referring to pastors and prophets, they also are not angelic beings

ἄγγελος
aggelos
ang'-el-os
From ἀγγέλλω aggellō a messenger; an “angel”; a pastor

Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 
there are 2 God beings (God and the Word), there are billions of human beings, and who knows how many angelic beings

false jw janosky
1Co 14:33  For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints

Janosky:

Gabrielshow24, very MUMU LYING miscreant.

God is not a messenger, Hebrew 1:1-2 is in your Bible.

Everyone knows that.
In fact that evidence is well known.
Screenshot

Truthseeker10:
😂😂😂I thought you said Micheal was one of the "archangels" na, You don change mouth?

Janosky:

Gabrielshow24,You well?


If you well,I challenge you to provide the evidence for your fairytale claim.

Janosky:
Empty headed John W WAILING WAILER.
You go post evidence and still reject your evidence.
John W post
Aggelos is angel,messenger, envoy ,( same meaning).
Jesus is aggelos not angel.
LYING miscreant.

Gabrielshow24:
God forbid, I should be like you lots🙃. Chief Prince and Archangel are synonymous words.
They convey similar meanings 🤔 hence they can be used interchangeably!

MaxInDHouse:
I've answered because a machine can't explain the practical application of what we believe!

Janosky:
No Sir, the word @ Genesis 1 is God's creative power different from the word @ James 1:25 & John 14:24, that is,God's messages, command that Jesus is doing obediently, John 12:49-50.
[/b]

Emusan:
You didn't answer!
AI pulled Its results from different sources and in case of such question about Watchtower, it's evident that the AI pulled that directly from Watchtower.
So, you lied when you claimed Jesus ONLY became The Word after his mission on earth.
As a matter of fact, Jesus has been The Word long before creation.

Truthseeker10:
😂😂😂This guy na die.....
Tell us the meaning of chief prince.

so who is the Prince of princes mentioned in Daniel 8:25 below. Is he also one of the Archangels?
King James Bible
And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

Gabrielshow24:
The definition of chief prince is self explanatory given the context of the biblical verse.

Prince of princes is also self explanatory 🤨😅, I wonder how an intelligent person finds it hard to understand this simple phrase!

Except you have anything useful to aid your bias that Michael, one of the chief princes, is Jesus then kindly go straight to the point.

I don't have time to waste with your redundant nature 🤨.
Also, how does this aid your argument?

Truthseeker10:
😂😂😂 chief prince according to you = Archangel
Is the prince of princes in Daniel 8:25 also a chief prince? Yes or no sir?

Gabrielshow24:
Let me break it down for you! 'cause it seems your brain is on sabbatical 🤔.

Any form of 🤴 prince is collectively within "Princes"—whether chief prince, demon prince😅😅😅or even plain prince!

So what's your point? 🤨

Truthseeker10:
😂😂So the prince of princes in Daniel 8:25 is an angel? Yes or no sir?
Is he also a chief prince?

Truthseeker10:
😂😂So the prince of princes in Daniel 8:25 is an angel? Yes or no sir?

Truthseeker10:
😂😂So the prince of princes in Daniel 8:25 is an arch angel? Yes or no sir?

Gabrielshow24:
Not necessarily an angel🤨.
It can't be construed as a chief prince 🤧, it's very evident why it can't!—if you construe prince of princes as a chief prince then it means that there are other prince of princes given the fact that there are "other" Chief princes!

Kindly find another thing to say, 🤨 you have no point to prove!

MaxInDHouse:
They just want to exchange insults most especially this Gabriel guy all he is good at doing is supporting the adversary and insults.
The other time he ran into lawani's thread to speak against me but when i quote the both of them he disappeared seeing that lawani is ready to drag his jesus god in the mud!

Truthseeker10:
So who is he if he is not necessarily an angel? Are the "princes" angels?

Remember You claimed the statement below.😂😂😂

"Any form of 🤴 prince is collectively within "Princes"—whether chief prince, demon prince😅😅😅or even plain prince!"

Gabrielshow24:
Chief prince and Archangel are used interchangeably.

The prince of princes encapsulates both within itself!
You are under a faulty notion🤨.
Tell me how you plan to reconcile this to your sheepish narratives🤧!

Gabrielshow24:
Your motion to equate this being to Michael is fascinating 🤨given the established fact that Michael is just one of the chief princes 🤔.
Your futility in doing such is just downright remarkable.

Now to dismiss this pathetic move of yours,
Let me ask you a question, if God the Father is a king? What then shall we call his children? 🤨

Also, by theological consensus that title goes to Jesus🤨🧐

Now dazzle me with some half-baked premises 🙃.

Truthseeker10:
😂😂😂😂Are you saying that the Prince of princes is Jesus, Yes or no sir?

Remember your statements below.

"Any form of 🤴 prince is collectively within "Princes"—whether chief prince, demon prince😅😅😅or even plain prince!"




"Chief prince and Archangel are used interchangeably.

The prince of princes encapsulates both within itself!"

Truthseeker10:
This guy na wayo man.😂😂😂 Is the prince of princes an angel or not sir?😂😂

Gabrielshow24:
Jesus is not an angel!
We will obviously go to already cleared instances of debate 🤨regarding the identity of Jesus! From which the definition of Angels from one of your elders, Janosky, posited that the whole of creation can be construed as angels😂 including spirit of trees🤨!

Based on the evidence so far, is Michael the prince of princes? 🤨

Gabrielshow24:
Of course, who else wants to be prince of princes🤨? Michael?

Jesus is the prince of Princes!!!

Truthseeker10:
😂😂😂So explain your statements below

"Any form of 🤴 prince is collectively within "Princes"—whether chief prince, demon prince😅😅😅or even plain prince!"


"Chief prince and Archangel are used interchangeably.

The prince of princes encapsulates both within itself!"

Truthseeker10:
Oga who is the prince of princes na😂😂😂? You claimed he is not necessarily an angel. So who is he?
Remember your statement below

"Any form of 🤴 prince is collectively within "Princes"—whether chief prince, demon prince😅😅😅or even plain prince!"

"Chief prince and Archangel are used interchangeably.

The prince of princes encapsulates both within itself!"

Gabrielshow24:
I won't repeat my self again, I have said he is Jesus!

If you have better premises to support your logical conclusion of equating Michael to the prince of princes kindly bring them out, if not " suffer" in silence🤤!

Gabrielshow24:
What aspect of it, don't you understand?
You have failed to prove in anyway that Michael is the prince of princes 🤨.

I will constitute the rest of your reply as troll, it is clear even to the blind you have nothing else to say!

When you have a better argument, kindly let me know. I'm available to always dismantle your incoherent dredged-up arguments!

Truthseeker10:
😂😂😂😂baba wan run after shooting himself in the foot....

So Jesus is both the prince of Princes and also part of the "princes" according to your statement below but not an angel after saying that chief prince = arch angel? 😂😂
"Any form of 🤴 prince is collectively within "Princes"—whether chief prince, demon prince😅😅😅or even plain prince!"

You claimed chief prince and Archangel are both encapsulated in Jesus but he is not an angel or Archangel? How na?😂😂😂
"Chief prince and Archangel are used interchangeably.

The prince of princes encapsulates both within itself!"

Gabrielshow24:
Oh, I see. It's your narrative that Jesus is Michael 🤨, which is also an Archangel 😂.

You can see the contradictions your sheepish narrative faces when scrutinized under the light✨.

If Michael according to you, Jesus, is a chief prince then who is now the prince of princes 🤨? One that has more authority and also encapsulates all.

If Jesus is Michael then he can't be the prince of princes because there are more like him! After all he is mentioned as being 'one of'🤨—whether you spin this as being 'first of', it doesn't help your course either!

You see where your narrative fails and doesn't pass the law of non-contradiction 😂😂😂
Or better put your doctrine shot itself in the foot!

Gabrielshow24:
Do you even understand what the ai overview is about?
🤨

I am asking you based on God's capability, can He go on an errand by himself? It's a very simple question!

At least before He made Heaven and Earth who did he have to run errands for him? 🤨 We have been down this road before and you know how quickly you circumvented😂😂😂

If you don't understand kindly ask Gemini, Can God go on an errand of his own will?
It will tell you based on "ability" yes, He can! But in the traditional sense "God is not typically considered a messenger" 🤨.

You are a big ignorant fool! I will be waiting for my answer 🤣The simple point, I aim to bring out is that God can be construed as a messenger of himself 🤨!
You will then see that in an abstract sense, God the Father can be considered a messenger of himself 🤨. Or is there anyone instructing him on what to do? If there is kindly point that out? As long as He comes up with His own will and does His own bidding then 'abstractly' He can be construed as a messenger of Himself, very simple!