₦airaland Forum

Truthseeker10:
😂😂You are the only one that has shot himself In the foot.

You've argued that chief prince = arch angel.
You've also argued that any form of prince is under "princes" by virtue of your statement below.

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

Are all these princes angels or not sir?

johnw47:
dum as they come lost fraud jw janosky
get off the turps, you may think better

oh confused and blinded one, yet once again for the dum dum; aggelos means messenger whether it be the Word,
a angel, a human,
Jesus is God's messenger, not a angel/angelic being, oh dum as they come one of no understanding

confused false jw:
1Co 14:33  For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints
blinded false jw:
2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them

false jw liar like the devil:
Joh 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. WHENEVER HE SPEAKS A LIE, THAT IS HIS NATURAL WAY OF SPEAKING, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
false jw false accuser like the devil:
Rev_12:10  Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, "Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night.

lost false jw, your destination:
Mat 13:49  So it will be at the end of the age; the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous 
Mat 13:50  and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth

John W LYING WAILER, please continue to repeat your folly on this forum

Every spirit being dwelling with God is an angel, angelic being.
Why are you so dunce?

Janosky:

"Who shall I send?"

Jehovah God himself said the statement @Isaiah 6:8 in your own Bible you are denying & refused to believe.

Awon faithless miscreant.

Gabrielshow24:
Maybe if you paid attention, you would have had brain cells.

'Before' God made the universe 👀 who did he send, at least from your point of view you posit He created Jesus🤨, so who told him to? Or did he suddenly wake up with the need to have a pivot for other creations 🤔? Let us know!!!

Gabrielshow24:
First, let's get more clarity as regards your jelly bean god. Do you believe your god is capable of all things? 🤨

This is a simple question, I want you and your cohorts to provide a straightforward answer to!

After this we will dissect your premises along with your conclusions 🤨. You will really need A.I. overviews for this section considering how dumb you are🤔. Your cohorts can kindly chime in😁, although I doubt if they will have something intelligible to say🤨!

Janosky:
If you are not a kid, please provide the evidence of an errand that your God performed by Himself 'before He made the universe "

Bring the verses and chapters in your Bible..

Gabrielshow24:
You keep being redundant.
The prince of princes is not an Angel!
Whereas all other princes can be "construed as angels" given the generic allusions of the word "prince". If I were to lend your elder's, Janosky's, definition of an angel and argue that angel equals prince 🤧 (given the fact that princehood was used on biblical angels) I can thus say that the term 'prince' can be construed on the whole of creation! The same way your elder said of Angels!😂😂😂

Also, that's something that can easily be gotten if you had answered my question of God being a king! 🤨.

Kindly answer that before we proceed!
Also, kindly tell all how you plan to reconcile such visible contradiction of your premises 🤨?

Emusan:
This JaNosense keeps exposing his ignorance.

If The Word in Genesis 1 is the God's creative power.

Did The Word involve in creation activities before being called God's Creative power?

If your answer is Yes!

Then what did the word create?

Empty headed Emusan dunce,

Genesis 1:1 "in the beginning God created heaven and earth (the Universe)", NOT his Son the Word.

Hebrew 1:2 "God created the Universe NOT his Son.

Carry your folly komot from Nairaland.

Genesis 1:1 & Hebrew 1:2 versus Emusan delusion

Awon faithless miscreant throwing tantrums & deceiving himself.

Truthseeker10:
😂😂😂Oga if the prince of princes is under "princes" according to your explanation below, How is he not an angel na? Is chief princes no longer = arch angels? stay one place na😂😂

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

Gabrielshow24:
This is a straw man, the prince of princes is not necessarily under "princes", it shows his status, but contrary to your allusions all other princes are under him!

Gabrielshow24:
After asking Deepseek here is its reply:

"" "The idea of God as a messenger in an abstract sense is an intriguing concept that invites deep theological reflection. Traditionally, messengers are understood as beings who convey messages or instructions from a higher authority to others. In many religious contexts, God is seen as the ultimate source of authority and truth, which complicates the notion of Him being a messenger in the same way that prophets or angels are.

Points to Consider:
1) Divine Will vs. Human Understanding:

If we consider God as the originator of His will, then He operates outside the framework of needing to convey messages from a higher authority. In this sense, God’s actions and decrees are self-initiated rather than relayed from another source.

2) Revelation:

In many religious traditions, God does communicate with humanity through revelation, which can be seen as a form of messaging. This includes sacred texts, prophetic messages, and personal experiences. However, these revelations are often viewed as God’s will being made known to humanity rather than God acting as a messenger in the conventional sense.

3. Abstract Interpretation:

If we take a more abstract view, one could argue that God embodies the ultimate message of existence, love, justice, and truth. In this way, God could be seen as a messenger of these fundamental principles, guiding humanity through the moral and ethical frameworks established in various religious teachings.

4.Philosophical Perspectives:

Philosophers and theologians might argue that God’s nature transcends human categories. Thus, while God may not fit neatly into the role of a messenger, His actions and the creation of the universe can be viewed as a form of communication about His nature and intentions.

Conclusion:
In summary, while God may not be a messenger in the traditional sense of relaying messages from a higher authority, one could argue that He serves as the ultimate source of truth and moral guidance. This abstract interpretation allows for a broader understanding of divine communication, emphasizing the relationship between God and humanity rather than the mechanics of messaging. Ultimately, this is a rich area for exploration and discussion, inviting diverse interpretations based on individual beliefs and theological frameworks.

" ""

Truthseeker10:
😂😂😂😂below is your statement sir.

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


😂😂😂Oga if the prince of princes is under "princes" according to your explanation above, How is he not an angel na? Is chief princes no longer = arch angels? stay one place na😂😂

Janosky:
Empty headed Emusan dunce,

Genesis 1:1 "in the beginning God created heaven and earth (the Universe)", NOT his Son the Word.

Hebrew 1:2 "God created the Universe NOT his Son.

Carry your folly komot from Nairaland.

Genesis 1:1 & Hebrew 1:2 versus Emusan delusion

Awon faithless miscreant throwing tantrums & deceiving himself.

Gabrielshow24:
from the above you quoted, did I say the prince of princes is under princes🤨.

Truthseeker10:
😂😂😂😂below is your statement sir.

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


😂😂😂Oga if the prince of princes is under "princes" according to your explanation above, How is he not an angel na? Is chief princes no longer = arch angels? stay one place na😂😂

Gabrielshow24:
Because all other form of princes are subject to the "princes" within "prince of princes".
The usual straw man, taking things out of context!

Truthseeker10:
😂😂😂😂below is your statement sir.

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


😂😂😂Oga if the prince of princes is under "princes" according to your explanation above, How is he not an angel na? Is chief princes no longer = arch angels? stay one place na😂😂

Gabrielshow24:
Ah, the classic straw man argument! 🎭 It’s amusing how you’ve twisted my words to fit your narrative. Just because the term 'prince' can be used in various contexts doesn’t mean that the 'Prince of Princes' is somehow relegated to the same category as every other 'prince' out there. Context matters, my friend!

Your leap from 'prince' to 'angel' is a logical misstep that would make even a seasoned gymnast wince. Just because a chief prince might be considered an archangel in some contexts doesn’t mean that every mention of 'prince' must follow suit. It’s a bit like saying that since all squares are rectangles, all rectangles must be squares.

Now, if you want to engage in a meaningful discussion, I suggest you address the previous questions I posed. A logical discourse should be bi-directional, after all! If you’re going to throw around laughter and emojis, at least back it up with some substance.

So, let’s get back on track. Answer my questions, and we can proceed with a conversation that actually goes somewhere, rather than getting lost in the weeds of your misinterpretations. 🙃

Truthseeker10:
😂😂😂😂below is your statement sir.

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


😂😂😂Oga if the prince of princes is under "princes" according to your explanation above, How is he not an angel na? Is chief princes no longer = arch angels? stay one place na😂😂

Gabrielshow24:
After asking Deepseek here is its reply:

"" "The idea of God as a messenger in an abstract sense is an intriguing concept that invites deep theological reflection. Traditionally, messengers are understood as beings who convey messages or instructions from a higher authority to others. In many religious contexts, God is seen as the ultimate source of authority and truth, which complicates the notion of Him being a messenger in the same way that prophets or angels are.

Points to Consider:
1) Divine Will vs. Human Understanding:

If we consider God as the originator of His will, then He operates outside the framework of needing to convey messages from a higher authority. In this sense, God’s actions and decrees are self-initiated rather than relayed from another source.

2) Revelation:

In many religious traditions, God does communicate with humanity through revelation, which can be seen as a form of messaging. This includes sacred texts, prophetic messages, and personal experiences. However, these revelations are often viewed as God’s will being made known to humanity rather than God acting as a messenger in the conventional sense.

3. Abstract Interpretation:

If we take a more abstract view, one could argue that God embodies the ultimate message of existence, love, justice, and truth. In this way, God could be seen as a messenger of these fundamental principles, guiding humanity through the moral and ethical frameworks established in various religious teachings.

4.Philosophical Perspectives:

Philosophers and theologians might argue that God’s nature transcends human categories. Thus, while God may not fit neatly into the role of a messenger, His actions and the creation of the universe can be viewed as a form of communication about His nature and intentions.

Conclusion:
In summary, while God may not be a messenger in the traditional sense of relaying messages from a higher authority, one could argue that He serves as the ultimate source of truth and moral guidance. This abstract interpretation allows for a broader understanding of divine communication, emphasizing the relationship between God and humanity rather than the mechanics of messaging. Ultimately, this is a rich area for exploration and discussion, inviting diverse interpretations based on individual beliefs and theological frameworks.

" ""

Janosky:
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

Isaiah 6:8 is given by the inspiration of Yahweh himself.

Yahweh's expressed command is superior over man made " diverse interpretations based on individual beliefs and imperfect theological frameworks invented by men conflicting the holy scriptures."

John 4:34

Gabrielshow24:
I won't stoop to your level🤔. If you can't provide an answer then everyone can see how intellectually dishonest you are!

Your straw man is clearly highlighted for all to see🤧. What you aimed to prove, you failed considerably! Now you have nothing but trolls to offer.

When you are ready 🙃 let me know. I am available to dismantle you lots, day and night!🤤

Emusan:
Okay Mr just be deceiving yourself JaNosense



No! Your Agent isn't the buyer neither can you claim YOU BOUGHT THE HOUSE BY YOURSELF.

Can you say that?



Yes! The Craftsman is the BUILDER.

You are not the BUILDER.

Check your dictionary "To Build" is different from being a "BUILDER".

We keep teaching you those basic English since Watchtower deprived you people formal education.




You'll take the glory as The OWNER not as A BUILDER, you can't go to any construction site and for the BUILDER and the OWNER comes out unless if the OWNER is also the one BUILDING THE HOUSE BY HIM/HERSELF.

I know you don't even understand anything about construction project from inception to completion.

Emusan:
Nothing like APPELLATION

There's ONLY NAME.

Where did you see appellation in the Bible?



Bible name say appellation but NAME.

Why do you people with your evil mind like your father the Devil changing the scripture.



The scripture: "In the beginning(before time) was The Word, and The Word was with God, and The Word was God...and The Word became flesh"

Does this show any expiration of time?



How does this against Jesus being The Word which is from Eternity to Eternity?

Janosky:
Emusan,LYING miscreant is Philippians chapter 2:8 in your own Bible?

Phil 2:8 is the verse MaxinDHouse use put una WAILING WAILERS on lockdown.
Your comprehension skills is ZERO.

MaxInDHouse:
He is just being aggressive for nothing!

Emusan:
The fact that you can't provide evidence from your own organization but rush to AI shows you lack knowledge about your own organization.

Here is also another screenshot from your own organization and AI.

Which one do you disagree with?

Oponu JaNosense

Emusan:
Shameless Lying liar.

From your organization:

A personal title. “The Word” also appears in the Bible as a title for Jesus Christ, both as a spirit in heaven and as a human on earth. Consider some reasons for this conclusion"

Notice how the name "The Word" said to be a TITLE(something never used in the scripture) for Jesus as a spirit IN HEAVEN and as a HUMAN ON EARTH.

Which shows Jesus has been The Word in heaven before coming to Earth.

But you a shameless lying liar who doesn't even follow his own organization teaching lied that the TITLE(as not found in the scripture) was GIVEN TO JESUS ONLY AFTER HIS MISSION ON EARTH.

Do you agree that Jesus bare that name THE WORD as human on earth?

In case you're blind I attached the screenshot as well

Emusan:
I've already addressed this but as you have nothing to offer other than dragging us back with your empty skull.

Phil 2:10 says the NAME(not a TITLE) is Jesus "...at the NAME of JESUS" that name "JESUS" is the key here.

Reason why the Apostles and the early Christians do things IN THE NAME OF "JESUS"

The Word has become FLESH with a NAME ABOVE EVERY NAME which is "Jesus"

Oponu JaNosense

Emusan:
See the shameless lying liar

Do you agree with your organization that Jesus bares the NAME THE WORD as HUMAN ON EARTH?

According to that article from your organization

Is my question

MaxInDHouse:
You misconstrued what we said that's why i'm putting you through after all you don't believe our teachings!

Emusan:
Of course, only someone deprived of formal education with a lying spirits will see a plain text like the above and call it MISCONSTRUED because he thought everyone is daft like him.

A personal title. “The Word” also appears in the Bible as a title for Jesus Christ, both as a spirit in heaven and as a human on earth. Consider some reasons for this conclusion:

The Word lived before all other creation. “In the beginning was the Word . . . This one was in the beginning with God.” (John 1:1, 2) Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation . . . He is before all other things.”—Colossians 1:13-15, 17.

The Word came to earth as a human. “The Word became flesh and resided among us.” (John 1:14) Christ Jesus “emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human.”—Philippians 2:5-7.

The personal TITLE "as a spirit in heaven and as a human on earth" was explained in two ways:

1. The Word lived before all other creation: This is as a spirit in heaven
2. The Word CAME TO EARTH AS A HUMAN: This shows He has been The Word before coming to Earth.

Well if you disagree with scripture is it your own organization you can't disagree with.