₦airaland Forum

@FowardEast

My advice to you is to research into history and also research on the History of the books in the Bible, ie who wrote it, the time is was written and why it was written.
The verses that you posted, the same verses that the alleged Black Hebrew Israelites post have nothing to do with trans-Atlantic slave trade. Deuteronomy was prophesying the Jews captivity in Babylon. Also stay away from those allaged black Hebrew Israelites, they are very anti African and anti women.
Their theories are born out of hatrad to Africans; all their theories are completely unbiblical. The Bible never said such things; even the verse you posted did not support your theory.
People usually loose their identity when they are sold into slavery; it is not peculiar with AA's. People go through similar experiences; the slavery experience is generally similar irrespective of who goes through it. If one people(people A) describe their experience, it may sound similar to the experience of another people(people B) since both peoples have been enslaved. It doesn't mean that the book written about the experiences of people A is talking about people B.

The hallmark of good literature is to unite with the readers experience. When you read a good book, you may wonder wheather the author was writing about you. But He was not! The bible is a wonderful book; it unites all human experiences. Any body, people or group would find their experience in the pages of the bible. It do sent mean that the bible was specifically talking about them.

viaro:
@seeklove,

Just so people don't suppose that viaro ignored or snubbed your attempts to provide links for justcool's claims, let me address just one as an example of why your desperations should not be such a bother here.
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/reincarnation_and_the_bible.html


Nice try, bro. .  nice try! Let me guess: your scholarship begins and ends with Shirley MacLlaine, no??

While we asked for scholarly articles showing the true historical antecedents of any semblance of reincarnation at the Nicean Council, you desperately ran to Shirley MacLaine's medium and channelling that are not even historical? What is wrong with you felas?

Let me quote that article so we see that Shirley MacLaine was NOT articulating any Christian history of any Nicean Council:
(a)(b)
The above excerpts are from the very same link YOU provided:
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/reincarnation_and_the_bible.html .

It shows your "education" at the end of the day - you desperately run to a spiritist medium who relied on the confusions of her channelling/medium teacher: they whipped up some smoke screen, made dubious non-historical claims - and you want us to swallow that garboil?

Thank you, but no - true education does not mean we should keel over to such gullible fancies. Just try again . .  even try harder.

@Viaro
Sorry, I dont want to fight with you. The links that I provided are for you to weigh the pros and cons, not for you to believe everything. I read those articles well before posting them. I considered them well balanced, and not one sidded.

There is no need to insult. I had a conversation with justcool about my engagaments with mavenbox yesterday on another thread, where I lost control. I dont want to make another mistake by getting into a fight.

Thank you

Here are more links:

The "real truth" John explains is reincarnation. When MacLaine asks, "Why aren't these teachings recorded in the Bible?" He answers, "The theory of reincarnation is recorded in the Bible. But the proper interpretations were struck from it during the Ecumenical Council in Constantinople sometime around 553 A.D., called the Council of Nicea" (pp. 234-235).

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/reincarnation_and_the_bible.html


http://reluctant-messenger.com/origen6.html

Even if they tried, they failed miserably as there are some pretty clear spots in the N.T. that shows that reincarnation was the belief of the time, 

, not to mention that most of the rabbis throughout the ages have believed in and taught reincarnation. Talk to your local chasidic rebbe or sephardic orthodox rabbi, they'll tell you

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread124147/pg2

justcool:
@Keryola
Thanks for your questions.
I guess you didn't read the thread that seeklove gave a link to, in which I gave a link to a document on the council of Nicea.

Here is the:http://kuriakon00.tripod.com/reincarnation/council.htm



And I quote from it:http://kuriakon00.tripod.com/reincarnation/council.htm

@Keryola, Viaro, and mavenbox.

Please research about an early christian group called the Gnostic. Check out their view on reincarnation.

Thanks and remain blessed.

Justcool why doyou waste your time providing link for them. Any truly educated person knows that reincarnation was one of the issues discussed in the council of nicea.

Even a chatholic prist has told me that in the past. Preexsistance and reincarnation were one of the major things discused in the council of nicea.

Mavenb0x:
seeklove, why are you hunting me everywhere on NL? Were you sent by some entities to snoop on me or to stalk me?

Why not let m_nwankwo speak for himself? I have known him to be intelligent enough to understand me, even without many words. Here, I SAID that I wasn't exactly quoting so he needed to understand what I was trying to remind him. This is what he said:

which was why I said

And you are here yapping that

Who said he said so? Ever considered writing a book "How to jump to conclusions"

The [b]IT [/b]in the quote does not refer to reincarnation, it refers to the biblical reference of "going out". AND M_NWANKWO said the particular Biblical reference was not used to infer reincarnation.

Twist and turn as you will, still you are wrong. M_nwwnkwo never said that that particular Biblical reference was not used to infer reincarnation by adherents of the Grail Message.

He said that The grail message teaches reincarnation but never used that particular biblical reference to refer to reincarnation.

He simply said that what the adherents of the Grail message say is not the Grail Message. Why do you refer to him to the chapter in the article?? The article is not the Grail Message. It is the work of an adherent of the Grail Message not the Grail message itself.

This I think is what m_nwankwo is saying.

I refuse to insult you but perhaps you should learn to comprehend simple sentences.

Mavenb0x:
@m_nwankwo: Do you remember our recent conversation about "they shall go out no more?" in Revelations? I can't recall the date and I dont want to start searching my posts but I guess you should recall it. Here it is, again, now. It is the 3rd to the last paragraph of the document attached in the OP (I downloaded it to check). And yet you insisted that it's not taught by Grail Message Adherents?

Here we go again.
m_nwankwo never said that reincarnation is not taught by Grail Message adherents.

Here is what m_nwankwo said:

What the adherents of the Grail Message say is not the Grail Message.

M_nwankwo maintained that the Grail Message taught reincarnation but not based on the bible.

Here is his entire post:

Hi Mavenbox. What has the Grail Message got to do with the debate between Viaro and DeepSight? The debate is not on the truth or otherwise of reincarnation, rather it is whether or not reincarnation can be supported with biblical references. Yes the Grail Message teaches reincarnation but it did not infer it from the biblical reference you cited above. What the adherents of the Grail Message say is not the Grail Message. I would have joined this debate if it is on the truth or otherwise of reincarnation but it is not what the debate is all about. My personal view is that it is inappropriate to interpret biblical passages for those who believe the bible or interpret koran for moslems when the interpreter does not believe in whole or in part the contents of either the bible or the koran. My personal insight into these things gives me the conviction that Elijah didnot reincarnate as John the Babtist, and Jesus, the son of God is not a reincarnation of any person, rather he is the son of God. Stay blessed.

Please lets try not misrepresent people and lets try to understand people's posts before we attribute things to them.

Mavenb0x:
case I:
A: I mentioned a representation of God
B: You mentioned a representation of the devil and Hitler

A misrepresentation, a deception, a wilful perversion of facts, to the intent to throw the meaning of my expression out of the window.

Now it has shifted from "Me misrepresenting you" to "me representing God."
I never misrepresented God. I asked you a simple question. You said that God can take any form. And I asked you if God can take the form of Hitler or the devil. Your answer should be "yes" or "no."

Mavenb0x:
Case II:
A: I mentioned an immaculate conception, and said "A lab tech can cause fertilization without human beings PRESENT" i.e. skipping the s'ex stage, the sperms and eggs are combined, so if that can happen, why can't God cause the egg to be fertilized without an intercourse with Joseph?
B: Seeklove shows up and says "No lab tech has ever achieved fertilization without human beings present. . . do you even know what a spermatozoa is? . . . Research well before posting. . ." etc, at least you didn't say you also own a chocolate factory.

Does this show that you read what I said, or were just ready to rush into a blind argument? Like an uneducated person? And here you did it again. After less than two pages of addressing a pertinent issue (and you said you were OBSERVING for a while, possibly another lie, cos if you were you would see Deep Sight agreeing on my claims that the title was a misnomer), you appear on scene mouth first.
I am not in the habit of repeating myself, go and read the first page of this thread.

Lie. You have changed your post. But this is what you wrote.

[Quote from: Mavenb0x on December 23, 2009, 08:08 PM]
@Justcool: I read your reply, but I maintain my views. Conception involves the fertilization of an egg by at least one spermatozoon. With the science of fertilization today, if a lab tech can cause fertilization with no humans present, why cant God do it by causing Mary to produce a self-fertilized egg? Or do you know the exact dynamics by which ova are created, since science does not yet know 4 sure? I dont buy that Grail gist. Cheers.

I told you that you were wrong because you cant have fertilization with no humans present. Every human fertilization needs the both the male and female gametes, (spermatozoa and egg). Even in invitro fert. humans have to be present to inject the spermatozoa into the egg.

Maybe it is you who always fail to present your points the right way.

Please read about:

1) Hades
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hades

2)Gehenna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna

3)Tartarus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartarus

4) the Kingdom of Satan.


Paradise has never been a part of any of the above. Paradise was never a part of Gehenna, neither was it a part of Tartarus, nor was it ever a part of Hades.

Paradise is a real place in the kingdom of God, not a state of the dead or a state of the unseen.

Please read
Paradise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise

Mavenb0x:
You still haven't gotten it, right? Sigh. Now I'm certain that the UCLA degree was just a lie. Let me break it down for you like it's done in Primary School:

1. I never said Paradise is a part of hell.
2. Deep Sight, either in misunderstanding, or out of spite, created a thread with that title
3. I took him to task about it (post 2) and he outlined the "caveat emptor" that he had hidden away (lawyers know how to do this) in post 1. I had seen the "caveat emptor" but he KNEW as well as we all do, that many people would not see it because the thread would progress beyond the first page and the Thread Title is what gets noticed.
4. This is not the first time Deep Sight will attempt to misrepresent me.
5. I decided to explain all the meanings of the words translated HELL in the Bible so that Deep Sight will see the ONE (Hades) that I meant, which is not Tartarus, which is not Gehenna, but HADES (Hebrew Sheol), the place of the unseen: a spiritual place.
6. I outlined how paradise was also a place UNSEEN, and was thus a component of Hades.
7. Those things you quoted from Wikipedia are already a part of my discussion, if you took the energy and time to read it. In fact, the part about Tartarus is already quoted in my discussion of Tartarus.

If you still do not understand, then you are even worse than I imagined. When I was 5 I would understand something that is broken down this way.

So it has come to this?? Even in this you are wrong. Paradise is and was never a part of Hades, Gehanna, and Tartarus. Those are always reffered to as a bad place.

Show where Paradise which was created by God, was ever reffered to as Hades, Gehanna, or Tartarus.

Mavenb0x:
@seeklove:
You have shown a very heavy lack of comprehension of simple messages, and a moronic assimilation of facts, so I am sure you can not see how you misrepresented me.

Here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=385361.msg5370734#msg5370734 you were replying to my post where I said that God does not have a "physical" form, and so He can choose to be seen and apprehended by any man in any way he wants to, and you showed up, quoted me, and started asking if God could show up as the devil or hitler. Did that make sense in the context of the thread title "Drawing God and Heaven"? Was it not an attempt to misrepresent my honest answer to mazaje, who had even understood what I was trying to say?

No it was not!!!! It was just a question. It was not mirepresentataion!

Mavenb0x:
Here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=79465.msg5175396#msg5175396 I spoke of immaculate conception, and said that God can skip the s'ex stage if He wants to, and you iterated that I do not know what a spermatozoa is, and that "fertilization can not be done without the presence of a human being" and other shenanigans that left me amazed.

In each case, I simply exited the thread. But to bring the idiocy to a thread where someone has already misrepresented me and you're signing up as his apostle, I will not take it lying down. Go and suck eggs.

Please show me the misrepresentation. To disagree with you does not mean to represent you. I only disagreed with you.

Please show me where I misrepresentation you.

Mavenb0x:
Seeklove: The UCLA alumnus that lies through his teeth (maybe the UCLA bit was a lie too)

1. Seeklove attempts to prove to me that Jesus' birth was by nature of spermatozoan fertilization by Joseph sleeping with Mary, and says I do not know what a spermatozoa is, and I should "do more research before posting"
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=79465.msg5175396#msg5175396

1. Seeklove places a limitation on God
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=385361.msg5370734#msg5370734

1. The inane post on this thread
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=389094.msg5407352#msg5407352

In between post #1 and post #1 above (the first two #1s), there were other posts on the self-same threads. And yet he has only interacted with me ONCE.

As a friend of mine likes saying, You can lie o! When did tortoise fall from the sky and now crack back?  

Come on! I can ignore you twice but if you keep making posts without reading what I am saying I will show you pepper. Who cares if you think I'm not a Christian? How does that clothe you and put food on your table? Why not watch your own self? Now you can scamper off and go and tidy up your school assignments.  

You see what type of a lair you are.
There was no where in the first link that you gave where I misrepresented you. Why give links to posts I made on this thread, the last link you gave. I was not counting this particular thread "Mavenbox's Claims - Paradise Is In Hell." when I said in the past.

Please don't try to confuse us with your lies. She us where I misrepresented you!!! I may have engaged with you in  the past, but I don't go counting like you do. You said nothing that's what remembering in that post that why I forgot about it. But please show us where I misrepresented you.

Thou greater liar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Christian doctrine of hell derives from the teaching of the New Testament, where hell is typically described using the Greek words Tartarus or Hades or the Hebrew word Gehenna. These three terms have different meanings and must be recognized. Tartarus occurs only once in the New Testament in II Peter 2:4 and is translated as a place of incarceration of demons. It mentions nothing about human souls being sent there in the afterlife. Hades has similarities to the Old Testament term, Sheol as "the place of the dead", or in other words, the grave. Thus, it is used in reference to both the righteous and the wicked, since both wind up there eventually.[9] Gehenna refers to the "Valley of Hinnon", which was a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. It was a place where people burned their garbage and thus there was always a fire burning there. Bodies of those deemed to have died in sin without hope of salvation (such as people who committed suicide) were thrown there to be destroyed.[10] Gehenna is used in the New Testament as a metaphor for the final place of punishment for the wicked after the resurrection.[11] Hell is taught as the final destiny of those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior after they have passed through the great white throne of judgment [12] [13], where they will be punished for sin and permanently separated from God after the general resurrection and last judgment. Some Christian theologians of the early Church and some of the modern Church subscribe to the doctrines of Conditional Immortality. Conditional Immortality is the belief that the soul dies with the body and does not live again until the resurrection. This is the view held by Orthodox Jews and a few Christian sects, such as the Living Church of God, The Church of God International, and Seventh Day Adventist Church. ("Annihilationism" is the belief that the soul is immortal but can be completely destroyed in Hell. This view is held by sects such as Jehovah's Witnesses. Universal Reconciliation is the belief that all human souls (and even Demons) will be eventually reconciled with God and admitted to Heaven. This view is held by some Unitarian-Universalists. [14][15][16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell

The above is from wikipedia.
Hades, Gehenna, and etc does not exactly correspond to the exact meaning of the English word "Hell." Hell, in the Christian belief is described above.

I re-quote:

Hell is taught as the final destiny of those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior after they have passed through the great white throne of judgment, where they will be punished for sin and permanently separated from God after the general resurrection and last judgment.

Paradise is not and was never a part of hell.

H2O2:
Pray tell since when did paradise begin residing in hell

Please ask our professor mevenbox.

@mavenbox
Although you don't deserve it, let me give you a little education.

The English word "hell" refers to a particular definition of Hades and not all of them. The non-English word "Hades" comprises a lot of things but the English word "hell" is more limited in its meaning.

You said;

Mavenb0x:
and you thus concluded that Satan is the owner and administrator of hell, and hell is his DOMINION. Everybody with a brain between their ears caan see that I was listing unseen worlds, and stating that it includes
1. Hades (the grave, the holding-place for the wicked dead)
2. Tartarus (prison for the fallen angels)
3. The kingdom of Satan (Satan and all his minions) on earth

1. Hades (the grave, the holding-place for the wicked dead) This may be correct as one of the definitions of "Hades," but this particular definition is not Hell!!!!!!!!!

Check your English word for the definition of Hell. Paradise is not and was never part of hell.

Also I never said anything about who is the administrator of hell. Actually it was you who inferred that Satan is the administrator of Hell by saying that Hell is the kingdom of Satan.

My dear I am not mad at you. I am only laughing as you make a fool of yourself.

Mavenb0x:
I have an excellent memory, and I remember the NL usernames of everyone that I have EVER interacted with. I don't forget names OR faces. YOU, in particular, have been notorious in the past for misrepresenting what I say and pretending to see things that are way above your head. You are not a Christian, so what do you know about The mockery of Christianity? Can you go to the Eskimos and tell them their history and cultural beliefs or will you go and tell them what you read on Wikipedia? Get a life.

And there again you repeat the arrant nonsense that makes me question your wasted UCLA Masters degree. After much explanation of translation limitations, you still repeat that Paradise is inside hell. How did you pass your O'level exams?
Abuzola, don't let me get started on you. You will hate me if I do, I warn you. What do you know about my age, besides your faulty assumptions? Return to your drawing board.
And then seeklove adds some irrelevant song to the mix. What do you think of this one too?  

What's my business what Bob Marley said? Is he your god, or are you on dope? Just because he said it, I should kiss his feet?

So hell is under the earth. What did you study again? Pity. And I'm a Nigerian too (shakes head)

@seeklove:I am not one to boast of my education, it's only a means to an end. I think your own end is very obvious on this thread, as well as mine is. However, be assured that I have enjoyed the most excellent of schooling, and I'm almost at the pinnacle already.

I said:
and you thus concluded that Satan is the owner and administrator of hell, and hell is his DOMINION. Everybody with a brain between their ears caan see that I was listing unseen worlds, and stating that it includes
1. Hades (the grave, the holding-place for the wicked dead)
2. Tartarus (prison for the fallen angels)
3. The kingdom of Satan (Satan and all his minions) on earth

With your UCLA Masters degree, you concluded that #3 is the description of hell, even when hell (Gehenna) is not listed. Again, is hell on earth, for Satan and his minions to have dominion on? Satan while tempting Jesus showed him the kingdoms of the WORLD in an instant and said that they had been handed over to him (by Adam, obviously). THAT is what Satan has dominion over: the world systems. THAT is why the Bible calls him the god of this world.

See why I was questioning your education? This is simple comprehension, are you sure you have a masters from UCLA? Because then you would have some knowledge of comprehension after your GRE papers.

FINALLY, for your information, I almost never attack people in discussion, but if you give me cra'p I will take you to the streets, drag you in the mud and leave what's left of you for the homeless dogs to feed on.

ha ha ha. She rains more insults. The Truth is that judging from your posts, you are not educated.
I am a Christian, Please prove otherwise to me.
I have only interacted with you once in the past, where you claimed that God can take any form. Please show me where I have always misrepresented you in the past.

I cannot argue with you about whose dominion Hell is. The Truth is that you said it in your earlier post. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word dominion. Ones kingdom is also ones dominion or domain.

You are a big lair. You are not a Christiann, there is nothing Christlike in you!!

This issue of re-incarnation has already been treated in the past. Here is the thread:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-94905.0.html#msg1697718

Read justcool's, doescade's and m_nwankwo's posts in the above thread.

Mavenb0x:
@seeklove: Dumbo. You are here again with your idiocy. Go to school, return and read the thread of posts, see where Deep Sight has misconstrued the definition of hell, and swallow your foot. 

You asking me to go to school? I am sure I have more and better education than you. I have a masters degree from UCLA. What do you have and where did you go to school?

Mavenb0x:
Besides, who told you that hell is the "dominion" of satan? He will be a prisoner there, as well as all those that lent their ears to his deception. Is a chief prisoner the administrator or owner of the prison? Shiorrr.

Even you said so. Here is your ealier post:

1. In Revelation 1:18, our Lord has the keys or control of The Unseen and of death. That is, He is master of the unseen world which in the Christian system includes Hades, Tartarus, and the kingdom of Satan in the atmosphere of this earth.

You said it cleary that Hell is the kingdom of satan. So paradise was in the Kingdom of satan.

Weird!!!

Bob marley and peter tosh sang this song:

Precherman dont tell me heaven in under the earth.
I know you dont know what life is really worth
It's not all that gliters is gold,
and half history has never been told.

Now you seen the light.
Stand up for your rights.



Heaven is not under the earth. Paradise is not in hell. Hell is under the earth, and paradise is and has never been under the earth. Hell is the domain of the devil and its servants.

Mavenb0x:
@seeklove: Dumbo. You are here again with your idiocy. Go to school, return and read the thread of posts, see where Deep Sight has misconstrued the definition of hell, and swallow your foot.  

Besides, who told you that hell is the "dominion" of satan? He will be a prisoner there, as well as all those that lent their ears to his deception. Is a chief prisoner the administrator or owner of the prison? Shiorrr.

So much for christian spirit. Thanks allot for your insults. I am an idiot just because I expressed my opinion. I have read the whole thread, your argument does not make sense. I didn't want to say it earlier so that you dont take it personal. But despite my trying not to offend you, you still got offended and attributed idiocy to me just because I expressed my opinion.

I have more than a thousand reasons and scriptures to support that Paradise is not in hell. I have studied the scriptures very well, if you don't know, know it now.  

What you are preaching here makes the whole idea of Christianity a mockery.

Paradise inside hell!! Please!!!!

This is weird. Very very weird indeed.

I thought Hell was the dominion of Satan. Now if paradise was part of hell, so paradise was also the dominion of Satan.

If Lagos is in Nigeria, therefore Lagos is under the Nigerian government. = If paradise is in hell therefore paradise is under the hellish government of the devil.


I have never read anything more weird than this in my life.

Mavenb0x:
@seeklove: Since you're such a ninnyhammer, and you're too fatuous to see what i was saying, eat this from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_to_the_hand_%28expression%29

I know what "talk to the hand" means. I've lived in America for 10 years. Go and watch 'Terminator 3: The rise of the machines' there you will see talk to the hands.

Mavenb0x:
@last 4 posts: Talk to my hand

I understand your hand is more inteligent than your brain. Your brain simply ignorant, therefore I rather talk to your hand.

Mavenb0x:
This argument is rather moot, seeklove. Are you telling me that the God you serve is limited in expression? Why did you have to choose those options: Hitler, Lucifer, An aqua-marine spirit? Is that the limit of your own imagination?

If I say that gases can take the shape of any container, does it make sense to start asking me if it can take the shape of a basket, knowing fully well that it is not an enclosed container?

Anyway, scratch that. My point is that these things are spiritual, and by the way, if God appeared to you in His TRUE form (which is irrational, seeing that he is not a physical entity, there is no such TRUE form), would you recognize him? Do you think he would, in that wise, be in form of a human being? If you think so, that is what is really senseless and weird!

Please spare me the mombojunbo! Yes air can and does fill baskets.  A container does not have to be enclosed for air to fill it! But that's not part of the argument. You claimed that God can take any form, and I asked if God can take the form of Hitler. Then you came up with that basket mombojombo.

God does not appear in the form of humabeings! God appeared on earth in the person of Jesus. A part of God can incarnate on earth in a humanbody but God Himself cannot reveal himself to any humanbeing. None has seen God!

Christ can re-incarnate on earth if He wants. And yes reincarnation is real! I saw your argument in another thread denying reincarnation, which is even hinted in the Bible.

And yes I am telling you that God is limited in his expression. God is limited to goodness. God does not and cannot do evil. Yes God is limited in His expression, he cannot express himself as the devil or mommy-water.

Point of correction, mommy-water is not aqua-marine spirit. Mommy water is not a spirit.

Mavenb0x:
God speaks to man in a way that he can understand. He is not physically tangible, but he can reveal himself to any one who so desires in anyway he so desires; the same way mazaje can choose the words with which he wants to convey his expression. If the girl says that is how she saw God, I cannot tell maybe she is lying or she speaks the truth. This is because the way God reveals himself to her (or not) is her business, and God's business. And if she is lying, how does that affect my own faith? Even if someone says God appeared to him in the form of a black man, how does it affect my salvation?

One thing that non-Christians never realize is that walking with God is a personal thing. As Jesus asked Peter when he wasn't minding his business but trying to evaluate another person's revelational walk with God, "Wetin konsain you?"

Joh 21:22 Jesus said to him, If I want him to stay (survive, live) until I come, what is that to you? [What concern is it of yours?] You follow Me!

@mazaje: What concern is it of yours? Whether he appears to someone as a Red Indian, Fulani or as an Eskimo, how exactly does that concern you?

The above is really very weird. So God can reveal Himself as the devil? So he can appear to someone as Hitler? He can appear as Nero, or momy-water?

Do you people think enough about what you write before you write it. Religious fanaticism is bad.

@poster
You need to get your eyes examined.

grafikdon:
Tufiakwa!!!!! God Forbid. Chineke napu Ekwensu Ike. . .

Tufiakwa
Igbos dont worship the devil.

Akeemos:
@seeklove?? I am very sure you are more intuitive than this. Please express it. Be careful what you wish for!!! Thank you Sir/Ma.

Whats wrong with us wanting to separate from a failed state? I will never identify with a terorist country. If Nigeria joins the ranks of the islamic demonic terorist countries, then I reject my nigerian citizenship. Biafra all the way. I pray islam will be banned in biafra.

freed:
biafra all the way!!
Nigeria is a failed state

Say it loud!

Biafra all the way!!
Nigeria is a failed state

Akeemos:
@seeklove, I think it would be nice if you watch you post. Those are perhaps person opinions that you should keep to yourself! I take full exception to your submission. Please let's be reasonable and it would be nice if you ask those that have gone through wars and perhaps your parents during the civil war and I wish to know where you stand. Please be more reason sir/ma.
Thanks![

I never mentioned war in my post. Very soon these moslems are going to start suicid bombing in eastern Nigeria. Biafra must separate from Nigeria! You dont nesscirily need a war before you can separate.  With forein support, Biafra can separate without war.

Biafra all the way. I pray one day Biafra will be free. Islam will be banned in Biafra.

I have never advocated for separation from Nigeria, but this has taught me a lesson. The only way for us to progress is by pulling out of Nigeria. I now support Biafra all the way. And I hope that when we achieve Biafra, Islam should be banned in Biafra.

Islam and the islamic northan Nigerians are a curse.

Mavenb0x:
@seeklove: I have nothing more to say on this matter. God is not on trial here for the methods he used in achieving his intents.

Thanks, I have nothing more to say to you either. Only dont atribute that fairy tale to God, God never said that He used the holy spirit to impregnate Mary niether did He say that Jesus was concieved without sperm. Its funny how we humans write things and attribute to God. God did not write the bible, God did not write the koran. Both are books simply written by man, both are filled with a lot inacuracies.

Mavenb0x:
Seeklove, you need to read me properly and understand my perspective before responding, maybe next time. I never said spermatozoa was not needed for fertilization, my point is Can the creator of the spermatozoa not skip that step and bring about a pre-fertilized egg? the same way i am the creator of my words and i can say two statements crafted in two different ways YET yield the same meaning? So why can the Creator not bring about a pre-fertilized egg? Have you ever heard of scientific anomalies in nature?

And when I said with no humans present, my point was that the spermatozoa giver and the ovum donor do not have 2b there, and yet the baby is produced. Thus, they have skipped the s.ex stage. So if MAN can skip the s.ex stage and still get the baby made, how do you know that God cannot create ONE ase.xual OVUM to divide and bear his Son?

This is the problem i think i often have here. If i speak few words with deep and complex info embedded, i guess many people who dont see the point immediately will see the (f) beside my name and assume I must be talking onions. They dont bother to ruminate over my post before replying. And when I make a detailed post so that everyone will understand, my detractors will scream that my posts are long. Man's reach always exceeds his grasp and no one is ever satisfied. Cant please you all.

@ mavenbox
Sorry, I didnt intend to get you upset. It has nothing to do with being female, it just that what you said was wrong.

The only way a woman can get pregnant without sex is through invitro fertilization, any other way will invlove changing the laws of nature. A spermatozoa must meet and egg, this is how nature made it for humans. I am sure that the case of Mary was not invitro, it hasnt been invented yet and God does not do invitro.
And the bible, christians and molesems never said that mary got pregenent by a spermatozoa, even if the father was not present like you claim. They simply say that mary got pregnant without fertilization, ie the holy spirit came upon her and she concieved, others say it was angel Gabrail that impreganated her. Whether it was the holy spirit or angel Gabrail, the bottom line is that no physical spermatozoa was involved. So the laws of nature was overided by God.
And if you claim that God can do anything, why did Jesus have to be born at all. Why didnt he come from heaven as a grown man. Why did he start like a baby just like other natural babies, why did he grow just like others, why did he hunger, thirst, and got tired just like others. How come in other areas He obayed the laws of nature like everybody but when it comes to His birth, God changes the laws of nature?
I dont beleive in that crap of fertilization without sex, being born of a god is ancient roman, babylonian and greek myth which somehow got incoporated into christianity and somhow found its way into the bible. Please tell me why the bible traces Jesus genealogy through Jeseph. Not that I am saying that Joseph is His biological father for sure, but I am sure that He had a biological father. God does not play magic, why would God send His son the same way that the anceint babylonians belive that thier god was sent.