₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
If I was not interested in your views, I would not cc you. The thing is I hate arrogant and dismissive attitudes to human suffering and oppression.

You only hate Israel. You don't care about any other suffering group except perhaps in your imaginary book.

helinues:
This shalaye is unnecessary as I have advised you to relocate there

When I see young Nigerians laughing or condemning other countries out of ignorance, I feel pain. Your country is stuck in the backwater but you somehow have time to condemn people who are far better than you. With people like you, Nigeria can't get better.
Do us all a favor and spend 5 mins comparing the human development index of 9ja and Bangladesh. After that, reply me with your new enlightenment.

helinues:
Relocate there and stop nagging on my mentions

I am not in Nigeria. I only wanted to educate you. I understand you posted without knowledge. Please don't get offended, just read a little and you would understand. Bangladesh is not your mate.
And yes, I would love to visit that beautiful country very soon.

helinues:
Bangladesh, abeg wetin wan carry person go there.. hahaha

Btw, the writer find a way of injecting Nigeria into this category even though there is no facts to back it up

Abeg, what should countries like Ghana, Kenya, Sudan, Somalia say now.

Hope you know that Bangladesh is much more developed and safer than Nigeria. So if you are too scared to go there, you can understand why everyone wants to leave Nigeria.
Bangladesh has less poverty than Pakistan and India and it has a growing economy. It is a country that is overcoming many of it's challenges unlike Nigeria that is only getting worse.

Softmirror:
People who will tell you boldly that it is better for them to die anywhere outside Nigeria than to live in a 'zoo'.

Abeg Nigerian government should allow them be.

Oga do you know the number of Nigerians that can't afford healthcare even in Nigeria? How are they better than Nigerian Ms in south Africa

DeepSight:
Alright, thank you for this. However, notwithstanding that you have said we should focus only on the historical, I must emphasize that it is crucial that the religious considerations are put away in this matter. This is because religion tends to be subjective and anyone can claim their God/ god or gods gave them any given set of promises or directives. I can wake up tomorrow and say I have heard from my God that the whole Earth is the inheritance of my descendants alone and that I am mandated to exterminate everyone else. This should not be invalid because afterall, Abraham was just one man like me - if his god could speak to him and make promises to him, so can mine. I don't want to go as far as to mention all of the barbaric genocidal injunctions given by Yahweh to the Jews in the Bible, but it is worth mentioning - to establish a pattern - to show that what is happening today is not new - and thus it is not just a question of Arabs being the problem.

Historically Jews have insisted that their blood thirsty pagan mountain deity called Yahweh has issued genocidal commands to them, and it is by means of these commands that they even came to posess the so called promised land. Therefore, let us stay well away from any such religious claims for all can play that game, as indeed the Arabs and Muslims also have, through history.



So here is what is at issue. Ownership of land is a delicate thing. The way land rights have always worked, it is simply impossible to deny the rights of an occupant who had dwelt in a place for centuries. Thus, the example of the Europeans in America I hitherto used. They travelled there, met Native Americans there - conquered them and virtually wiped them off the surface of the Earth through the gun and disease. Today, Europeans have held America for some three to four centuries. The time which has passed has bequeathed them what you may call a right of occupancy. Whether they came there justly or unjustly, the time which has passed is sufficient to render it legitimate that their descendants now dwell there rightly. Thus, even though a purist like myself may argue that if the Native Americans summon the will, the resources and the technology today and are able to push the "encroachers" out of America, it is right and fair, in all truth, too much time has passed.

In this same way, the history of the matter is that roughly two thousand years ago, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and scattered the Jews into diaspora. They went into Persia but mostly into Europe where they suffered much persecution through the middle ages, the renaissance, the enlightenment and all the way through to the 20th century where they sufferred the holocaust.

In the intervening time, Islam had arisen in the 7th Century AD, and by the turn of the millenium the crusades had begun in which troupe after troupe of christian armies generation after generation sought to displace the Muslims from the "Holy Land." This went back and forth over a couple of centuries and the land would alternate between Islamic and Christian authority - all the time retaining a small Jewish population. I am sure you know of the great encounters between Richard the Lion Heart and Saladin. And too many more stories of that period. The long and short of it is that the presensce of Arabs in that land dates back at least one thousand years now.

And the argument I am making is that if European Americans can now consider North America their homeland after being there for a few centuries, how much more the Arabs who have been in Palestine for over a thousand years?

Now, moving on, by the time the second world war ended, I hope you know that the British had made promises to the Jews via Zionists that they would create a homeland for them in Palestine. At that time, the place was mostly occupied by Arabs like I said, for about a thousand years already. It is unreasonable to claim that it was not home to them. Besides, the European Jews who were returning had been so adulterated that one cannot really claim that they are necessarily of the same ancestry as the Israelites of old. Frankly, most of them today are noticeably white.

Nevertheless, they came back. What did you expect? Did you expect that the Arbas there would not resist? Of course they would. It is only natural. Just as if Native Americans make a come back today from tthe settlements they have been restricted to, to take up most of America, do you dare to think that the current European descendants who control that country will not fiercely resist them? Of course they will.

I have written a lot so far so let me just summarize: the point is that compromises must be made. Israel of today is a creation of the United Nations and that same United Nations has repeatedly said that the settlements in the West Bank are illegal. You keep referring to Palestinians as savages and that is absurd. It is not savage to fight to defend your land. Especially from an occupier who imposes apartheid restrictions on you the same way white people did to black people in apartheid South Africa.

You call them terrorists, but I hope you know the whites also called Nelson Mandela a terrorist? I hope you know the USA kept him on their terrorism watchlist up till 2008? What does that teach you? It shoudl teach you that those who resist European imperialism are routinely labelled terrorists - even when they are actually the victims of terrorism.

There is a historical reason both Ireland and South Africa stand solidly with Palestine - and it is because BOTH countries have experienced EXACTLY what Palestine is experiencing right now - the arrogation of power by other people and oppression in their own native lands and homes.

With due respect, no one comes back to a land after 2, 000 years to assert that he owns it because his ancestors lived there. Many different peoples ancestors have lived on the same land throughout time.

What is of particular concern today is the fact that Israel literaly cages Palestine. It controls its borders. It determines what goes in and what goes out. In the West Bank there are selected roads for Jews and selected roads for Palestinians. That is apartheid in its purest and most undeniable form. And that is a sin against the conscience of humanity.

So when many people talk all the time ignorantly saying that this started on Octover 7, with due respect, it did not. October 7 was at best a reaction against occupation. And just look at the toll. Do you want to compare 1, 200 to over 60, 000? Where is the proportionality? You have the world's biggest super power cooperating and funding to exterminate such a powerless people. How is that just? I hope you know over 145 of the members of the United Nations recognise Palestine as a state but they are still being denied statehood simply because of US veto power. And yet you yourself acknowledged the right to self determination. Today, European states which all supported Israel in this matter are moving towards recognising Palestine by next month all because of how far Israel has gone in its cruelty. It has become a sore wound on the conscience of the world. There is an extent you can go to even when you are right in a matter in which the world will turn against you when you have gone too far - not that Israel was right anyway in this. Enough said for now.



In the case of Israel, there is a deliberate effort to mass murder Palestinians. Not mere miscalculations.

Let me add: Are you aware Netanyahu sponsored Hamas? You dont seem to know the game being played.

cc:

Kukutente23
Tctrills
Mikeapollo
IdaytesJ29

Oga we both know that you are not interested in my contribution so why did you mention me?

Now to your last statement about Netanyahu sponsoring Hamas.
You have shown that you are only interested in half-truths than in understanding.
If I have 2 enemies and both hate themselves, sponsoring one over the other could be very strategic. We have seen Israel over time force the Palestine organization and bring them to the table using this method. The west Bank is relatively safer because of this and other strategies.
What you do is very easy. With zero experience or understanding of war, you condemn Israel without offering a better method to fight the terrorists on both their eastern and western borders.

Anyway, Israel is no longer sponsoring Hamas, they are now wiping them off the face of the earth so people like you no longer have a reason to complain.

MrNovo:
Your domain name, hosting and payments collection should be the biggest worry for website owners not traffic really. But I know why you are concerned about traffic which also applies to other online media like your socials. However if you do it right in a couple of years your posts begin to rank and your website will continue to make sales fully automated which is not possible with your socials. This is organic traffic I have been laying out. Paid traffic is a lot easier.
As for paid traffic you can do different types of Ads to start pulling in traffic from day one.
Socials can't relapse websites. If you need a modern site that you don't have to pay for yearly hosting and comes with Stripe setup to receive payments, then you can chat me for details.

Please explain more, why do you say that socials can't replace a website?

ednut1:
but USA and allies can invade/occupy Afghanistan, Iran, Vietnam . Usa can grant panama independence because of the canal . Usa can support Israel to terrorize their neighbours. Mr man rest .

Your point is that you support the Russian invasion of Ukraine because US invaded Afghanistan. So basically you are excited that Ukrainians are dying because US supports Israel. Make that make sense.

Gabrielshow24:
What have I done wrong? Am I wrong for showing you the stance of scripture 🤔. God forbid, I should follow you, when scripture is there. Assuming the Jews were no more; maybe your point could hold water😅 but the Jews are well alive and the original Torah along with their understanding, tanakh, is present as well. So I have sufficient evidence that malachim among other phrases that denote heavenly beings refer to heavenly beings and not men.

What do you have to show for your conclusion? 🤔A man-made inference 😂. That's rather poor.

There are also lots of ancient texts I can draw inspiration from that depict heavenly beings in the same language. the Ugaritic texts and other middle eastern texts all support that point and it has been the scholarly consensus for over 2000years. Do we now believe you? That have no concrete evidence, save word of mouth😂. Argue with your bible.

I will create outlines of all your errors, I don't need a partner to decimate arguments! I have been doing that even before I became a Christian 🤷. I love logic and if your logic doesn't make sense, I will call you out—Irrespective of christian, Muslim or atheist! That's my code of conduct.

Make your "revelation" make sense 🤷! This you have not done for full three days! Very bad.

For 3 days, you couldn't produce one single verse to support your position. Now, on day 4, you begin a victory lap? Nigerians

Julia25:
We will continue another time, I have things to do.

Anytime. Enjoy the rest of your day.

Julia25:
1) You stated we are sons of God, at least our spirits
2) we are not spirits but flesh. From scripture there's nothing flesh can do to please God, automatically no man born of flesh is a "son of God" because they are eliminated by disobedience which is an inherited sin imputed upon us all. Scripture lists ways we, spirits in flesh, can reclaim our sonship through obedience and faith.

3) You continue to assert that we are sons of God not just by origination but by nature in our pre-existent life. This negates the death, resurrection and life of Jesus. If we were already sons, not just based on origination, but in the fullness of what you assert then we don't need Christ's death. As we are already sons!

That's the contradiction, which is why your position contradicts scripture. You can't resolve it without changing your stance and asserting that we are only sons through origination and not by nature!

So to understand, you do not believe that God is the Father of our spirits, and explain better how our premortal life negates the death, resurrection, and life of Jesus. I don't get that point.

Gabrielshow24:
Definitely 😂. It's really become comedic, I will properly outline all the errors for all to see😅. Trust me, I hate intellectual dishonesty. You will find such ridiculous contradictions clearly highlighted 🙃.

Without any shred of evidence you want us to believe that the sons of God in Job are men because of some anachronistic view into the past🤔, totally ignoring scriptural context, very absurd!

It is funny that you are the one guilty of everything you accuse me of. But then we can't continue this back and front. Let's keep our debate to the issues. Have fun. I see you've found a partner.

Julia25:
If you have then it's not possible given your earlier standpoint. It's contradictory

Ok your opinion. Now explain why you think so.

Gabrielshow24:
This is your own summary of our discussions😅. It's really comedic. You are now have the burden of proof to prove to us that man existed in those verses since you concocted such earlier.

Were you blind that you didn't see the scriptures I used? I even quoted from the Septuagint which clearly stated them as angels. But you would rather follow your own man made doctrine. I don't have time to reply this again as I have already addressed it earlier!

I am not in the habit, you are the one that distinguish between literal and figurative—Blurring the line between the two.

Of, course the bible was clear that we are strangers because the world can not receive us, we are aliens to it😅. Also, snow and hail are pilgrims😭, they too like you, have their origination in the storehouse of God. Argue with your bible😂

I can tell you that even before I laid the foundation of my house, I envisioned having a pool table🤦🏾‍♂️—is the pool table present as at when I had such predetermination? 🤷 Your logic is flawed! Do better!

Ok, I see we keep repeating. Let's do this some other time.

Julia25:
I understand both perspectives 🤷, I'm not being forceful but rather I want lay it down in plain and make you see flaws. Part of his argument was that your stance negates adoption.

Your theory implies that we are sons irrespective of our adoption, which is wrong as it negates the death of Christ because without Christ's death there will be no adoption. I have other talking points, there are not necessarily about angels.

What other angle are you seeking apart from the one in scripture ?

You did not answer my question. What topic are you interested in discussing. Let me know and state your point. Again it seems you did not read or follow the topic because of you do, you will realize that I believe in adoption. So what flaw are you correcting oga.

Julia25:
okay, what's the Christian truth? Let's break it down and analyze. Christian truths are things found within scripture and are taught by Christians or at least early church.

If you suggest yours is the christian truth? Then why insufficient evidence to support your theory, but his evidence as regards adoption is overwhelming . That's a scriptural truth, it doesn't rely on only one ambiguous verse to derive its truth. It is well confirmed in several places.

If you argue for your christian truth? Then you contradict the verses of adoption. If we were already sons we would need "No adoption!" We are sons in the first sense as having origin from God and in the second sense as being adopted in our earthly nature, because obviously flesh cannot please God. This is why he is extending your logic to the universe. This way he can show you logical errors.

Now, there's something that you must understand about "context". If I were to read Paul's admonishment on women not speaking or teaching in the church, I will say he was misogynistic but if I consider, Priscilla, who along with her husband taught Apollos. I understand the context better. That's why sometimes comparative studies and analysis is important. With what he has written, I can say he has done comparative studies on the Jewish background.

If you also perform such background analysis, you will see that "sons of God" along with elohim, godlike beings refer to the heavenly host in God's throne room which act in a functional role as being "sent". The Jewish description of angels is based on function, "the act of being sent", which is why the Greek writers used "Angelos", roughly angels in English.

That's why he pulled a quick one on you by asserting that since God could send his Son then every other being falls under such umbrella, tricky dude . You have to understand the definition before you can progress. The definition you also provide "ministering spirits" didn't do your argument well as you only have him more firepower .

You have to draw out what you observe as christian truth else it's just subjective, as you deem it fit and not objective as the texts says. If you have questions let us discuss. We can start quoting scripture and doing textual and comparative analysis.

It seems like you and the other guy have exactly the same talking points, I would have loved to do this with you if you introduce different angles so we don't keep recycling the same issues. What do you think?
And just so you know, there was no argument about adoption.
I will also suggest we take it one topic at a time so we don't get overwhelmed.
We could start with, Is man the Son of God for example or we could start with the angel angle

Julia25:
You have made some assumptions here that are wrong, and you have the same crime you imputed to him.

1) there are several verses that strongly suggest that the "sons of God" there are for pre-existing beings. You both have gone through this so I am not adding any extra. He has brought out Septuagint and others that corroborate with such. Even other texts around the "Jewish Second temple" period support this. You are the one dismissing them because you do not find them clear.

2) you are the one assuming there's not a verse for the sons of God being angels because of 1) above, which you have assumed without any concrete evidence implies man.

3) the verse you cited as your only proof is misplaced and wrong because you are taking it out of context, kindly read through the entire chapter and you will see the proper context being passed across.

4) As he highlighted, all major words have multiple meanings and the context warrants the meaning. Fatherhood has many meanings: origination, adoptions etc., in the scripture. If you assert Fatherhood without giving it proper context, you commit an error.

5) You mentioning going into Judaism is not any sort of refutation as the Jewish text, old testament, is incorporated into christian scripture so invariably they are from scripture. You must dismiss them from scripture to invalidate them which is not possible.

6) the context of the verse, in job, was God trying to make Job answer some questions. These questions highlighted that even before the Earth was formed, or while its foundations was being laid, sons of God shouted for joy. I don't know whether you understand what that implies . It adds an additional account to gen1, before the existence of the earth, before the existence of man. No matter how you put this it is not logical. You are arguing for conscious spirit before the foundation of the world, which is wrong. Only Jesus was the conscious spirit before the foundation of the earth.

You will need to prove logically that you existed before the foundation of the world, God knew everything before the foundation of the world it doesn't mean that everything was in existence before the foundation of the world! The proper context as I have added above is foreknowledge. Apart from this, you are just appealing to something that is not biblical. No prophet taught that, they only taught alienation from the things of the world, with Heaven as the final goal.

7) In Gen1, heaven and its hosts were made first, so I see why he logically concluded that man came after. He even used the inverse form by claiming since man was made on the last day,sixth day, and he is the last born of creation, then angels were made before him. It's a logical deduction, it's not expressly stated there but only Jewish scholars along with present Christian scholars align that the host there referred to Angels. I also think he made his heaven clear, he is not mentioning the cosmic realm, also called heaven or some other realm above that but solely the realm of heaven where God is surrounded by beings. This heavenly beings are what he terms angels. You didn't grab that. He differentiated between both, you are the one using the complexity of the word heaven to expand or incorporate other beings which he is not concerned about. His focus once again was on the beings in the throne room.

Based on this, you have to consult scripture to disprove him since he made a pretty hard point, all the theophanies before addressed them as angels(malaikim), you can verify yourself, with new revelations adding new types of this beings to our purview. His point in Hebrew 1 is actually very strong since God pointed to his angels, all those in the throne room, to worship his son, Jesus in flesh. Which they did in revelation that buttresses a generic name or axiom that they are called angels.

You have to negate with scripture otherwise it's the logical conclusion of scripture on that stance. Both of you can use "absence of evidence as evidence" to prove your cases but he has more logically appealing examples than you do, so it favors him.
" If one third of the stars were to fall and Satan is counted among them" then automatically Satan is a star, whether he is a cherub or not, doesn't change this fact. Satan has been counted among them. This places cherubs as a subset under stars, heavenly beings which roughly translates to malaikims in Hebrew and angels in Greek.

So, I agree with him, at least in his logical exemplification but in his methodology, I do not. Give us proofs, concrete proofs not speculations from inference to suggest such. Hope you didn't find it lengthy.

Your writing is very interesting but not one thing is based on christian truths or the scriptures.. I learned so much though.

Gabrielshow24:
😂 Obviously, the same logic applies—they are his angels because they do his bidding and are sent on his errands! 😂 Your analogy has backfired yet again.

Scripture is clear: an angel is a divine messenger. That’s why we see “the angel of the Lord” all throughout the Old Testament. Don’t be blind—open your eyes and see 😂.

I’ve stuck to your own definition: ministering spirits 👀, which literally means “spirit messengers.” You’re the one being inconsistent because you keep dodging the very methodology you claim to uphold 🤔. We’re just getting started—and thank God, it’s all here for everyone to see 😂. No turning back now. Welcome to the league of Max—the league of those whose own definitions have come back to haunt them 😁.

And you should know by now—before I became a Christian, I was a staunch atheist dismantling people’s arguments on this platform with logic. After my baptism, I took on this pseudonym, but I never abandoned my love for clear reasoning. So yes, I will use scriptural logic—and there’s no escaping that when you’re dealing with me 😁.

I believe now we are going round in circles and repeating the same things so let me just summarize.
You believe that angels slept with women because thousands of years before that, the children of God shouted for joy.
You have no scripture to back your angels are the children of God theory so you go into Judaism for answers.
You also believe that everyone in heaven is an angel even though the bible never made such claims.
I believe the Sons of God that slept with the daughters of men are human beings because the only 2 people referred to as Sons of God in the bible are Jesus Christ and man. No angel was called a Son of God. In fact, both you and I produced dozens of passages where man was called the Son of God both literally and figuratively. You made assumptions that in the old testament times, no one was called the Son of God but we saw plentiful examples of that.
Again you claim that it must have been angels that shouted for Joy because man wasn't yet created but you are not able to show any scripture that indicates the creation of angels before the foundation of the world.
I showed you scripture that indicates man being chosen before the foundation of the world not angels. You claim it all happened in God's mind. Then I reminded you that we are pilgrims on earth and you began to invent definitions for pilgrims as if it is a difficult word.
The bible was clear, we are strangers upon this earth that alone should convince anyone with understanding but it went on to state that we are pilgrims. Now this gives you no excuse to doubt.

Finally, you are in the habit of saying those things you disagree with in the bible are figurative. But that is cheap. Everyone can declare that the stuff they disagree with are figurative. The JW bros do it all the time. They disagree and tell you it's a parable.

Does the bible contain lots of figurative language? Yes. But when we see such, we don't argue, we know. Being born again is one of such.

I guess this is my summary of our discussions. I am such you have more to add and I will reply if you bring up new issues or new points and angles we have not yet explored if not, we shouldn't keep going round in circles.
Alright man

Gabrielshow24:
You can consult my previous replies if you need a refresher. Since you gave the definition, we’ll stick with it and apply it consistently. You’ve boxed yourself into this precarious position—your conundrum, not mine.

Whether you find it funny or not is irrelevant. What’s clear is that your logic is funny—absurd, even—and I’m simply putting those absurdities on display for all to see. If you can’t see it, I can’t help you… but others certainly will 👌.

By your own definition, your elders and cherubs aren’t excluded. I even hinted that if the Father sent the Son, then no one—no matter their rank—is “above” going on an errand. That automatically places your elders and cherubs under the umbrella of “angels” 😂. Now it’s you who must prove otherwise. Unfortunately for you, your reliance on the absence of evidence as if it were evidence only strengthens my case and weakens yours 😂.

We’ll definitely continue tomorrow—you’ve made me laugh, and I’ve enjoyed it. Since I blocked Max, I haven’t had such an amusing prey 😂 in a while. Hopefully by tomorrow you’ll come armed with actual evidence 👀… though given the lack so far, that’s looking extremely futile 😁.

I am happy for you and the feeling is mutual. I helped me get through a boring day

Gabrielshow24:
😂😂😂 How ignorant can one be? Verses, along with their contexts, have been laid out before you—yet you gladly reject them 🤷. That’s your conundrum, not mine. My task is simply to show them to you. The “sons of God” referring to angels is right there for all to see. We even went into the Hebrew, pulling the term malaikim for heavenly beings—yet you turned a blind eye. Truly, you fit Jesus’ words: “They have eyes but cannot see.”

I’m using your logic—so own it. The Bible is explicit: all things came from God. Argue with your own scripture. Since you’ve claimed that “origination” equals “offspring,” then the same standard must apply to everything. Don’t stop halfway—extend it to all, because all originated from God! You’re simply tasting the consequences of your own reasoning 😂.

You’ve had the entire day to prove to us that the beings in Job 38 were men. So far, nothing! You’ve used logic that belongs more in a fetus than in a fully grown adult. From turning “sons of God” into literal men—thereby negating Christ’s death and the Spirit of adoption 👀—to insisting elders and cherubim can’t be sent on errands, your argument is a masterclass in illogicality. That’s something I personally do not stand for.

This is exactly why I asked you to define “angels”—because I knew you’d stumble over it 😂.

I will continue tomorrow, but for now, stop creating your funny context. Please show how the context is about angels. Don't just say context as if it is some magic, meaningless word.
Articulate and explain why you think the context is about angels

Gabrielshow24:
But you need wisdom to understand scripture 😂—and that’s why your explanations turn out so shambolic.

Since God can send anyone, the definition of “messenger” (angelos) rightly applies to elders and cherubim as well—you can’t escape that. The same way I trapped Janosky is exactly what I’ve done here. By the same logic, Jesus—by function as a messenger—is also an “angel” (not in ontological nature, but in role).

I don’t use double standards. I apply the same methodology everywhere and don’t turn a blind eye to obvious inferences. The Bible states that one-third of the stars of heaven—angels—fell. Yet somehow, because Satan is called a cherub and not explicitly labeled “angel,” you conclude he isn’t one? 😂 Make it make sense! The same way I don’t dismiss theophanies in the past, which generalized all beings in the heavenly court as angels before the fuller revelation given to John.

Even in Hebrews 1, the general term was used—not some hair-splitting technicality. Jesus Himself didn’t resort to obscure terminology, knowing full well that just as humanity is composed of many nations and tongues, so too the angelic realm is made up of various classes. “Angel” is the generic name for the whole host.

You’re the one with the Herculean task: prove that, by inference, the elders are not angels—a category that already encapsulates the entire heavenly host. So far, you’ve done nothing but lean on the absence of evidence as though it were proof that elders aren’t angels 😂. Pathet...

Lol
You keep making that funny point that because God can use anyone as a messenger, hence everyone is an angel. Unfortunately, that is not the biblical definition, but yours.
You confuse the angels of God with the devil's angels.
Again, stick to the definition of angels and stop being funny.

Gabrielshow24:
You should take your own advice! As you have done exactly all this. I don't care about "he should or he would!" The fact remains that theoretically all of them in that Court are ministering spirits and can be sent on errands, if He wants to! So, your definition of angels encompasses the Elders and the Cherubims😂—Another after thought from an ill formed doctrine!

Also, nobody asked for the number of angels available, even at this he still sent his Son; so the number here is irrelevant and does your cause nothing! —The same thing your entire argument is hinged upon.

Everything you have done is speculation, I guess according to you when God spoke to the angels in the court room in Hebrews 1 that the cherubs and Elders were missing? 😂

Which kind "logic" you dey use?

The question is not if God has the power to send anyone on an errand. Yes He does. The question is if He sends everyone on errands just because he can or just for you to win an argument.
So according to you Christ is an angel right? He did not send His son because He has used up the entire host of heaven. He never stayed that the goal was to send the entire host of heaven as angels. Please get serious.
I have never speculated. That is why unlike you, I don't call cherubim and elders angels because I stick strictly to the bible. The bible named them separately. Same way I will not guess that everyone in heaven is an elder, or a cherub. It makes no sense.
I never depend on logic, I use the scriptures.

Nope, I didn't—because the bible says all things came from God! The entire universe came from him. So yes, inanimate things are offspring of God—your ridiculous claim warrants this!
I think you are intentionally acting dumb. The bible says humans are his offspring. That is my only claim. Humans, not angels nor plants nor stone.

I am not dramatic, also how does Satan fall relate to this? You are just talking off point. Solomon was a son of God, because God slept with Bathsheba, right? 😂If you don't use context, I will use this "drama" to show the porousness in your logic!
I would not use your predetermined context and it's your choice if being dramatic when you have no answers is your thing.

Children that haven't received home training are trained from outside, since you have decided to give your logic an aestivation then I will reflect it to you!

As long as scripture is concerned the sons of God shouted for joy when God laid the foundations of the Earth, it's not men😂 as you opined but Angels! —Heavenly beings. If it so affects you,kindly remove it from your bible! 🤷
Lol we have given you all day to prove that angels are the Sons of God. But you have shown me tens of verses that say man is the Son of God and none that says angels are His son. It seems at a point, you began to argue on my behalf. I should just keep quiet you are doing my job.

Gabrielshow24:
Read the verses above😂, your answer is there. Indeed, there's no need for Christ since we are all literal sons of God! Once again, Get thee behind me, Satan!

Your doctrine is an antiChrist's doctrine. While yet our spirits originated from God, we are of a physical nature and hence not sons of God in the literal sense!

I bet, by your literal definition—plants too are offspring of God. Also, in the literal sense, dinosaurs are offspring of God because obviously they originated from God. The eukaryotic cells are literally sons of God😂.🤔Thinking now, I also assert that pre-eukaryotic cells are literally sons of God—They have their origination in God.

Your mal-use of "literally" is baffling! May God help you literally see your errors 😂!

Lol
Christ came to save the Sons of God and reconcile them to their Father. Oga you are try so hard but the bible is constant. God is the Father of all men.
Solomon was a Son of God, did he not Fall? How about Lucifer.
Just because one is a son of God doesn't mean He can't fall. Stop being dramatic. Make your point without the drama.
As for offspring, the bible only speaks about man, not plants, goats, or angels. When you choose to go beyond what has been revealed to you, you begin to include plants and angels

[b]Nope, I am not the one grabbing straws. You are! There's no data that suggest elders visiting man but there's data in excess of angels visiting man because angels are the general term for heavenly beings. Now, it's you that has to disprove the existential fact that if God could send his Son then he can send any being, including the Elders and Cherubs you so vainly cling unto.

The only way you can bypass this limitation is to limit God himself by asserting that God cannot send his Elders nor the Cherubs on errand😂. I wonder whether or not it was God actually leading the cherubs based on Ezekiel? 🤔 because according to tctrills, God is so impotent that he can't send his elders and cherubs on errands because he believes that since there is no mention then God can't do that. 😁

Your logic is baffling. I used that example from the court room of heaven in revelation. The question was posed to them all, the elders included along with your cherubs (four living creatures) but not one was able to come to earth because none of them met the criteria. Invariably God was sending the recipient an errand to save man— an assignment none of them could take as it is exemplified in scripture!

Once more, you are grasping at complete illogical straws! I will also not allow you renege on your biblical definition of "ministering spirits" —messengers. You have defined it and we are sticking with it😁.

I didn't twist any knowledge, you are the one finding it hard to grasp the difference between literal and metaphorical. That's your conundrum not mine! [/b]

Let me get your point, you have zero data on elders but you must force out a narrative. ? Why can't you just say I don't know and we move on. Now you are inventing something new that angel is the generic name for everything in heaven. I wouldn't even ask you to show in scripture because you will start bringing up nothingness. Again by definition, cherubim are not angels.
Your next attempt at logic is super disappointing. There is order in the house of God. He has more than enough angels suited to do his task. Just because you need him to send you elders to win an argument wouldn't make him do it. Just because He can doesn't mean He should or He would. Do you get it?
A half truth, half definition could be more dangerous that a complete lie. Try to give a complete definition according to the bible, not my words and your entire argument is over.

Gabrielshow24:
My dear😂, I have answered this earlier. Fatherhood has context. The entire verses you brought forth all buttresses "origination" from God! In the "literal sense", God birthed us because we have our origination in God likewise in the literal sense, you were birthed by your Father.😂

Let me now post all the verses that strongly assert adoption through Christ😁. This way you will see beyond reasonable doubt where your literal sense has failed you. 😂

Direct Mentions of “Adoption” (Huiothesia)

*Romans 8:15 –

For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.”

*Romans 8:23 –

Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

Romans 9:4 – (speaks of Israel historically, but shows adoption is a covenant privilege)…who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises.

*Galatians 4:4–5 –

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

*Ephesians 1:5 –

Having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.

These do not always use the word huiothesia, but describe the same reality — becoming God’s children/heirs through Christ.

*John 1:12–13 –

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name; who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

*Romans 8:16–17 –

The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ…

*1 John 3:1–2 –

Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! … Beloved, now we are children of God…

*Galatians 3:26 –

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

*2 Corinthians 6:18 –

I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters, says the LORD Almighty.

*Hebrews 2:10–11 –

For it was fitting for Him… in bringing many sons to glory… For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren.

*Philippians 3:20–21 – (citizenship in heaven and transformation as God’s own)

For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior… who will transform our lowly body…

*Matthew 5:9 – (Beatitudes – called sons of God)

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

*1 Peter 2:9–10 – (from not being God’s people to being His)

…who once were not a people but are now the people of God…

*Hosea 1:10 –

…it shall be said to them, ‘You are sons of the living God.’

*Isaiah 43:6–7 –

Bring My sons from afar, and My daughters from the ends of the earth…

I don't know whether or not this verses are missing from your own bible but they are not missing from mine!

You are 100% correct and I already stated it. Being born again or being adopted is figurative. We are literally the Sons of God.
Now let me ask you, where the House of Israel also adopted?
Good you stated that the verses I quoted show our literally sonship to God. Now let me ask, is the verse in Job talking about literal son's or adopted sons?

Gabrielshow24:
In the spirit of Madara Uchiha—wake up to reality—scriptural reality, that is 😂. There’s simply not enough data for you to conclude whether or not elders have visited men. You can speculate, sure—I could even say that two of the three men Abraham saw were elders 😂. Anything “fits” when there’s little scriptural backing. Your definition is fine for a relational sense, but it fails ontologically. By that standard, any heavenly being God sends on an errand is technically an angel—unless you want to limit God’s power by claiming He can’t send elders. If He sent His own Son, then trust me, none of them are “off-limits.” That’s primary school reasoning 👀.

All things originated from God. By the metaphoric definition of “offspring,” all things are theoretically His offspring. Two can play that game 😂. The burden is now on you to dismiss this claim—good luck, because I have multiple verses clearly asserting that all things came from God 🤔👀. You’ll have to do better than this if you want to convince me with your “logic.”

The Bible is plain—we didn’t exist before the earth shouting for joy. That’s settled.

And yes, I already answered this. It’s the same problem that gave our brother Janosky a headache until he started defining “spirits of trees” as angels. You seem to be following his path 😁. Angels are simply messengers, by your definition, every heavenly being would qualify—unless, again, you want to limit God’s authority to send them. After all, when God posed the question about opening the seal, all of them were present, yet none were worthy or able to come to earth 🤔. By your reasoning, that makes every single one of them messengers. Argue with your Bible.

And yes, I brought that up to highlight your gross intellectual dishonesty. The context demands it. Now you’re grasping at an unrelated analogy. FYI—Jesus was not a 🐈. “Lion of Judah” is symbolic and widely understood, the same way “Mighty God” is understood. I’ll leave that as homework for you, since you clearly need practice in distinguishing between literal and symbolic interpretation.

Now you are grabbing straws. I understand you felt felt that the definition of angels was some big deal. When you say that there is not enough data to know if the elders are angels, you are only saying that you don't have enough data to tell what an angel is and what they are not. Let me ask you, do you agree with the definition in the bible? Now by your admiton, you don't know if elders are angels or not, you don't know if cherubim are angels or not. You don't know much about the topic you choose to debate on.
That's why I taught you to stick to the bible and not confuse yourself with fables.
Now you call being God's offspring a game. The bible says all men not all things. Stick to your bible and you will not get confused.
The bible is plain we had a relationship with God before our lives on earth
Angels are not simply messengers , I gave you the complete definition. All you believe falls apart at the complete definition. And not everyone qualifies unless you leave out some parts of the definition. The parts that gives you running stomach .
Lastly, just because you have a twisted knowledge of what is literally and figuratively doesn't make you right. I gave you the example of Jesus Christ being the mighty God to teach you that not everything is figurative. And just because it doesn't support your argument doesn't make it figurative. By your game, all things would end up being figurative when we don't like them

[quote author=Gabrielshow24 post=136460420]🤣🤣🤣 literally? and yet you need another birth, a spiritual birth😂 for that matter... This is hilarious 😅.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? The fact that you are born of spirit and not of flesh 👀but I guess you conflated spirit and flesh and swapped them around because you have issues with literal and metaphorical statements 😂.

God will be shh(shaking his head) in heaven 😂. Let me call some people to witness me(in the style of mad max 😂). Dtruthspeaker, SirTee, TenQ, Ken4Christ come and see this😂. It's become really interesting.

We are offspring in spirit but yet we need another spiritual birth 😂 and adoption even though we are already spirits. All your premises render the death of Jesus as useless because according to you we are sons of God already by nature! Which should warrant no need for any spiritual rebirth

It is not my words it is God's words you find hilarious. He was the one that taught us to be spiritually born. Read first John.
The spiritual birth comes last. God is the Father of our spirits nit according to the bible, that is not the same as being spiritually born of God. So in literally sense, He is our heavenly Father.
Please contend with his words. I did not write the bible.
Acts 17:28–29 – Paul in Athens

“For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Malachi 2:10
“Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Hebrews 12:9 – Father of spirits
“Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
God is literally the Father of our spirits. We are literally his offspring.

Ephesians 4:6 – One God and Father of all

“One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
God is not our figurative Father. He is literally the Father of our spirits.
Being His sons has 2 meanings,
1. He is literally the Father of our spirits and 2. We figuratively are born again or born of God. Not the other way round.

First, you still haven’t defined angels because you know full well that whatever boundary you set will backfire on you. You’re dodging because the moment you commit to a definition, it will collapse under the weight of your own argument.
Oh that's what you think is your big point? Ok let's look for a definition in the bible.
Hebrews 1:14 – “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
Not every being in heaven is sent to minister to them who shall be heirs of salvation. Example is the cherubim in Eden. Or the elders at Gods presences
I wonder why you think this should be a hard one for me
Second, I have already stated plainly: we have our origin in God — the same way all things do — but that does not mean all things fit the Job 38 scenario. Snow, hail, animals, and mountains also originate from God; are you going to say they were all standing there shouting at creation too? That’s the absurdity of your “origin = presence” reasoning.
The bible never said all things are his offspring. Goats are not his offspring so we are not the same with all things. By your definition, angels also originate from God, the same with all things.

Your entire premise is just speculation — and not even a logical one. The Bible is explicit: no human existed before the foundation of the world. You’re trying to smuggle in a doctrine by inference, but the text you claim to stand on doesn’t actually say what you’re making it say. That’s why your whole case is hanging by thin air.
The bible is explicit, we are strangers and pilgrims on the earth chosen before life on earth. You are finding it hard to believe the bible and are looking for new meanings for a straightforward phrase. How would you explain a pilgrim to your son. But because you are not comfortable with the verse, you need to invent new meanings that completely change the concept of strangers and pilgrims on earth.

Elders or no elders, malʾākim is a general term for heavenly messengers, which we translate as “angels.” You’re trying to make distinctions where Scripture itself often uses broad categories.
I gave you the scriptural meaning of angels. Do you have any scripture to even show that the elders are messengers? Angels by the bible definition are not just any messagers They are sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? So stop your spiritual gymnastics.


And when it comes to Jesus, you’re mixing categories entirely. You’re treating synonyms and poetic titles as if they demand identical ontology. The base word “star” being applied to both doesn’t mean they’re the same kind of being. By your logic, if Jesus is called the Lion of Judah, He must be a literal cat. Your statements dey muzz me, honestly.
You are confused here. By your definition, Jesus is called the mighty God. I believe you think it is figurative.

At the end of the day, you’re not proving from Scripture — you’re building a dogma and then forcing the text to bow.
You are actually creating your own sets of believe contrary to God's words.

This is utterly ridiculous. 😂 So by your reasoning, the apostles — along with Jesus Himself — must have had the mind of an atheist, because they preached adoption into God’s family rather than whatever wild doctrine you’ve cooked up. 👀 I’ll gladly follow Jesus’ words over your misplaced eisegesis.
Do you realize that it was to the unbelieving Greeks that Paul taught that they are the offspring of God? So literally we all are children of God. Now to become Sons of God through the faith means to be spiritually born of God. Born in the spirit or adoption as you stated. Not the other way round.
All men are offsprings of God. He is the Father of our spirits. But it is by faith that we become spiritually born of him.
Hope this makes it clear to you.

Now, how does that relate to angels? That’s a tangent and doesn’t address the sonship of angels, nor does it deny it.

So you are not sure of the sonship of angels. Your entire doctrine is guesswork.

Wrong. The mass forgetfulness — where no one remembered such an event except Jesus — dismantles your doctrine. We didn’t have conscious life before our physical existence.
If no one can remember the day of their birth that shows you have no point. Now you want to remember an event that happened thousands of years ago, how dishonest.

Wrong again. Genesis 1 speaks of spiritual creation. In Genesis 2, it’s explicitly stated that there was no plant yet — despite plants already being “created” in Genesis 1 —because man had not yet been formed to till the ground. If you insist Genesis 1 is purely physical creation, you’ve just refuted yourself
You are complecating your self with these funny opinion.. So according to you, the physical creation took place in chapter one and the spiritual in chapter 2. Funny.

You’re committing categorical errors. Just because the relational term “morning star” is applied to both doesn’t mean they’re ontologically identical. That’s the same blunder the JWs made when they claimed Jesus was an angel. The same reasoning you’re using here already answers your question.
Explain I don't get your point

“Pilgrims” and “strangers” can simply mean we’re not of this world in conduct, not that we’re extraterrestrial wanderers. 😂 The early church understood this to mean moral and spiritual separation from the world, not some pre-earthly existence.
It can't mean that. It means you don't come from here. Stop forcing it even when it is not making sense.

Also, your line “you can’t choose what doesn’t exist” is wrong. You can envision or foreknow something before it exists. That verse highlights God’s foreknowledge, not our pre-existence. Reading other passages into it doesn’t suddenly make us cosmic nomads — it shows we were intentionally sown into the earth by God’s will, not that we travelled here like migrants.
We were choosen that alone tells that you existed.

The only valid sense in which this works is that we have our origin in God — which Scripture plainly states of everything: “For all things were made by Him.” That means everything has its origin in God directly or indirectly. This doesn’t help your case at all — by your logic, hail and snow are also “pilgrims,” since they too “pre-exist” in God’s storehouses. 😂 What exactly is your point?🤨
Childish, the bible did not say snow is a pilgrim. So it's not my logic, it's the word of God. Being a pilgrim doesn't mean to pre exist. It means to come from somewhere else

Gabrielshow24:
Eleyi lo far? Nibo lati ja si bayi? 🤕🤷
How I take become atheist? I only made a simple observation! So, what’s your excuse for not understanding sonship by adoption in all your arguments? 😂 You’re clearly turning a blind eye 🤕 just to push your own doctrine 🤨.

Haba you distracted by quoting an atheist who had the same understanding as you.