JesusisLord85:

sharap there. Where does it say it was a different gospel. You misunderstand the writings, highlighting what you think is important. What does "lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain" mean. Of course you won't highlight that, and I'm sure you will twist it.
"my gospel" ke, as if he is the author. There is so much wrong with this your 2 gospel theory it beggars belief.

I am done with your emotional tantrums. I have always wished you well in your Jewish religion, I really can't fathom what business and interest you have with Christianity.

Peace out.

Derailizationing!!!!!! hehehehehehe

shdemidemi:

More like you don't get it, you are simply engrossed by emotions hence you think you can help God make the world a better place. Did the bible promise a peaceful world without immorality, war and pangs? No. The world is what it is, sinful and evil. God has called some to salvation and some to destruction.
Romans 9

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Don't try to help God by adulterating the word of God. He says His power is revealed only in this gospel of grace, no where else , God has guaranteed His power in the gospel of grace and justification to anyone who believe.



0ut of point. Christ was speaking to legalists here and not teachers of the gospel of grace who have faith and trust God in all things.

What is God's standard?



You still carry that legalism mindset of what I can do to please God or what I can do to be saved. God is saying he does everything, if He needs me today He knows how to place me in that position where I will think Him, dream Him. Paul never planned all he did with the gospel, God arrested him against his will with a disaster. God blinded him and made him seek Him, God made him abandon his life for His own purpose and will. You will never see Paul say he did anything because he wanted to because God works everything out in us for His own purpose and glory.

I have told you times without number that Peter is not a teacher for the body of Christ. He is a teacher for the believing Jews. This gospel of grace to Gentiles was entrusted to one man for us, you will keep depending on your ability if you keep looking from the eyes of the law. God calls the best you can offer filthy rag in his presence, God says we are weak, we are not good but in our weakness His power would be revealed through the gospel.

I don't think you digest the import of my post,your replies were laced with sentiments,i hope we are not quarreling sha. I just told you the gospel truth.

Lawlessness is indeed a mystery,Keep on with the powerful delusions.Every man is held accountable on the last day.Peace.

Bidam: I don't think you digest the import of my post,your replies were laced with sentiments,i hope we are not quarreling sha. I just told you the gospel truth.

Lawlessness is indeed a mystery,Keep on with the powerful delusions.Every man is held accountable on the last day.Peace.

Quarrel! How na.
Mathew 16:6

6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

6 Jesus said to the followers, “Be careful! Guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.”

I am only refuting the yeast legalists like you are propagating. Moreover, calling the gospel of grace lawlessness further proves your lack of understanding. However,I can't be angry with you bro, one can only give what one has, not more.

shdemidemi:

Quarrel! How na.
Mathew 16:6

6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

6 Jesus said to the followers, “Be careful! Guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.”

I am only refuting the yeast legalists like you are propagating. Moreover, calling the gospel of grace lawlessness further proves your lack of understanding. However,I can't be angry with you bro, one can only give what one has, not more.

You will be shocked if i show you a scripture where Paul says we should keep laws.

Bidam: You will be shocked if i show you a scripture where Paul says we should keep laws.

Keep what law, law of Moses?

Covering the hair was not a christian doctrine but rather a customary thing.. It was like the wedding ring of our day. Covering the hair was for married woman as a sign of respect for their husbands. It wasnt for unmarried girls. A woman who goes public without cover her head in the bible days has dis honored her own husband. It's like a modern day woman who doesn't wear her wedding ring.

This is the scripture most people misunderstand

1 Corinthians 11:5
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head:for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

The word "woman " only refers to the married. To dishonor her head makes reference to her husband who is her head. According to verse two. Which says . . . .the head of every woman is her husband. . .

It's important to read verse 5 in other translations .let me clarify by reading living bible translation

1 Corinthians 11:5
And that is why a woman who publicly prays or prophesies without a covering on her head dishonors her husband, for her covering is a sign of her subjection to him.

shdemidemi:

Keep what law, law of Moses?

Do you agree that there are laws to be kept?

Bidam: Do you agree that there are laws to be kept?

Of course there is the law of Christ apart from the mosaic law.

Joagbaje: Covering the hair was not a christian doctrine but rather a customary thing.. It was like the wedding ring of our day. Covering the hair was for married woman as a sign of respect for their husbands. It wasnt for unmarried girls. A woman who goes public without cover her head in the bible days has dis honored her own husband. It's like a modern day woman who doesn't wear her wedding ring.

This is the scripture most people misunderstand

1 Corinthians 11:5
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head:for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

The word "woman " only refers to the married. To dishonor her head makes reference to her husband who is her head. According to verse two. Which says . . . .the head of every woman is her husband. . .

It's important to read verse 5 in other translations .let me clarify by reading living bible translation

1 Corinthians 11:5
And that is why a woman who publicly prays or prophesies without a covering on her head dishonors her husband, for her covering is a sign of her subjection to him.

Thank you very much bro...your point is on point...

but lemmie also emphasis some points...

1. The passage never talked about a woman covering her hair...it says cover head

2. if the Bible says cover your head and also says in 1 Cor 11:15 dat your hair is given to cover your head....then i think we don't need to waste time elongating dis issue.

3. I Corinthians 11:5 is an analogy.....hmmmm...read again

KJV I Corinthians 11:5: " But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head:for that is even all one as if she were shaven" ( emphasis by dagr8 )

Where her head in d first instance equals to her husband, according to I Corinthins 11:3

I Corinthais 11: 6 ( World Bible Translation)- " If a woman does not cover her head, then it is the same as cutting off all her hair. But it is shameful for a woman to cut off her hair or to shave her head. So she should cover her head." ( emphasis by dagr8 )

I believe this is not a new bone of contention in the body of Christ...
So if the "apostles" of putting something in your head as a means of covering believe that u av to wear handkerchief,scarf, hat,cap,beret and d likes; friends there is no crime neither is it a sin but don't come and tell me funny revelations like someone saw somebody in Hell because she doesn't wear head gear...cos is not Biblical

I remember those days when speaking in tongues was greatly criticized but today are we not seeing many realizing the truth....after much dogmatism about it from some set of people.

Let us throw away dogmatism and accept new revelation, we know in parts....doctrine will take no one to heaven

shdemidemi:

Quarrel! How na.
Mathew 16:6

6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

6 Jesus said to the followers, “Be careful! Guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.”

I am only refuting the yeast legalists like you are propagating. Moreover, calling the gospel of grace lawlessness further proves your lack of understanding. However,I can't be angry with you bro, one can only give what one has, not more.

What was the "yeast" he is talking about?
Let me help you there:

Matthew 23:2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3 all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not"

So, do as they say, BUT not as they do. In other words, they were hypocrites.

Matthew 23:4 "For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers"

They created laws on top of God's laws. THAT is legalism, not the law of God per se. Chei

Read the woes t the Pharisees of Matthew 23, and you will know that these people were not walking in the commandments. They followed the traditions of men. So we can conclude that you used this verse inappropriatesly, and we ask you to refrain from quoting from the word of God, until true nderstanding is attained.

Thank you

shdemidemi:
The bible says the gospel of Christ (1 cor 15:1-4) is the power of God which means God's power is hid in the gospel. The day we come to the acceptance of this gospel we are no more in control of our lives but the Spirit of God lead us both to do and will.

Ok. So why do you still sin greatly after decaes of being a 'christian', if you are in the spirit?

JesusisLord85:

Ok. So why do you still sin greatly after decaes of being a 'christian', if you are in the spirit?

I will start by asking you your definition of sin?

JesusisLord85:

What was the "yeast" he is talking about?
Let me help you there:

Matthew 23:2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3 all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not"

So, do as they say, BUT not as they do. In other words, they were hypocrites.

Matthew 23:4 "For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers"

They created laws on top of God's laws. THAT is legalism, not the law of God per se. Chei

Read the woes t the Pharisees of Matthew 23, and you will know that these people were not walking in the commandments. They followed the traditions of men. So we can conclude that you used this verse inappropriatesly, and we ask you to refrain from quoting from the word of God, until true nderstanding is attained.

Thank you

Guy go and check where he said they should beware of their doctrines as well.
Matthew 16:12
Then they understood that (christ)He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

If you are saying Christ said they should obey the law, yes absolutely. They have to until the requirement of the law was fulfilled, it got fulfilled by the ultimate price paid by Jesus.

shdemidemi:

Guy go and check where he said they should beware of their doctrines as well.
Matthew 16:12
Then they understood that (christ)He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

If you are saying Christ said they should obey the law, yes absolutely. They have to until the requirement of the law was fulfilled, it got fulfilled by the ultimate price paid by Jesus.

But I thought you said the Jews were to continue in the law, but not the gentiles.
Why would Jesus teach the law to people who would outlive him? He may as well have said; these things obey until most of the prophets be fulfilled.

Not all of prophecies of old have been fulfilled. FACT
Therefore, the law remains. The condemnation of the law is no more, for they that believe.

JesusisLord85:

But I thought you said the Jews were to continue in the law, but not the gentiles.
Why would Jesus teach the law to people who would outlive him? He may as well have said; these things obey until most of the prophets be fulfilled.

Not all of prophecies of old have been fulfilled. FACT
Therefore, the law remains. The condemnation of the law is no more, for they that believe.

JesusisLord85:

But I thought you said the Jews were to continue in the law, but not the gentiles.
Why would Jesus teach the law to people who would outlive him? He may as well have said; these things obey until most of the prophets be fulfilled.

Not all of prophecies of old have been fulfilled. FACT
Therefore, the law remains. The condemnation of the law is no more, for they that believe.

Bro, I did not say the Jews should continue in the law (don't confuse yourself). There is nothing you and I or even Paul can do about the fate of the nation of Israel.

First thing we must always know is that God deals with Israel as a nation and He deals with Gentiles as a nation. Notwithstanding we would have individuals from both nations benefitting from God's dealings with the two separate nations.

God has told us what would happen to the twelve tribes in the book of Revelation. For that to come to reality, the nation of Israel will never accept their salvation is by faith alone hence they will never accept Paul's doctrine.

God has turned to gentile in this church age, He sends an apostle specifically to the gentile nation. God says all you need do to be justified (justified simply means just as if you never sinned) and be glorified is by believing Christ died and rose for your sins. Never think i am saying individual Jews cannot come into Christ, of course they can because the wall of demarcation had fall in Christ. But, the entire nation of Israel will not come to this truth until the body of Christ is gone.
Romans 11
25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

Goshen360:

See this yeye apostolic rabbi..You dey laff abi?

Na intelligent question my brother ask o..even shdemidemi don dey shit for pant sef

shdemidemi:

Bro, I did not say the Jews should continue in the law (don't confuse yourself). There is nothing you and I or even Paul can do about the fate of the nation of Israel.

But this is the reason people on NL say you teach 2 gospels, one for the Jew, another for the gentile. Can you re-state your position for us, so that we do not unfairly label you going forward.

shdemidemi:

Bro, I did not say the Jews should continue in the law (don't confuse yourself). There is nothing you and I or even Paul can do about the fate of the nation of Israel.

First thing we must always know is that God deals with Israel as a nation and He deals with Gentiles as a nation. Notwithstanding we would have individuals from both nations benefitting from God's dealings with the two separate nations.

God has told us what would happen to the twelve tribes in the book of Revelation. For that to come to reality, the nation of Israel will never accept their salvation is by faith alone hence they will never accept Paul's doctrine.

God has turned to gentile in this church age, He sends an apostle specifically to the gentile nation. God says all you need do to be justified (justified simply means just as if you never sinned) and be glorified is by believing Christ died and rose for your sins. Never think i am saying individual Jews cannot come into Christ, of course they can because the wall of demarcation had fall in Christ. But, the entire nation of Israel will not come to this truth until the body of Christ is gone.
Romans 11
25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

And you think the fullness of gentiles refers to pagans in this context? Bro..go make your research properly Paul was actually quoting the prophets concerning the house of Israel that lost their identity when captured by the Assyrian armies. Paul was a Jew through and through.

Bidam: And you think the fullness of gentiles refers to pagans in this context? Bro..go make your research properly Paul was actually quoting the prophets concerning the house of Israel that lost their identity when captured by the Assyrian armies. Paul was a Jew through and through.

You are in the habit of arguing subjectively.....what has pagan got to do with this?


Please read your Romans 9, 10 and 11 to know what context at which this statement was prompted.

Paul was Jew through and through yet he says he became a Jew so he can win some. Stop mixing spiritual matters with that of the flesh na.

Romans 11

13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

Joagbaje: Covering the hair was not a christian doctrine but rather a customary thing.. It was like the wedding ring of our day.

Hair covering or head covering, which is the same thing in context, is not just custom but Bible teaching. We may want to give reasons and excuses for not observing it. But one cannot lie openly and suggest that it is not in the Bible. i want to believe that what is in the Bible is christian doctrine and teaching. Corinth was a greek city, not even Arab or mid-east. it was a chief commercial centre in Greece that rivalled Athens. It is not like the wedding ring of your day. It is a practice that the Holy Ghost through Paul told the church to practice, like the holy Communion which was talked about in the same chapter.
1Co 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
They were ordinances that were delivered to them by Paul. ordinances are laws, decrees, To be milder, they are teachings and directions, not mere local customs.

Covering the hair was for married woman as a sign of respect for their husbands. It wasnt for unmarried girls. A woman who goes public without cover her head in the bible days has dis honored her own husband. It's like a modern day woman who doesn't wear her wedding ring.

This is just a get out excuse that is untenable. Its like suggesting that every where'man'is mentioned, it has to refer to only married males, or even only to males. But we know that it can refer to the whole of mankind. Is Christ not the head of every man? Is Christ only the head of married men?
1Co 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
1Co 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Do we say here that this only applies to married women? Is it okay for a man to 'touch'an unmarried girl? Let every woman have her own husband. It is not compulsory that every woman has a husband. this is the same 1Corinthians, and we see that Paul did not limit his use of that word to only the married. We cannot also say that unmarried women are allowed to usurp authority over men, as Paul uses the same woman word in 1Timothy.

This is the scripture most people misunderstand

1 Corinthians 11:5
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head:for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

The word "woman " only refers to the married. To dishonor her head makes reference to her husband who is her head. According to verse two. Which says . . . .the head of every woman is her husband. . .

It's important to read verse 5 in other translations .let me clarify by reading living bible translation

1 Corinthians 11:5
And that is why a woman who publicly prays or prophesies without a covering on her head dishonors her husband, for her covering is a sign of her subjection to him.

If nothing else, i believe that we are both on the same page that the covering referred to is not the hair. If it is the hair, how does this apply to the married woman theory?

dagr8:
[font=tempus sans itc] Thank you very much bro...your point is on point...

but lemmie also emphasis some points...

1. The passage never talked about a woman covering her hair...it says cover head

It is implied and common sense that when you cover your hair, you have covered your head. Like we call or speak of headgears, headdress, head-ties and headphones. these are all words we use. they do not necessarily have to cover the eyes and nose to be referred to as head covering. Safety helmets and crash helmets protect and cover the head, we do not say they are protecting our hair.

2. if the Bible says cover your head and also says in 1 Cor 11:15 dat your hair is given to cover your head....then i think we don't need to waste time elongating dis issue.

If we have enough grace, we should not see it as an issue to trash out before doing simple and straight forward things written in the Bible.
[color=#990000]1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
The literal rendition is "for a covering", which is slightly different from "as a covering". The hair is given her naturally for her to cover it. In such understanding, we easily align with the straight forward meanings of the rest of the passage. We cannot discard about 10 verses that have plain meaning because of one verse that has more than one meaning depending on how it is read.

3. I Corinthians 11:5 is an analogy.....hmmmm...read again

KJV I Corinthians 11:5: " But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head:for that is even all one as if she were shaven" ( emphasis by dagr8 )

Where her head in d first instance equals to her husband, according to I Corinthins 11:3

I Corinthais 11: 6 ( World Bible Translation)- " If a woman does not cover her head, then it is the same as cutting off all her hair. But it is shameful for a woman to cut off her hair or to shave her head. So she should cover her head." ( emphasis by dagr8 )

I believe this is not a new bone of contention in the body of Christ...

i'll tell you what analogy is. Where is the sanity, the logic and the analogy in leaving the hair uncovered if it is the glory of the woman?
1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
If a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her.
The man is the glory of God(v7)
The woman is the glory of the man(v7)
The hair is the glory of the woman (v15)
God's glory should be revealed/uncovered- This is symbolized by the man's head being uncovered.
Man's glory should be covered- This is symbolized by covering the woman's head.
Woman's glory should be uncovered has it is to cover man's glory- Your interpretation of verse 15 paraphrased.
[size=12pt]WHAT IS THE LOGIC OR SPIRIT, WISDOM OR ANALOGY IN THAT?

^^^You have only succeeded in relaying your religous views bro.

The bottom line is that this church had problems, they had written to Paul about these issues they had in the church. They had problem with brethren bringing pagan ideologies into the church, they had segregation between the rich and the poor in the church, they had issue with the the brothels and prostitute nature of the city which was rubbing off the women in the church etc.Paul was writing back to them to deal with their profane issues and at the same time teach them about how to conduct themselves around this corrupt city of Corinth.
1 cor 7:1
Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me

Covering of hair or not covering of hair has got absolutely nothing to do with our faith or how we conduct ourselves in church.

Paul spoke to Timothy on how we (Christians) should conduct ourselves in church.
1 Tim 2:8
8 I desire therefore that the men(male and female) pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; 9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.

shdemidemi: ^^^You have only succeeded in relaying your religous views bro.

The bottom line is that this church had problems, they had written to Paul about these issues they had in the church. They had problem with brethren bringing pagan ideologies into the church, they had segregation between the rich and the poor in the church, they had issue with the the brothels and prostitute nature of the city which was rubbing off the women in the church etc.Paul was writing back to them to deal with their profane issues and at the same time teach them about how to conduct themselves around this corrupt city of Corinth.
1 cor 7:1
Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me

Covering of hair or not covering of hair has got absolutely nothing to do with our faith or how we conduct ourselves in church.

Paul spoke to Timothy on how we (Christians) should conduct ourselves in church.
1 Tim 2:8
8 I desire therefore that the men(male and female) pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; 9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.

And today's church does not have issues? What are you saying? Why not tell how what i have said is wrong instead of all the excuses you have put up. An epistle to a church is not to the church, but an epistle to a man(timothy) is to the church. Where did you get such a thing?

Image123:
And today's church does not have issues? What are you saying? Why not tell how what i have said is wrong instead of all the excuses you have put up.

Today's church definitely have issues, some issues similar to the issues in Corinth but most issues are relative considering the sorry state of the city both in paganism and the presence of brothels. The city of Corinth was actually known for prostitution the same way las Vegas is known for casinos today. We can't underplay the fact that this Corinth church were spiritual babes and Paul spoke to them as such.

We have churches like the Thessalonian church, Paul was so proud with this church. We can actually learn a lot from what this church did to merit a position in the good books of the apostle.

Image123:
An epistle to a church is not to the church, but an epistle to a man(timothy) is to the church. Where did you get such a thing?

The letter to Timothy is very important to us because Paul already envisaged the possibility of his demise and martyrdom. He was passing the mantle to a son he trusted on how everything concerning the faith and the church should be conducted. This book and other doctrinal books is very important for the church and Paul knew this as well hence he instructed Timothy in 2 Timothy to commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Image123:

It is implied and common sense that when you cover your hair, you have covered your head. Like we call or speak of headgears, headdress, head-ties and headphones. these are all words we use. they do not necessarily have to cover the eyes and nose to be referred to as head covering. Safety helmets and crash helmets protect and cover the head, we do not say they are protecting our hair.

lol ...not when the hair itself is the cover( I Corinthians 11:15)...agreed there are head gears, head e.t.c this is because the primary target of these aforementioned is the head ....if the primary target of "head covering", as u interpret it, is the hair. Why will d target be "the head"...why will the Bible keep saying "cover your head" if it actually means "cover your hair" ....why is hair cream not called head cream?

Image123: If we have enough grace, we should not see it as an issue to trash out before doing simple and straight forward things written in the Bible.
1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
The literal rendition is "for a covering", which is slightly different from "as a covering". The hair is given her naturally for her to cover it. In such understanding, we easily align with the straight forward meanings of the rest of the passage. We cannot discard about 10 verses that have plain meaning because of one verse that has more than one meaning depending on how it is read.

My brother...dis one na your translation o..."for a covering" is actually translated as, "as a covering"...some version even translated it as "to cover your head" ...the rest of the verses are in agreement with verse 15 unless u choose not to see it

Image123: i'll tell you what analogy is. Where is the sanity, the logic and the analogy in leaving the hair uncovered if it is the glory of the woman?
1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
If a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her.
The man is the glory of God(v7)
The woman is the glory of the man(v7)
The hair is the glory of the woman (v15)
God's glory should be revealed/uncovered- This is symbolized by the man's head being uncovered.
Man's glory should be covered- This is symbolized by covering the woman's head.
Woman's glory should be uncovered as it is to cover man's glory- Your interpretation of verse 15 paraphrased.
WHAT IS THE LOGIC OR SPIRIT, WISDOM OR ANALOGY IN THAT?

Wow ....dont cause confusion o... her hair is a glory to her and is given to her for wat? to cover her head.... her hair is not a glory to the man but she herself...from your points above,Man's glory should be covered right? Did the Bible say man's glory is the woman's hair? Obviously NO

computaangel: Unclenna, we are talking about covering of hair in d church, in d house of God, dont allow d devil 2 decieve u

Una don start again. Which house of God? Did Jesus not tell you 'the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.' John 4

Make una dey there dey look for house of God when God don already make you Him house.

Lord_Reed:

Una don start again. Which house of God? Did Jesus not tell you 'the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.' John 4

Make una dey there dey look for house of God when God don already make you Him house.

No one is disputing that a believers body is not the temple of the Holy Spirit,but are we to discard glaring scriptural evidences concerning gathering of believers,the household of God and churches?

Bidam: No one is disputing that a believers body is not the temple of the Holy Spirit,but are we to discard glaring scriptural evidences concerning gathering of believers,the household of God and churches?

You will not find a reference to a house of God after Acts of the Apostles and that is because believers knew that the worship of God has been taken out of the Mosaic law temple. If you claim any building as house of God just know you are not functioning under the grace of Jesus but under law.

We are required to gather as believers not for any legalistic reason but simply to share as a body. The Church is the Body of Christ, gathering is logical and good.

Bidam: No one is disputing that a believers body is not the temple of the Holy Spirit,but are we to discard glaring scriptural evidences concerning gathering of believers,the household of God and churches?

Listen to yourself ^ above .... and then, read\understand this:

Lord_Reed:

You will not find a reference to a house of God after Acts of the Apostles and that is because believers knew that the worship of God has been taken out of the Mosaic law temple. If you claim any building as house of God just know you are not functioning under the grace of Jesus but under law.

We are required to gather as believers not for any legalistic reason but simply to share as a body. The Church is the Body of Christ, gathering is logical and good.

It's not me answering you now o but a fellow Christian. You need to first purge yourself of whatever the institutionalized church had taught you then get a new wine. I don't mean no harm my brother.

Lord_Reed:

You will not find a reference to a house of God after Acts of the Apostles and that is because believers knew that the worship of God has been taken out of the Mosaic law temple. If you claim any building as house of God just know you are not functioning under the grace of Jesus but under law.

There is no where in scriptures where you can find a reference in the NT? You must be joking.Did you erase 1 Tim. 3:15 from your bible?

We are required to gather as believers not for any legalistic reason but simply to share as a body. The Church is the Body of Christ, gathering is logical and good.

If you were not so hasty to reply my post,i never said the wood,the bricks and stone is the church.I said the gathering of saints which is also called the household of God.I did not manufacture those words..read your bible.