Image123:

convenient testimony.

^^^
If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride
Fact is, it sure caused a hullabaloo, adjusting or straightening ties and fidgeting

What is your take on what "Baba" meant when effectively announcing prophesy is fulfilled and declaring at the 2.13 minutes that:
"... this is the first time we've HAD the full manisfestation of that anointing..."

trustman:

One undeniable fact is that the rebuke became public knowledge well beyond the initial group that heard it. Millions of ordinary believers now came to know about it. What this should tell us about the mind of God regarding ERROR is that it should be EXPOSED no matter who committed it.

I don't believe anyone on this thread has said anything against exposing an error. It is fine to do so especially when you are sure (by the word) that what you are exposing is an error. While at it, it is advisable to follow the bible ordained way by leaving out the aspects of defaming the characters or making prevarications concerning them as is unbecoming of a christian.

sorry folks, got so busy i could not put up the said topics. I am so tired now. Tomorrow is a good day to discuss. Thank you all.

Mba, welldone... you're killing it.

nlMediator:


Excellent response.

Besides, you said the clothes were worth 50k and you got them for 3k. The guy interprets it to mean that the clothes were worth 3k. What kind of math is that? The value of an item is determined exclusively by what is paid for them? I believe the guy's claim that he's a millionaire. I also believe he's a good christian. Only a loving God can make one a millionaire with such level of thinking or skill base.

Nlmdiator o... thanks for ending my night on a hearty note

BabaGnoni:

^^^
If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride
Fact is, it sure caused a hullabaloo, adjusting or straightening ties and fidgeting

What is your take on what "Baba" meant when effectively announcing prophesy is fulfilled and declaring at the 2.13 minutes that:
"... this is the first time we've HAD the full manisfestation of that anointing..."

I don't give a damn, lol.

Image123:

I don't give a damn, lol.

It was a rhetorical question
and besides that, wasn't expecting you to rise to the occasion anyway, lol.

Thank you mbaemeka for discerning my wanting Biblical literacy. Am sure you are thoroughly read above EVERYONE here not to mention Spirit taught

Question 2.
Was the rebuke directed at the visiting Jews ?

You can refer to this paraphrase

[b]Galatians 2:13-14The Message (MSG)

11-13 Later, when Peter came to Antioch, I had a face-to-face confrontation with him because he was clearly out of line. Here’s the situation. Earlier, before certain persons had come from James, Peter regularly ate with the non-Jews. But when that conservative group came from Jerusalem, he cautiously pulled back and put as much distance as he could manage between himself and his non-Jewish friends. That’s how fearful he was of the conservative Jewish clique that’s been pushing the old system of circumcision. Unfortunately, the rest of the Jews in the Antioch church joined in that hypocrisy so that even Barnabas was swept along in the charade.

14 But when I saw that they were not maintaining a steady, straight course according to the Message, I spoke up to Peter in front of them all: “If you, a Jew, live like a non-Jew when you’re not being observed by the watchdogs from Jerusalem, what right do you have to require non-Jews to conform to Jewish customs just to make a favorable impression on your old Jerusalem cronies?”[/b]

mbaemeka:


Nope they didn't. And Your point is?

As for your post above (in blue font), there's alot you need to learn about Brother James. Maybe you should study that book of Galatians well and then the book of 1 Corinthians. You may learn a few things.

Gombs:






Nlmdiator o... thanks for ending my night on a hearty note

Omo na so the thing pain you reach? Ehyaaa! Sorry o

But on a serious note sha, would really love to meet some of y'all wonderful people

Those who wants us to go to that WoF discussion, should endeavour to make it the one that went with nairaland tsunami. Oh yeah! Not the one you guys sat and discussed yourselves. That thread would be brought back, by me, hopefully. There, you'd see where true gospel preachers in serious blunder, yet, not being able to admit. That thread transformed Drummaboy to WinsomeX, and some others to rabid fellows.

There was where DB said there is no such thing as God kind of faith, his minions shedemidemi, babagnoni, goshen etc were behind him. Goshen, shedemidemi has had treasonable blunder, but thank God for NL tsunami.

When the tsunami took those threads, they immediately opened this one WinsomeX aka DB claims was a success, yet they all seem to have an agenda of putting it in every thread they visit.

If you guys want to discuss, bring back the old one, or ask me to... or on second thought, I will bring it back.

Now, back to the book. I'm having a bit issue with my modem o, and I don't want to take the sim off my tab and put in the modem. But, if push gets to shove, I will. Thanks for your patience

mbaemeka:


I don't believe anyone on this thread has said anything against exposing an error. It is fine to do so especially when you are sure (by the word) that what you are exposing is an error. While at it, it is advisable to follow the bible ordained way by leaving out the aspects of defaming the characters or making prevarications concerning them as is unbecoming of a christian.

When Paul confronted Peter publicly in the presence of others about his error was he defaming his character?
So when does pointing out falsehood become "defaming the characters or making prevarications concerning them as is unbecoming of a christian."?
Let's focus on the real issues and let's do so in humility and uprightness of heart with all sincerity.

You need something smart, something Steve Jobs-esque

Can you in two sentences summarize Hagin's position on FIrstfruits

Gombs:
Those who wants us to go to that WoF discussion, should endeavour to make it the one that went with nairaland tsunami. Oh yeah! Not the one you guys sat and discussed yourselves. That thread would be brought back, by me, hopefully. There, you'd see where true gospel preachers in serious blunder, yet, not being able to admit. That thread transformed Drummaboy to WinsomeX, and some others to rabid fellows.

There was where DB said there is no such thing as God kind of faith, his minions shedemidemi, babagnoni, goshen etc were behind him. Goshen, shedemidemi has had treasonable blunder, but thank God for NL tsunami.

When the tsunami took those threads, they immediately opened this one WinsomeX aka DB claims was a success, yet they all seem to have an agenda of putting it in every thread they visit.

If you guys want to discuss, bring back the old one, or ask me to... or on second thought, I will bring it back.

Now, back to the book. I'm having a bit issue with my modem o, and I don't want to take the sim off my tab and put in the modem. But, if push gets to shove, I will. Thanks for your patience

vooks:
You need something smart, something Steve Jobs-esque

Can you in two sentences summarize Hagin's position on FIrstfruits

Yeah! Surely. Here's Hagin's summary in a sentence.

"A stupid man's report (vooks et al) of what a clever man says (Hagin) can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears read into something he can understand.” ― Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy

Then with regards some folks who are saying Paul rebuked Peter in public glare, i summarised it thus;

“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.” ― Søren Kierkegaardtags

Nlmediator's summary is below

“Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.”  ― George Carlin

Meanwhile, my post you quoted has nothing to do with firstfruits, if you want to say something relating to someone else's post you quoted, make sure they are related. I have given my summary of what Hagin said, flip this thread 2-3 pages back, if you aren't satisfied, I'm sorry then, nothing much I can do.

Thank you but could you summarize Hagin's position on firstfruits in two sentences

Gombs:

Yeah! Surely. Here's Hagin's summary in a sentence.

"A stupid man's report (vooks et al) of what a clever man says (Hagin) can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears read into something he can understand.” ― Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy

Then with regards some folks who are saying Paul rebuked Peter in public glare, i summarised it thus;

“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.” ― Søren Kierkegaardtags

Nlmediator's summary is below

“Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.”  ― George Carlin

Meanwhile, my post you quoted has nothing to do with firstfruits, if you want to say something relating to someone else's post you quoted, make sure they are related. I have given my summary of what Hagin said, flip this thread 2-3 pages back, if you aren't satisfied, I'm sorry then, nothing much I can do.

Gombs:

Yeah! Surely. Here's Hagin's summary in a sentence.

"A stupid man's report (vooks et al) of what a clever man says (Hagin) can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears read into something he can understand.” ― Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy

Then with regards some folks who are saying Paul rebuked Peter in public glare, i summarised it thus;

“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.” ― Søren Kierkegaardtags

Nlmediator's summary is below

“Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.”  ― George Carlin

Meanwhile, my post you quoted has nothing to do with firstfruits, if you want to say something relating to someone else's post you quoted, make sure they are related. I have given my summary of what Hagin said, flip this thread 2-3 pages back, if you aren't satisfied, I'm sorry then, nothing much I can do.

The above should be archived!

vooks:
Thank you but could you summarize Hagin's position on firstfruits in two sentences

Gombs:
I have given my summary of what Hagin said, flip this thread 2-3 pages back, if you aren't satisfied, I'm sorry then, nothing much I can do.

Just in case you missed it on the other post. I have already summarised it in more than 2 sentences. Thanks

summary please

Gombs:




Just in case you missed it on the other post. I have already summarised it in more than 2 sentences. Thanks

Pastor kun, I see you o! How are you today? You've been missing in the thread, I hope you are fine? Saw your tithe thread, and your efforts. Newbies are doing a great job there. Remain blessed.

Happy weekend

Hey guys, I'm sorry if this will be considered as trolling but something caught my attention on channels TV this morning while watching David Ibiyomies Hour of Salvation. During the intro I saw a short clip of what looked like him performing the 'Lengthening the short Leg' miracle. I quickly went to youtube to see if there was a video of him doing that and voilà! I saw this:

Never knew the leg growing scam from Kenneth Hagin, A A Allen and others is still practiced today even in Naija Wow!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlj5bFBiVD0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NZcW28JrC0

Hi Gombs, see a remix of the quotes you used up there. In fact they more perfectly describe Gombs et al. Don't you think so?

"A stupid man's report (Gombs et al) of what a clever man says (Hagin) can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears read into something he can understand.” ― Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy e.g, how else do you explain Gombs saying he gives cash as first fruit since he can't give his job? This after reading Hagin's explanation of what first fruits mean to a Christian

“Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.” ― George Carlin e.g, how else can you describe the group of deluded folks listening to and applauding a man like them brag about using their donations to buy a $16,000 dog and other items to satiate his sick sense of importance?

“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.” ― Søren Kierkegaardtags

We all can describe each other in unsavoury terms and surely get admirers to lap them up and applaud. However what we can't do is obliterate the [size=16pt]truth[/size] no matter how hard we try. Hagin's book presented a lot of things in order to correct what he discovered were wrong, false, abusive doctrines and practices in the church (Thankfully he admitted to one or two). Things you, me or anybody can't wish away (guilty pastors have ensured never to mention it to their members despite their professed love for Hagin and his books. That speaks volumes for those who can hear and think). The book is already in the public domain and people will read it. Keep up with your review of the book. i'm glad you opened this thread yourself because there's no way you would have discovered the few errors you've realized and admitted to already if anybody else had started this thread. For the ones you're still grappling with e.g first fruits (your incoherence about it betrays your lack of confidence on your stand viz a viz that of Hagin's. You're naturally more confident than how you've carried on about it so far ), time will tell.

Thank God for how far you've gone with it. pls go ahead. The Lord is your power

cheers

Gombs can't bring him/herself to summarizing what Hagin is saying about Firstfruits.


Mark 11:30-33 King James Version (KJV)

30 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me.

31 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him?

32 But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.

33 And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.


It's either Hagin is FOR or AGAINST Firstfruits. Gombs is for money firstfruits
If he admits that Hagin is against the firstfruits,that contradicts his stance and he needs to either renounce,refute or ignore Hagin. He unfortunately has zero ammo in refuting Hagin's anti-firstfruits stance yet he can't renounce a teaching that is common in his church

If he claims that Hagins is pro-firstfruits, he will be hard pressed to adduce evidence to that effect from the book. All good except there is no evidence.

What better that to play dumb and pretend you never heard the question. Classic dillemma or hypocrisy.

I don't agree with Hagin on his tithing stance and I have used scriptures to demonstrate why. I agree on some other things he says. Gombs can't afford to disagree since he has no valid grounds for doing so not to mention he would find himself in an awkward position of resisting his church's teachings!

Candour:
For the ones you're still grappling with e.g first fruits (your incoherence about it betrays your lack of confidence on your stand viz a viz that of Hagin's), time will tell.

Thank God for how far you've gone with it. pls go ahead. The Lord is your power

cheers

^^^

Very well said Candour.

WinsomeX:
^^^

Very well said Candour.

Yes, very well said indeed!

Gombs:
Pastor kun, I see you o! How are you today? You've been missing in the thread, I hope you are fine? Saw your tithe thread, and your efforts. Newbies are doing a great job there. Remain blessed.

Happy weekend

Yeah I have been keeping a tab on the thread though I can't seem to keep up due to the avalanche of posts on the thread. That said I want you accept my sympathies as I am bewildered how an otherwise intelligent young man can be so thoroughly brainwashed that you now seem to be arguing against yourself whilst holding on to straws to justify oyak's fraudulent doctrines even when his oga at the top has refuted the doctrines.

I know you must be going through some very serious internal battles now as you are fighting the reality staring you in the face that your idol oyaks is a charlatan but it's all for the better. God would surely deliver you from the shackles of oyak's and his cult. Amen

Here's an earlier post that needs Gombs'
Second look:

trustman:



Hagin said:

"Making a New Testament application of Old Testament technicalities violates every principle of Bible interpretation, especially when there isn't a single New Testament usage of the word "firstfruits" in the context in which it is being preached by some ministers. 

The concept of firstfruits is not used in the New Testament in reference to financial giving. There is not even the vaguest hint of it by any New Testament writer in reference to money or the support of ministers."

The commonsense understanding of what Hagin said is simply this: Hagin does not advocate the demand for or the paying of 'Firstfruits'. 
However since your church believes in it strongly you are finding it hard to wriggle out of it. 
You have good 'comprehension' don't you?
Then explain these portions to us. 

Lobeez:
Hey guys, I'm sorry if this will be considered as trolling but something caught my attention on channels TV this morning while watching David Ibiyomies Hour of Salvation.
During the intro I saw a short clip of what looked like him performing the 'Lengthening the short Leg' miracle.
I quickly went to youtube to see if there was a video of him doing that and voilà! I saw this:

Never knew the leg growing scam from Kenneth Hagin, A A Allen and others is still practiced today even in Naija Wow!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlj5bFBiVD0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NZcW28JrC0

EXCERPT
Does miracles still happen today? Does healing still happen today?
Of course, they both happen, they happen every seconds of the time, the only concern or reservation is that for every genuine miracle or healing, there are ten to the dozen fakes, counterfeits or staged versions for each.

Staged leg lengthening healing is not a doctrine as such but was a phenomenon until a few years back
Leg lengthening healing otherwise known as "growing legs" was common as far back in the mid 70s
It basically is lengthening of shortened legs

In the past, the mid 70s to be precise, a few WoF heavy weights were doing and performing leg lengthening healing...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVOBZefESIA
Rev Kenneth E Hagin Teaching Seminar
December 8th 1974 Lengthening of legs

https://www.nairaland.com/1790500/word-faith-movements-doctrine-proponents/12#25433864
EXCERPT

We know Ibiyeomie, we've noticed him on the radar and so know what he's been up to
David Ibiyeomie is Mike Murdock's lapdog
He obtained all his "anointing" from Mike Murdock after unashamedly sucking-up to him.

It grieves the heart, especially when Image123 has the cheek to always say none of these fakeries and detestable acts happen locally

To be honest, I don't know how all these self confessed & so-called WoFs on NL get to peacefully sleep at night, knowing all these extremely wicked things carried out here. Cruel acts committed whilst faking healing, staging healing or pretending to heal

This is bad, not good at all, a lot are going to be taken in by this now. SMH

BabaGnoni:


EXCERPT
Does miracles still happen today? Does healing still happen today?
Of course, they both happen, they happen every seconds of the time, the only concern or reservation is that for every genuine miracle or healing, there are ten to the dozen fakes, counterfeits or staged versions for each.

Staged leg lengthening healing is not a doctrine as such but was a phenomenon until a few years back
Leg lengthening healing otherwise known as "growing legs" was common as far back in the mid 70s
It basically is lengthening of shortened legs

In the past, the mid 70s to be precise, a few WoF heavy weights were doing and performing leg lengthening healing...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVOBZefESIA
Rev Kenneth E Hagin Teaching Seminar
December 8th 1974 Lengthening of legs

https://www.nairaland.com/1790500/word-faith-movements-doctrine-proponents/12#25433864
EXCERPT

We know Ibiyeomie, we've noticed him on the radar and so know what he's been up to
David Ibiyeomie is Mike Murdock's lapdog
He obtained all his "anointing" from Mike Murdock after unashamedly sucking-up to him.

It grieves the heart, especially when Image123 has the cheek to always say none of these fakeries and detestable acts happen locally

To be honest, I don't know how all these self confessed & so-called WoFs on NL get to peacefully sleep at night, knowing all these extremely wicked things carried out here. Cruel acts committed whilst faking healing, staging healing or pretending to heal

This is bad, not good at all, a lot are going to be taken in by this now. SMH

i found myself wondering why he (Ibiyeomie) couldn't grow the missing toe if he could lenghten the leg. well, maybe i didn't look very well sha

Trustman and Vooks

I wish you both will understand Paul. In Acts 10 & 11 the bible says Peter preached and ate with Gentiles, and when Jewish Christians heard this they weren't happy with him and they let him know. Peter defended himself citing that God himself approved of his actions so the Jewish Circumcision group backed down for a while.

Even after that, the Jewish Christians didn't pass the information around that Gentiles were to be saved too, so the rest of the scattered Jewish Christians in and around Antioch et al kept preaching to ONLY Jews- this is how we can tell that the circumcision group didn't totally accept what Peter had said to them earlier.

News began to filter through in Jerusalem that alot of Jews in Antioch believed the message of the gospel and became converted so the leadership sent Barnabas to go there to restructure and reorganise them properly. Barnabas, seeing that he needed someone who could penetrate such a Gentile society without much fuss decided to look for Paul in Tarsus (because Paul was eloquent and well versed in Greek philosophy). They preached there for about a year to both Jews and Gentiles.

It was in Antioch that a prophecy was given about an impending famine so the brethren therein raised money to send to the brethren in Judea/ Jerusalem and Paul and Barnabas were the one's trusted with the duty of taking the money there. They didn't meet Peter at that point because he was in jail courtesy King Herod. Shortly after they returned to Antioch after delivering the money.

When they got back to Antioch they began going to various synagogues preaching the gospel to all and sundry which polarized the audience in that Jews didn't accept the message while the Gentiles accepted it and urged the men to keep preaching the gospel to them. At the end of the day the Jews, filled with anger and jealousy ensured that both men were kicked out of the city till the gist got to the ears of the power that be in Jerusalem and as such, the council was scheduled.

During that meeting Paul and Barnabas argued with the same circumcision group that had done same to Peter and during the heat Peter stood up to recount the same story he had told the same men years before. In other words, Peter sided with Paul and Barnabas. So James concluded that Paul and co were free to keep preaching to the Gentiles without imposing much Jewish laws on them. With that Paul and Barnabas left fot Antioch.

Peter joined them a short while later preaching and eating with the Gentiles and all was rosy until Silas, Judas and the other prophets from Jerusalem came to deliver James letter and encourage the brothers. When they came, Paul noticed that this same Peter that had defended himself twice (once in Jerusalem alone after Cornelius and later at the Jerusalem council) began to shift away from the Gentiles and didn't want to be seen eating with them. The leaders like Silas and Judas joined him too in the hypocrisy and even Barnabas was not spared. So Paul did the needful by correcting Peter in front of them all and Peter didn't argue because he knew Paul was right seeing that he had just defended Paul moments ago in Jerusalem.

Sorry for my epistle, but can you see why Paul had to confront Peter? Even at that, did you notice he called him no names neither did he mock him in front of the other leaders. He simply corrected him so that they too could learn the lesson. It has nothing to do with what some of you do in the name of correcting an error especially as none of you are leaders. But if you feel you are right despite what scriptures say, ride on.

I rest my case on this issue.

Needless diatribe. And you are not honest enough to quote your sources but I wouldn't be surprised to find that you are regurgitating verbatim the very guys you are defending

THEM ALL I have simply identified as ALL those who joined Peter in the hypocrisy.
And are you sure we have Paul's rebuke in its entirety?

Here are all imaginable renderings of verse 14
[url]https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Galatians%202:14[/url]

None come close to propping your phoney theories. You can't possibly use pronoun 'them' or 'they' severally in one sentence and FORCE the second,third....'them' to refer to anything EARLIER than the first. Logic 101. Examples of this.

Acts 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

Acts 2:3 .And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them

Here is mbaemeka' warped illogic (brackets are his);
Galatians 2:14 (NKJV) | In Context | Whole Chapter

14 But when I saw that they (Peter and other Jews) were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them (the visiting Jews)all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?

Do you see how little to no sense that would make? What would drive the reader to conclude that THEM should b identified not with the immediate THEY but with an earlier THEM? Is that logical even by Nigerian Pidgin?

And do you note how many groups have just been mentioned just before verse 14 in v13 and 13? We have the following
1. Them of the Circumcision
2. Gentiles
3. Certain from James
4. Other Jews
What criteria would a reader use to pick 3. and ignore the rest as being referred by the THEM of verse 14?

I like Young's Literal Translation
Galatians 2:14 (YLT) | In Context | Whole Chapter

14 But when I saw that they are not walking uprightly to the truth of the good news, I said to Peter before all, `If thou, being a Jew, in the manner of the nations dost live, and not in the manner of the Jews, how the nations dost thou compel to Judaize?

Peter was rebuked BEFORE everyone. If Paul was more discrete with the rebuke,don't you think he would have resisted divulging this rebuke including the very words he used to the whole world? Supposing mbaemeka deems himself a leader enough to rebuke Oyaks. He does just that very privately in presence of other leaders avoiding the rank and file of the Body of Christ, the babes and fetuses . Then he broadcasts the rebuke and the occasion to the whole world. Does that not defeat the very purpose of being discrete in the first place?

mbaemeka:
Trustman and Vooks

I wish you both will understand Paul. In Acts 10 & 11 the bible says Peter preached and ate with Gentiles, and when Jewish Christians heard this they weren't happy with him and they let him know. Peter defended himself citing that God himself approved of his actions so the Jewish Circumcision group backed down for a while.

Even after that, the Jewish Christians didn't pass the information around that Gentiles were to be saved too, so the rest of the scattered Jewish Christians in and around Antioch et al kept preaching to ONLY Jews- this is how we can tell that the circumcision group didn't totally accept what Peter had said to them earlier.

News began to filter through in Jerusalem that alot of Jews in Antioch believed the message of the gospel and became converted so the leadership sent Barnabas to go there to restructure and reorganise them properly. Barnabas, seeing that he needed someone who could penetrate such a Gentile society without much fuss decided to look for Paul in Tarsus (because Paul was eloquent and well versed in Greek philosophy). They preached there for about a year to both Jews and Gentiles.

It was in Antioch that a prophecy was given about an impending famine so the brethren therein raised money to send to the brethren in Judea/ Jerusalem and Paul and Barnabas were the one's trusted with the duty of taking the money there. They didn't meet Peter at that point because he was in jail courtesy King Herod. Shortly after they returned to Antioch after delivering the money.

When they got back to Antioch they began going to various synagogues preaching the gospel to all and sundry which polarized the audience in that Jews didn't accept the message while the Gentiles accepted it and urged the men to keep preaching the gospel to them. At the end of the day the Jews, filled with anger and jealousy ensured that both men were kicked out of the city till the gist got to the ears of the power that be in Jerusalem and as such, the council was scheduled.

During that meeting Paul and Barnabas argued with the same circumcision group that had done same to Peter and during the heat Peter stood up to recount the same story he had told the same men years before. In other words, Peter sided with Paul and Barnabas. So James concluded that Paul and co were free to keep preaching to the Gentiles without imposing much Jewish laws on them. With that Paul and Barnabas left fot Antioch.

Peter joined them a short while later preaching and eating with the Gentiles and all was rosy until Silas, Judas and the other prophets from Jerusalem came to deliver James letter and encourage the brothers. When they came, Paul noticed that this same Peter that had defended himself twice (once in Jerusalem alone after Cornelius and later at the Jerusalem council) began to shift away from the Gentiles and didn't want to be seen eating with them. The leaders like Silas and Judas joined him too in the hypocrisy and even Barnabas was not spared. So Paul did the needful by correcting Peter in front of them all and Peter didn't argue because he knew Paul was right seeing that he had just defended Paul moments ago in Jerusalem.

Sorry for my epistle, but can you see why Paul had to confront Peter? Even at that, did you notice he called him no names neither did he mock him in front of the other leaders. He simply corrected him so that they too could learn the lesson. It has nothing to do with what some of you do in the name of correcting an error especially as none of you are leaders. But if you feel you are right despite what scriptures say, ride on.

I rest my case on this issue.

mbaemeka:


1. The absence of evidence is the evidence of absence. If Jesus didn't condemn it but instead encourage people to do it, then it must mean that he too did it or else he would have been a hypocrite and he was not.

2. The bible says Jesus fulfilled the law. If he was fulfilling the law he must have obeyed the tithing aspect of the law after all, by Jewish customs Jesus was already a son of the law at age 12. I don't need to tell you all it entails to qualify as the son of the law.

I believe you can do better than what you wrote up there. C'mon now

Gombs:


yet he paid tax, did Jewish traditions, washed himself as they did, but he did not tithe rather he asked the real jews (pharisees) to. Weldone o

Can't help but ask God to forgive you guys. ..The way you people add to and twist the word of God is just terrible.

PastorKun:


Yeah I have been keeping a tab on the thread though I can't seem to keep up due to the avalanche of posts on the thread. That said I want you accept my sympathies as I am bewildered how an otherwise intelligent young man can be so thoroughly brainwashed that you now seem to be arguing against yourself whilst holding on to straws to justify oyak's fraudulent doctrines even when his oga at the top have refuted the doctrines.

I know you must be going through some very serious internal battles now as you are fighting the reality staring you in the face that your idol oyaks is a charlatan but it's all for the better. God would surely deliver you from the shackles of oyak's and his cult. Amen

No internal battles buddy! I'm focused, and sure I'm grounded. Funny you guys call Hagin right in regards firstfruits, and wrong in tithing, right in abuse and false practices, but he's wrong in Jesus' clothing. But me, I endorsed the book all through, and recommending it to others.

Except you are a coward and you can't admit the obvious; Hagin debunked Firstfruits lies with the contempt they deserve

Gombs:


No internal battles buddy! I'm focused, and sure I'm grounded. Funny you guys call Hagin right in regards firstfruits, and wrong in tithing, right in abuse and false practices, but he's wrong in Jesus' clothing. But me, I endorsed the book all through, and recommending it to others.