Image123:
yes oh, you sef no laugh? You too dey irksome sometimes oh, shey you know?
Am i in literature class, hahaha.

I sure made her blood boil
I'll probably would have thrown a tantrum and have a fit too, if someone was messing up my head, my theology and leaving me hanging.
- you know it was like not returning a high-five when someone puts their hand in the air

mbaemeka:


Yes the word firstfruit as used in NT never referred to financial giving or money. That's all his statement meant. He was saying so to debunk the claim that giving firstfruits is a doctrine in Christianity. BUT the principle of firstfruits (as giving money or produce/livestock) is replete in the OT and one can practice it without being coaxed to do so. Hagin did exactly that- with money. Same way some CEO decided to give 90% of his income to his church and he told many people that it was the source of his great wealth. Of course, it is not a doctrine. But the CEO practiced it regardless.

@the quote in blue. very correct and i agree with you

I saw the comments in blue and I think it is misapplied to the import of my posts. If a Farmer's first tuber of yam isn't so bulky he may decide to wait and offer the biggest or bulkiest which he may interpret as his best. It's all about the principle. Saying that "Does this mean the first fruits in a believers life is the best he can ever get?" or "Does it mean these first people to believe are the best of that location?" to me, is OP. If my first salary is $12,000 and I offer it as my firstfruit and the following year I am raised to say $15,000 it has become my new best and I can decide to offer it whole or give the increase. That's my understanding.

I only sought to correct your notion that ''first fruits'' in the bible (OT & NT) always referred to first and the best.

Well, that's exactly why the principle applies here- because Isaac wasn't the only son Abraham had. God even had to add the caveat "the one that you love" because I am sure Papa Abraham would have offered Ismael without flinching

and we must also remember that Isaac wasn't actually the first fruits of Abraham's loins and God never referred to him as such

Again you missed the point I was trying to make. The Moabites learnt the principle of FIRSTFRUITS and not human sacrifice. Moab could have offered "any" of his sons but the bible says he offered his first; the one who would have replaced him as king. He offered his best!

This is still your assumption. There's nothing in scripture or recorded history to say pagans hadn't engaged in giving the first of their substance to their gods before God appeared to Abraham.

I didn't say God accepts human sacrifice. God respects/permits sacrifices of all kinds without necessarily accepting them. Someone can give his manhood to a native doctor as a ritual for wealth and become very wealthy. Of course, the man didn't offer his manhood to God but if God didn't prevent the man from getting the wealth we can say he permitted it. I am not even considering the situation were a christian is put into the equation and by that I mean: if a christian and a pagan are vying for a job and both of them study equally hard for it but the christian prays to God and gets the word that he will be successful while the pagan decides to "donate" his mother to his deity and gets the go ahead from his Dibia, and at the end of the day the pagan gets the job can't we conclude that God permitted the pagan's sacrifice? That seems like the only logical conclusion.

The commentary is neither here nor there as he seems pusillanimous to assert the obvious fact which is: that whatever permutations we give to the scenario it is clear that God's promise about delivering the city to Israel wasn't fulfilled and that this happened at the sacrifice of the Moabite king should not be equally overlooked.

The simple fact is that God permits all that happens, whether good or bad because he's given man freewill. God doesn't respect Human sacrifice. His word is totally against it. What stopped the combined army was the great indignation that arose. It could have come from some evil spirits that the abominable sacrifice brought up and scared Israel and its allies or it could have come from the army of Judah and Edom against the Israeli contingent. It could also have come from the Israelites themselves at the horrifying thought of confronting a desperate man who had just burnt his heir apparent in the fire. The fact is that Israel departed the battlefront. The bible didn't say they were defeated or that God favored Moab over Israel because a pagan king offered his son as burnt sacrifice. Even if the devil decided to favour Moab, if Isreal didn't depart, they would have gone on to total victory even if the King burns himself to death.

for instance, see the contemporary English bible rendition

2 Kings 3:27
He then grabbed his oldest son who was to be the next king and sacrificed him as an offering on the city wall. The Isrealite troops were so horrified that they left the city and went back home

I agree.

ok

BabaGnoni:

I sure made her blood boil
I'll probably would have thrown a tantrum and have a fit too, if someone was messing up my head, my theology and leaving me hanging.
- you know it was like not returning a high-five when someone puts their hand in the air

duh, there you go again. i don't think you were messing up her head or theology or anything about hangings and high-fives. She asked a simple, straight forward question, and you went spinning chinko Shakespearic God knows what. Try to keep it simple at times.

Image123:
duh, there you go again. i don't think you were messing up her head or theology or anything about hangings and high-fives. She asked a simple, straight forward question, and you went spinning chinko Shakespearic God knows what. Try to keep it simple at times.

I hear you.

Image123:


duh, there you go again. i don't think you were messing up her head or theology or anything about hangings and high-fives. She asked a simple, straight forward question, and you went spinning chinko Shakespearic God knows what. Try to keep it simple at times.

You know sometimes I wish like calling you agbaya sometimes.

The Yoruba will say "we were planning to eat up and wash up the plate used to eat ekuru; but here you are spreading crumbs on it again". Did you miss the part on this thread when the young woman you seem to hailing apologized to BBG? if you don't want to be called agbaya then you should grow up.

mbaemeka:


I regretted sending it right after. Some of these guys can make one make posts that would cause one to end up apologizing to God for.

Old Sin Nature at work!!
Perfect example!
Always there; needs to be constantly kept in check.
If we say we have no sin nature ... ...

Candour:


and we must also remember that Isaac wasn't actually the first fruits of Abraham's loins and God never referred to him as such

I meant it in the sense that Isaac was Abraham's "best". But I understand you.

This is still your assumption. There's nothing in scripture or recorded history to say pagans hadn't engaged in giving the first of their substance to their gods before God appeared to Abraham.

Okay. The point I was also trying to make is that they were aware of the principle.

The simple fact is that God permits all that happens, whether good or bad because he's given man freewill. God doesn't respect Human sacrifice. His word is totally against it. What stopped the combined army was the great indignation that arose. It could have come from some evil spirits that the abominable sacrifice brought up and scared Israel and its allies or it could have come from the army of Judah and Edom against the Israeli contingent. It could also have come from the Israelites themselves at the horrifying thought of confronting a desperate man who had just burnt his heir apparent in the fire. The fact is that Israel departed the battlefront. The bible didn't say they were defeated or that God favored Moab over Israel because a pagan king offered his son as burnt sacrifice. Even if the devil decided to favour Moab, if Isreal didn't depart, they would have gone on to total victory even if the King burns himself to death.

We don't need to debate on the trivial aspects. God accepted the sacrifice of his human son. Also whatever made them turn back and thereby cause God's promise to be unfulfilled was the man's sacrifice. The scriptures clearly tell us that. I didn't say God favored Moab or that Israel were defeated. I said God's prophecy was not fulfilled and it was not unconnected with Mesha's sacrifice. I personally believe it is easier to accept that God respected Mesha's sacrifice than to concede that his own god did it for him or that Israel became horrified into "unfulfilling" God's word which some watered-down translations seem to assert. But it doesn't matter, Mesha got what he most probably wished for- the end of the war against his people.

mbaemeka:


I meant it in the sense that Isaac was Abraham's "best". But I understand you.



Okay. The point I was also trying to make is that they were aware of the principle.



We don't need to debate on the trivial aspects. God accepted the sacrifice of his human son. Also whatever made them turn back and thereby cause God's promise to be unfulfilled was the man's sacrifice. The scriptures clearly tell us that. I didn't say God favored Moab or that Israel were defeated. I said God's prophecy was not fulfilled and it was not unconnected with Mesha's sacrifice. I personally believe it is easier to accept that God respected Mesha's sacrifice than to concede that his own god did it for him or that Israel became horrified into "unfulfilling" God's word which some watered-down translations seem to assert. But it doesn't matter, Mesha got what he most probably wished for- the end of the war against his people.

ok then.

cheers

trustman:


Old Sin Nature at work!!
Perfect example!
Always there; needs to be constantly kept in check.
If we say we have no sin nature ... ...

You will derail this thread again. Romans 8

9 But you are not living the life of the flesh, you are living the life of the Spirit, if the [Holy] Spirit of God [really] dwells within you [directs and controls you].

The Christian is NOT living in the flesh. Period. What affected me was my mind that requires more renewing

mbaemeka:


I meant it in the sense that Isaac was Abraham's "best". But I understand you.


Okay. The point I was also trying to make is that they were aware of the principle.

.... ..... ......

A 'Principle' has to do with some rule or law or similar thing.
Any principle to be derived for the Christian way of life should
have a strong backing in the epistles which like Hagin said:
" So to me, the Epistles are a little bit extra special. I feel as though their teaching has great relevance to us today who are members of the Body of Christ. I've always found the teaching of the Epistles to be right to the point, clear, and unmistakable."

trustman:

A 'Principle' has to do with some rule or law or similar thing.
Any principle to be derived for the Christian way of life should
have a strong backing in the epistles which like Hagin said:
" So to me, the Epistles are a little bit extra special. I feel as though their teaching has great relevance to us today who are members of the Body of Christ. I've always found the teaching of the Epistles to be right to the point, clear, and unmistakable."

Paul quoted the OT when he talked about Children honoring their parents with gifts but even if he did not say so it would have been an eternal principle. Nobody needs to say "thou shalt honor thy parents" in the NT before we observe such a principle. A principle is not a law.

mbaemeka:


You will derail this thread again. Romans 8

9 But you are not living the life of the flesh, you are living the life of the Spirit, if the [Holy] Spirit of God [really] dwells within you [directs and controls you].

The Christian is NOT living in the flesh. Period. What affected me was my mind that requires more renewing

See who's talking!
Go back and see as many pages as you can and tell me if i have not consistently pushed for moving forward.
All i see is you guys wanting a 'fight' rather return to the book.
My questions have remained unanswered by you guys because your 'fight' was a needed diversion away from the real issues.

WinsomeX:


You know sometimes I wish like calling you agbaya sometimes.

The Yoruba will say "we were planning to eat up and wash up the plate used to eat ekuru; but here you are spreading crumbs on it again". Did you miss the part on this thread when the young woman you seem to hailing apologized to BBG? if you don't want to be called agbaya then you should grow up.

She didn't apologize for her question, which remains valid and unanswered till date. She apologized for quoting Gnoni instead of mentioning him. She explained it was to get his attention. Like it or not, the incidence was very funny.

vooks:
goD mbaemeka,
So all we have are your MEMORY? How convenient! And that you took all this long to recall that! Puny brained goD

Actually, we have Gnoni here and tman's silent witness. Not forgetting Bidam, even me i think i recall the thing. One sisterme handle was also saying something similar.

WinsomeX:
@BabaGnoni,

I think you should understand why the leading WoFist on this forum will want to attack, discredit and twist your words. You are the leading exposer of Word of Faith on this forum. These are the hazards that come with the work.

Maybe when next they begin to wine like newborns about Eve and Serpent, simply refer readers to this page where the matter has been dealt with and hopefully laid to rest.

The matter dealt with, how? Why not grow the boldness to withstand Gnoni to the face and ask him straight and simple question? Or you're afraid he actually said it, abi na antiwof touch not my pally syndrome? Ask Gnoni about it openly or even tman.
Hopefully laid to rest indeed. You wan twist history abi?

Image123:
The matter dealt with, how? Why not grow the boldness to withstand Gnoni to the face and ask him straight and simple question? Or you're afraid he actually said it, abi na antiwof touch not my pally syndrome? Ask Gnoni about it openly or even tman.
Hopefully laid to rest indeed. You wan twist history abi?

Give it a rest Image123, as you're now beginning to act like those numpties that have nip.ples where heads should be.

BabaGnoni:


^^^
What you should be doing, is apologising for conjuring up a quote out of thin air and smacking my name on it.
In the real world this will have some serious consequences and not go unpunished
The boldness and cheek of some people. SMH

In the other world to come, you'd be charged with prevaricating. It wasn't thin air in April or was it July until the data loss. The boldness and cheek of some people.

BabaGnoni:


mbaemeka, now it is confirmed that you are a fat-headed good for nothing/worthless person

On top of been a drama queen, you are hearing impaired - it was nora544 and Lobeez first who added videos on the thread until others responded will follow ups and more details

You're so gormless, you really don't have a clue.
Keep on making statements but not doing it in verbatim, and be basking in the thoughtless praises of those hoodwinked and caught up in your misrepresentations and deceitfulness.

You have a psychological problem mbaemeka, no doubt as your paranoia with IDs or monickers are very well known.
You're clutching at straws about anyone deactivating accounts, and lying through your teeth making unfounded allegations

You're playing to the gallery because you're nothing than an attention-seeking, distracting, desperate sad person who will try anything, say anything, no matter how unlikely, how untrue, just to massage that over-bloated ego of yours that needs a good old deflating

You have nothing on me. Can't touch this. Suck it up. Loser.

Stop the insults, you and everyone else. This is the religion section for God's sake. What correction is left to make that supersedes this? You guys should correct your lives before whatever doctrine or teaching you dream of correcting. i'm talking to everybody reading.

Image123:
Stop the insults, you and everyone else. This is the religion section for God's sake. What correction is left to make that supersedes this? You guys should correct your lives before whatever doctrine or teaching you dream of correcting. i'm talking to everybody reading.

OK johnny come lately after the party's ended
but when you're done quoting, singling out, combing, examining closely and inspecting thoroughly only vooks, WinsomeX, trustman and my threads alone, let us know

BabaGnoni:


OK johnny come lately
but when you're done quoting, singling out, combing, examining closely and inspecting thoroughly only vooks, WinsomeX, trustman and my threads alone, let us know

Learn to take simple corrections humbly instead of resorting to conjectures and childish 'last say' comments.

Image123:
Learn to take simple corrections humbly instead of resorting to conjectures and childish 'last say' comments.

^^^
Rich coming from you

Image123:


Stop the insults, you and everyone else. This is the religion section for God's sake. What correction is left to make that supersedes this? You guys should correct your lives before whatever doctrine or teaching you dream of correcting. i'm talking to everybody reading.

If dem ask you now, for your mind you're trying to make peace abi? you're trying to settle a problem abi? after the dust has settled, after all the broken bottles have been cleared by the gladiators themselves, after everybody has seen that the fights aren't worth it, you start digging up posts to 'resettle' the quarrels and 'right' the wrongs abi?

kontinu to deceive yourself. It's not costing you anything but sleep so ride on.

blessed are the peace makers......for they will have the same 'peace' they're bringing on the thread in their own affairs too. Amen

Candour:


If dem ask you now, for your mind you're trying to make peace abi? you're trying to settle a problem abi? after the dust has settled, after all the broken bottles have been cleared by the gladiators themselves, after everybody has seen that the fights aren't worth it, you start digging up posts to 'resettle' the quarrels and 'right' the wrongs abi?

kontinu to deceive yourself. It's not costing you anything but sleep so ride on.

blessed are the peace makers......for they will have the same 'peace' they're bringing on the thread in their own affairs too. Amen

i take it this post is addressed to public forum, whoever that is.

Image123:


i take it this post is addressed to public forum, whoever that is.

yes o. It's addressed to the public forum working hard to dig up posts in a bid to bring 'peace' on this wonderful thread. I'm talking to that goodly 'godly' public forum

WinsomeX:


The appropriate question is: Is there a scripture that says Christians should command angels?

As for your "overlap" in doctrine and practices with Aladura, I hope now you are getting the picture of our grouse with WOF? Christianity does not "overlap" with demonic practices. We practice the BOOK!

So, that's the appropriate question? Do you recall when somebody asked a similar question on the WOF thread about any instance of Jesus naming the Pharisees whose practices he condemned? Your response then was that since there's nowhere in the Scriptures we're told not to name names, you'd go ahead to do so. You see how that logic works?

The truth is that we can learn from silence and that silence is not necessarily proof. Problem is some of you are inconsistent in adhering to principle. So apply your question to your WOF thread in response to the question posed by that brother and then come back to lecture us.

vooks:
Am really liking the way WOFers shift the burden of proof;
-' nowhere are we commanded NOT to tithe therefore tithing is cool'
-'nowhere are we commanded NOT to command Angels therefore we can command them'

But this line of reasoning can be applied to so many things and lead to absurd practices being incorporated into Chriatianity. For instance,
-nowhere are we told NOT to pray facing Jerusalem,
-nowhere are we told NOT to offer free will offerings that have nothing to do with sin (why not offer Bulls in this manner)

A more sane approach should be dissecting all scriptures with Angels and observing their manner of interaction with God's people whether in NT or OT.
1. Are there incidences of angels being put under man's command?
2. Do we have records outside the scriptures of the primitive church where this was practiced?
3. When FIRST did this doctrine of commanding Angels emerge?

Again, you jump in to display your ignorance, as you did with the Eve-Serpent issue, from which you silently withdrew with egg on your face when the person you were defending could not categorically deny the charge. In this case, it's your friend that employed that logic of silence in his WOF thread. So everything you said here applies to him.

Image123,
Pardon my intrusion but do you have a specific reason for not doing Firstfruits?
At my church, this is seldom preached and am talking of 10 straight years and I don't recall anything like Firstfruits. On personal level, I have interacted with a few friends who give their first salary as Firstfruits. Am hearing it here on NL of January Salary being Firstfruits. For me, whenever I get extra income I raise my normal offering.

Image123:


i don't do firstfruits. Nothing wrong with anyone that does it though. It's a type of offering.

WinsomeX:
@BabaGnoni,

I think you should understand why the leading WoFist on this forum will want to attack, discredit and twist your words. You are the leading exposer of Word of Faith on this forum. These are the hazards that come with the work.

Maybe when next they begin to wine like newborns about Eve and Serpent, simply refer readers to this page where the matter has been dealt with and hopefully laid to rest.

Some conflicts in this life are unnecessary. If only we can learn to stand on principle and not let things like hatred and favoritism motivate or guide us. When the laughter video was posted, I said we should have discipline and stick to the purpose of this thread. The derailing probably would have ended at that point if you had supported me or at least maintained silence. Instead, you added fuel to the fire by accusing me of an ulterior motive. Your comrade joined and both of you're claiming the video has some power to rub us the wrong way.

Another instance of derailing came with another video, with cheers from your camp. Again, we urged focus on the purpose of the thread. But you're not interested. It was in the process of defending that video that the serpent story resurfaced.

The serpent story could have been nipped in the bud and not allowed to derail the thread further, if you had enough backbone to stick to principle. Instead of calling on your friends alleged to have made or witnessed the statement to confirm or deny it in clear terms, you pushed the challenge to others. Is that how we ascertain truth in the church, as opposed to the world? When Peter confronted Ananias and Saphirra, did he leave it to others to prove the charge? If a Christian friend of yours is accused of stealing money from his employer, you call him and he said the employer should prove it instead of telling you he didn't do it, would you take him seriously?

To add insult to injury, you say the Eve-serpent claim is immaterial. Really? People that interpret scripture as saying they can command angels are fraternizing with demons, but those who make such claim are ok? Such a warped sense of priorities! Imagine what your reaction would have been if the doctrine emanated from WOF. That's why it's hard to take some of you critics seriously. Perhaps, you should google that story and know the kind of groups that assert it. Then, we can associate you with them, using your standard that those that have any overlap with an Aladura teaching are themselves part of a demonic group. Remember, it doesn't matter if the overlap or copying is from satan's side and not the other way round. Once you're found to share any topic, we lump you together. Fair enough?

Nobody could provide evidence for this and the ever moronic mbaemeka claimed that the actual thread was lost when NL server was hacked meaning all we have is your imagination of the same. If you want to finger somebody, come up with proof or shut up and apologize.

nlMediator:


Again, you jump in to display your ignorance, as you did with the Eve-Serpent issue, from which you silently withdrew with egg on your face when the person you were defending could not categorically deny the charge. In this case, it's your friend that employed that logic of silence in his WOF thread. So everything you said here applies to him.

BabaGnoni was sarcastic in the only thread that was ever produced by another dumbo Gombs.
Burden of proof remains with the one making a claim so Trustman or whoever silence is no proof of nothing. Logic 101. I have been called Shndemidemi here by Gombs and I felt like I could not dignify his low IQ by refuting or agreeing with him. Silence means a lot more than guilt sir!

Image123:


Actually, we have Gnoni here and tman's silent witness. Not forgetting Bidam, even me i think i recall the thing. One sisterme handle was also saying something similar.

vooks:

Nobody could provide evidence for this and the ever moronic mbaemeka claimed that the actual thread was lost when NL server was hacked meaning all we have is your imagination of the same. If you want to finger somebody, come up with proof or shut up and apologize.

Hello vooks, pls enough with the insults abeg. It has been traded enough. i'm sure from this point on, we can get our points across without throwing such caustic jabs at each other.

let it rest pls

mbaemeka:


You don't seem to understand what is going on bro. The sore loser isn't denying the accusations- he is asking for the link. Why? because the link got lost when NL was hacked. If he claims he never made the statements then we need not wait for the devil himself- the father of lies, for he is fully manifest in anyone who can make such barefaced lies. We can ask Bidam and I believe even Trustman was on the said thread. If my memory serves me well Trustman tried to correct him to no avail. In the other WOF thread or so, Bidam challenged him with the same fact and the "thing" corrected him by saying "I didn't say Eve slept with Satan" he meant "the serpent" and he even thanked me for properly quoting him. Now challenged with his crimes against the scriptures in front of his friends, he wants to deny the rank heresies he spewed thinking it made him a maverick. Hopeless joke.

No need to even paste the so called link sef...witnesses abound. I am one of them, sisterme who is a branhamite disciple made that thread. Trustman who is silent now is one of them, Lordreed can also testify..since these anti WOF folks are exposing heresies which can cause damage to the BODY OF CHRIST it is very strange that winsomex can water it down to say it has no consequence on salvation. If william branham could pull alot of folks to believe this rank heresies i guess the serpent-eve debacle has a lot to do with interpreting our salvation story- Genesis is the foundation story and if that Foundation is destroyed what can the rigtheous do?