2 things
1. The Bible says miracles but may be the Greek admits.
2. The Holy Spirit preserved this and why would He not correct it if it were erroneous?

If he did his miracles ONLY to his disciples, how were they beneficial to the people? Imagine if ONLY the twelve watched Jesus 'in action'
He was a preacher, that's why they repented. For hundreds of years, preaching ALONE spread Christianity. What was different about The man come in the spirit and Power of Elijah?

mbaemeka:


2 things
a) John did no SIGNS
b) The people said. Not the disciples.

Now tell me, the ability to spot out the Messiah from a large crowd of people or to see the Holy Spirit descend on him is it short of miraculous? What about how John preached to the point that people's hearts began to born with fire and a strong zeal to repent was it also short of miraculous? Was John's Water baptism ordinary?

^

The bible said SIGNS for that was the actual translation in greek. The word frequently used for Jesus MIRACLES was ERGO meaning deeds, acts etc. So yes John did no SIGNS but he walked in the miraculous and that's what I am trying to show you.

1. John could SEE the Holy Spirit descend on Jesus.
2. John's baptism could Elicit such an occurrence
3. When John preached people's hearts burned with fire. The same way the bible says when Jesus opened the understanding of his disciples on the journey along Emmaus they too felt their hearts burn with fire. It was more than a mere preaching brother. It was the type of conviction that made them believe the word enough to stake their lives for it, something they weren't ready to do just a few days earlier.

NB: I didn't say he did his miracles to ONLY his disciples. I said it was the multitude of Jews that said to themselves "this man didn't show any SIGNS like healing the sick, raising the dead etc. But it was divine for him to spot Jesus out" (same way it was divine for Peter to call Jesus the Christ, the son of God).

Also, the Holy Spirit let us even know the words of the devil and of liars. It doesn't mean whatever they said was true.

mbaemeka:


2 things
a) John did no SIGNS
b) The people said. Not the disciples.

Now tell me, the ability to spot out the Messiah from a large crowd of people or to see the Holy Spirit descend on him is it short of miraculous? What about how John preached to the point that people's hearts began to born with fire and a strong zeal to repent was it also short of miraculous? Was John's Water baptism ordinary?

John did no SiGNS means he did nothing supernatural to the visible eyes like Moses, Elijah,Jesus, Peter or Paul.

The point is, there was something John lacked compared to Jesus and His disciples. No signs nor wonders did John perform. They go hand in hand those two. The guys who said he did no signs were privy to his oratorical skills and their effects yet they said he did no miracle. Whatever supernatural measure manifested in him,he did NO MIRACLE.

mbaemeka:
^

The bible said SIGNS for that was the actual translation in greek. The word frequently used for Jesus MIRACLES was ERGO meaning deeds, acts etc. So yes John did no SIGNS but he walked in the miraculous and that's what I am trying to show you.

1. John could SEE the Holy Spirit descend on Jesus.
2. John's baptism could Elicit such an occurrence
3. When John preached people's hearts burned with fire. The same way the bible says when Jesus opened the understanding of his disciples on the journey along Emmaus they too felt their hearts burn with fire. It was more than a mere preaching brother. It was the type of conviction that made them believe the word enough to stake their lives for it, something they weren't ready to do just a few days earlier.

NB: I didn't say he did his miracles to ONLY his disciples. I said it was the multitude of Jews that said to themselves "this man didn't show any SIGNS like healing the sick, raising the dead etc. But it was divine for him to spot Jesus out" (same way it was divine for Peter to call Jesus the Christ, the son of God).

Also, the Holy Spirit let us even know the words of the devil and of liars. It doesn't mean whatever they said was true.

vooks:

The point is, there was something John lacked compared to Jesus and His disciples. No signs nor wonders did John perform. They go hand in hand those two. The guys who said he did no signs were privy to his oratorical skills and their effects yet they said he did no miracle. Whatever supernatural measure manifested in him,he did NO MIRACLE.

shdemidemi:

John did no SiGNS means he did nothing supernatural to the visible eyes like Moses, Elijah,Jesus, Peter or Paul.

No they don't go hand in hand per se and a miracle is not ALWAYS spectacular- but it is ALWAYS supernatural so the claim that John did nothing supernatural is false.

I asked questions and none has been attempted by the both of you. I never claimed that John healed the sick or turned water to wine whether in public or secret. The bible says John was a Prophet and as such he proved his calling by spotting out the Messiah from a large crowd.

I hope you know that we have more knowledge about Jesus now than John did back then. So that should help you factor in how much of a prophet he truly was and how supernatural picking and baptizing Jesus was. Others believed in Jesus' calling when they saw the signs, but John spotted Jesus out without a single sign- he knew by revelation of the spirit and that my friends is not natural!

The bible also says Abraham and David were Prophets and they too had no signs but some of the things they were able to see in the realm of the spirit and also say out made them Prophets. So let us consider the message holistically. That aside, I never said anyone's christianity was proven by his wealth or ability to wrought miracles. We should however be wary of those who rule out its existence, possibility or necessity. Also, if anyone who calls himself a christian believes in the word of God with his spirit, it is only a matter of time. The belief will show up in signs, wonders, miracles and mighty deeds and I stand by that.

mbaemeka:

No they don't go hand in hand per se and a miracle is not ALWAYS spectacular- but it is ALWAYS supernatural so the claim that John did nothing supernatural is false.

My brother, a miracle is called a miracle because it is beyond the ordinary.. it is beyond what can be produced by natural agents. [/quote]

mbaemeka:
The bible says John was a Prophet and as such he proved his calling by spotting out the Messiah from a large crowd.[quote author=mbaemeka post=28015811]

Spotting Christ isn't a miracle. Please check your definition of the word 'miracle'.


[quote author=mbaemeka post=28015811]That aside, I never said anyone's christianity was proven by his wealth or ability to wrought miracles.

Do you agree God does not necessarily need to make a true christian wealthy?

mbaemeka:
We should however be wary of those who rule out its existence, possibility or necessity. Also, if anyone who calls himself a christian believes in the word of God with his spirit, it is only a matter of time. The belief will show up in signs, wonders, miracles and mighty deeds and I stand by that.

What signs or wonders have you experienced as a christian that is beyond what an unbeliever or non-christian can also
experience?

vooks:
The point is, there was something John lacked compared to Jesus and His disciples.
No signs nor wonders did John perform. They go hand in hand those two.
The guys who said he did no signs were privy to his oratorical skills and their effects yet they said he did no miracle.
Whatever supernatural measure manifested in him, he did NO MIRACLE.

shdemidemi:
John did no SiGNS means he did nothing supernatural to the visible eyes like Moses, Elijah,Jesus, Peter or Paul.

mbaemeka:
No they don't go hand in hand per se and a miracle is not ALWAYS spectacular
- but it is ALWAYS supernatural so the claim that John did nothing supernatural is false.

I asked questions and none has been attempted by the both of you.
I never claimed that John healed the sick or turned water to wine whether in public or secret.
The bible says John was a Prophet and as such he proved his calling by spotting out the Messiah from a large crowd.

I hope you know that we have more knowledge about Jesus now than John did back then.
So that should help you factor in how much of a prophet he truly was and how supernatural picking and baptizing Jesus was.
Others believed in Jesus' calling when they saw the signs, but John spotted Jesus out without a single sign
- he knew by revelation of the spirit and that my friends is not natural!

John was a living and talking SIGN (i.e. the voice calling, "Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God)

By the way, John knew about Jesus, as way back when both were in the womb. His recognition lead to his mum (i.e. Elizabeth) on the back of it, getting filled with the Holy Spirit.
- John has been "spotting" Jesus, and spotting as far way back, from the womb

Even if debating signs, might as well get the handle right on the purpose of signage, which is, giving directions or warning, communicating a message or information to a targetted or specific group.
- what use is the sign to Kutuwenji to me, if I am already at Kutuwenji, or if I already know how to get to Kutuwenji

John didn't have to do signs. Why should he, when he, John, WAS THE sign. John was a WARNING SIGN of something to come (i.e. wasn't he the forerunner)
- John didn't have to and was not required to keep up with the sign-Joneses. In his own right, he, John, was a sign.

The thing is John had so many things going on, and we all can thank Herodias for that, this likely lead to a midlife crisis moment or a tad case of carnal moments which reached a climax and set him off, in delirium, to enquire, whether Jesus was for real
- remember John recognised this, earlier when in the womb, so my suspicion that it was a case of temporary mental confusion

Signs like Methuselah and John the Baptist have their places
Just as Methuselah had a purpose, so John too, had his purpose. Methuselah's miracle was to stay alive AS A SIGN until the appointed time and in a similar vein, John's miracle was to be a sign too, then become a fading sign as Jesus glitters and increasingly shines

Now, mbaemeka you are however right with the statement "I hope you know that we have more knowledge about Jesus now than John did back then." (sic) as it agrees with (i.e. is line with) what Jesus said in Matthew 11:11

Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist;
yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
- Matthew 11:11 NIV

John was the last prophet of the old brigade, hence why Jesus in relation to the old ways of doing things, said no human being is greater than John the Baptist, however in the new brigade, the least in the new way of doing things is greater than John the Baptist (i.e. obviously because of the transition from law to grace and love. Also because John was straddling the Old and the New, but we are firmly rooted in the New with Christ)
- Recall Moses and Elijah; representation of the Law and the Prophets, assisting Jesus with the beginning of drawing the curtain on the old

Wealth, prophecy, miracles, healing etc all are for the moment and so have a shelf life (i.e. after a length of time they all become immaterial, unusable, unfit for consumption, inconsequential etc)

Three things will last forever--faith, hope, and love--and the greatest of these is love.
- 1 Corinthians 13:13 NLT

1 Corinthians 13:13 above is a summation of what the new brigade is all about (i.e. a full circle, back to Eden, where Adam, pre-fall, was meant to live a life based on faith, hope and love)

mbaemeka:
The bible also says Abraham and David were Prophets and they too had no signs but some of the things they were able to see in the realm of the spirit and also say out made them Prophets.

So let us consider the message holistically. That aside, I never said anyone's christianity was proven by his wealth or ability to wrought miracles. We should however be wary of those who rule out its existence, possibility or necessity.

Also, if anyone who calls himself a christian believes in the word of God with his spirit, it is only a matter of time.
The belief will show up in signs, wonders, miracles and mighty deeds and I stand by that.

Also mbaemeka, you can writhe (by the way, mind you, no offense meant by that) as much as you want to but it must be said, moreso for the sake of posterity and especially for the records, that it'll be a hard task you finding and quoting anyone (i.e. THOSE; sic) who rule out the existence, possibility or necessity of wealth or ability to wrought miracles (sic; somewhat)

Please quote verbatim (i.e. THOSE) or otherwise, THOSE that do not believe in posterity, healings, existence of the supernatural, ability to wrought miracles, wealth etc

We have one verse by John's contemporaries who listened him and watched his prophecies/teachings about Jesus come to pass. They saw no MIRACLES. Whatever supernatural thing John orchestrated, he did no miracle. Can't get simpler than that. If we are to doubt their no-miracle observation, we may as well doubt their testimony to the accuracy of his teachings on Jesus

Imagine how scanty John's life details are and John will not bother correcting the erroneous notion he observed made about the greatest of all OT prophets. Luke told us that Jesus went about doing good. May be He didn't it is Luke who THOUGHT He did.

I did not get your question.

About signs and wonders, I will dig deeper and engage you.

Does it bother you that the greatest of all OT prophets did no miracles and he was effective? You said the only thing that distinguishes one message from the other are signs otherwise we will be arguing till eternity. You basically scoffed at a the very thought of propagating the gospel without any signs and miracles. You were not arguing about the existence of miracles but the necessity of the same for sharing Christ. Please withdraw that statement.

mbaemeka:


How can you prove the message you believe is right and what others believe is wrong?

Are we to trade words till eternity? If what you believe is true let God back it up or else we can assume he doesn't exist.

Must God back his word with signs else He does not exist to you? Blessed are they who believe without seeing

mbaemeka:




No they don't go hand in hand per se and a miracle is not ALWAYS spectacular- but it is ALWAYS supernatural so the claim that John did nothing supernatural is false.

I asked questions and none has been attempted by the both of you. I never claimed that John healed the sick or turned water to wine whether in public or secret. The bible says John was a Prophet and as such he proved his calling by spotting out the Messiah from a large crowd.

I hope you know that we have more knowledge about Jesus now than John did back then. So that should help you factor in how much of a prophet he truly was and how supernatural picking and baptizing Jesus was. Others believed in Jesus' calling when they saw the signs, but John spotted Jesus out without a single sign- he knew by revelation of the spirit and that my friends is not natural!

The bible also says Abraham and David were Prophets and they too had no signs but some of the things they were able to see in the realm of the spirit and also say out made them Prophets. So let us consider the message holistically. That aside, I never said anyone's christianity was proven by his wealth or ability to wrought miracles. We should however be wary of those who rule out its existence, possibility or necessity. Also, if anyone who calls himself a christian believes in the word of God with his spirit, it is only a matter of time. The belief will show up in signs, wonders, miracles and mighty deeds and I stand by that.

shdemidemi:

Do you agree God does not necessarily need to make a true christian wealthy?

God is not trying to make any christian wealthy anymore than he is trying to make them righteous. Wealth and Righteousness are part of the blessings of Abraham that came on the gentiles by christ Jesus.

What signs or wonders have you experienced as a christian that is beyond what an unbeliever or non-christian can also
experience?

I speak in tongues of angels for e.g.

I am only quoting the areas that I either do not agree with or probably do not understand.

BabaGnoni:

Wealth, prophecy, miracles, healing etc all are for the moment and so have a shelf life (i.e. after a length of time they all become immaterial, unusable, unfit for consumption, inconsequential etc)

Three things will last forever--faith, hope, and love--and the greatest of these is love.
- 1 Corinthians 13:13 NLT

1 Corinthians 13:13 above is a summation of what the new brigade is all about (i.e. a full circle, back to Eden, where Adam, pre-fall, was meant to live a life based on faith, hope and love)

The question now is when does the emboldened happen? i.e when does the shelf life occur for the things you mentioned above. I do agree with Paul in that verse of scripture. What I may not agree with is what people interpret as the time for such to be immaterial.

Also mbaemeka, you can writhe (by the way, mind you, no offense meant by that) as much as you want to but it must be said, moreso for the sake of posterity and especially for the records, that it'll be a hard task you finding and quoting anyone (i.e. THOSE; sic) who rule out the existence, possibility or necessity of wealth or ability to wrought miracles (sic; somewhat)

Please quote verbatim (i.e. THOSE) or otherwise, THOSE that do not believe in posterity, healings, existence of the supernatural, ability to wrought miracles, wealth etc

Sorry to disappoint you this time around but now is not the time or venue for this. Maybe brother Shdemidemi can take it from here.

mbaemeka:
I am only quoting the areas that I either do not agree with or probably do not understand.

The question now is when does the emboldened happen? i.e when does the shelf life occur for the things you mentioned above.
I do agree with Paul in that verse of scripture.
What I may not agree with is what people interpret as the time for such to be immaterial.

Sorry to disappoint you this time around but now is not the time or venue for this.
Maybe brother Shdemidemi can take it from here.

Fair enough, I'll give you that, don't we all too, now and then, quote the areas that we agree with or probably understand

The shelf life occurs for the things mentioned above at the other side of the part of life or eternity
- there, they will be no need for money, no need for healing, no need wealth, no need for prophecy, no need for miracles etc. No need at that side.

"the time for such to be immaterial" sic, is undeniable or unquestionable

What really, exactly or specifically is what you "may not agree with is what people interpret as the time for such to be immaterial." sic

My dear friend, I had no expectations nor any need of an appointment with you, so your figment of "disappointing" is awry
- It was a rhetorical statement. I've made my point and I am content with just plainly making it, with no sorrow added

mbaemeka:


God is not trying to make any christian wealthy anymore than he is trying to make them righteous. Wealth and Righteousness are part of the blessings of Abraham that came on the gentiles by christ Jesus.

I hope you understand we are not linked to Abraham By flesh but by spirit, in that our belief was accounted to us as righteousness just as his.

mbaemeka:

I speak in tongues of angels for e.g.

hahaha.. tongues of angel wouldn't be an end in itself, would it? You speak in that tongue for the purpose of a consequent reaction. My question was if such reaction you get have never or can never be experienced by an unbeliever?

vooks:
We have one verse by John's contemporaries who listened him and watched his prophecies/teachings about Jesus come to pass. They saw no MIRACLES. Whatever supernatural thing John orchestrated, he did no miracle. Can't get simpler than that. If we are to doubt their no-miracle observation, we may as well doubt their testimony to the accuracy of his teachings on Jesus

I said John did NO SIGNS (i.e didn't heal the sick etc.) and that is exactly what the bible said: signs and not MIRACLES. A miracle does not have to be spectacular. What qualifies anything to be called a miracle is it's supernatural descent, cause or initiation. In that sense, John's ability to identify the Messiah was nothing short of miraculous. That's all I have said.

Imagine how scanty John's life details are and John will not bother correcting the erroneous notion he observed made about the greatest of all OT prophets. Luke told us that Jesus went about doing good. May be He didn't it is Luke who THOUGHT He did.

Here is the reasoning. If Jesus had done no signs, wonders, mighty deeds but he was able to tell the woman at the well her life history she would have still referred to him as a Prophet even though the multitudes would have been right in saying Jesus performed no signs. She would have been right in calling Jesus a Prophet because he did something miraculous by telling her things about herself that she didn't expect anyone else to know let alone a Jewish stranger. It was miraculous because he could have only known it beyond natural means A.K.A supernaturally.

Does it bother you that the greatest of all OT prophets did no miracles SIGNS and he was effective?

The emboldened doesn't bother me. He proved his office by identifying the Christ- healing the sick et al albeit wonderful add or take nothing away from his calling.

You said the only thing that distinguishes one message from the other are signs otherwise we will be arguing till eternity. You basically scoffed at a the very thought of propagating the gospel without any signs and miracles. You were not arguing about the existence of miracles but the necessity of the same for sharing Christ. Please withdraw that statement.

That word only is very strong. You might do me well to point where I said that is the only way to distinguish one message from another. The point I was trying to make is for e.g someone says the name of Jesus is not for the church. Jesus only said it to the "Jewish believers" and they were able to latch-on to what the Holy Spirit was doing post-Pentecost that is why the signs and wonders were possible then. And I refute that statement by saying Jesus was referring to all those who believe in him, How are we to resolve the issue? I can take up a case (Like meeting a demoniac) and I can cast out that demon to prove to the cessation guy that the word still works. That is the best way to settle the dispute instead of the endless quibbling over words and Paul shares sentiments with me. Read him:

1 Corinthians 2:4-5Amplified Bible (AMP)
4 And my language and my message were not set forth in persuasive (enticing and plausible) words of wisdom, but they were in demonstration of the [Holy] Spirit and power [[a]a proof by the Spirit and power of God, operating on me and stirring in the minds of my hearers the most holy emotions and thus persuading them],

5 So that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men (human philosophy), but in the power of God.

Must God back his word with signs else He does not exist to you? Blessed are they who believe without seeing

Ofcourse no. I believed the word before I saw anything and I recommend it for all christians but I have found out from experience that if you believe something (the bible way), you would act like it is true and you will doubtless see that it is.

Let me share the story I heard from someone about a show where they brought a christian and some atheist or Pagan I don't know, to debate on the verisimilitude of the word of God and Christianity as a whole. The show began with the Atheist saying all sorts of blasphemous things about the bible while the christian looked on. When the atheist seemed to be getting too far the Christian instructed the demon talking through that atheist to come out in the name of Jesus. There and then, the atheist started manifesting and the debate was ended. You see, what he could not do by arguing the logos with the atheist with persuasive words he did by simply demonstrating the power of the word. That is the level we ought to be at.

One pastor said he went to India to preach and as soon as he brought out his bible the people there in brought out many other religious books like the Koran etc. Whenever the Pastor said A they would read something else from those other books that seemed to contradict what the Pastor had said and then ask him which they should now believe. The Pastor left India sad. Years later and after seeking the Lord he went back to India and as usual he met those folks who liked to refer to the words of other books. This time around the Pastor came prepared. When those folks tried to contradict him, he looked for a sick person and commanded the ailment to check out in Jesus' name and it did then he asked them to do same in the name of whatever deity they believed in and of course, nothing happened. Debate ended, now they had to believe in the bible. Someone said, what if the Indians performed a bigger sign than the Pastor and I said how could that be? At the mention of the name of Jesus, every other power bows. That's what the bible says and I believe it.

BabaGnoni:


The shelf life occurs for the things mentioned above at the other side of the part of life or eternity
- there, they will be no need for money, no need for healing, no need wealth, no need for prophecy, no need for miracles etc. No need at that side.

"the time for such to be immaterial" sic, is undeniable or unquestionable

What really, exactly or specifically is what you "may not agree with is what people interpret as the time for such to be immaterial." sic

Some say they are already immaterial now. You are different. You say it is on the other side of eternity and I agree with that.

shdemidemi:


I hope you understand we are not linked to Abraham By flesh but by spirit, in that our belief was accounted to us as righteousness just as his.

We are connected to all the Abrahamic blessings. We being those who are linked to Abraham by the spirit.

hahaha.. tongues of angel wouldn't be an end in itself, would it? You speak in that tongue for the purpose of a consequent reaction. My question was if such reaction you get have never or can never be experienced by an unbeliever?

Yes sir. No Unbeliever can receive that gift of the Holy spirit.

mbaemeka:
Some say they are already immaterial now.
You are different. You say it is on the other side of eternity and I agree with that.

I am not sure what you agreed with, as I certainly didn't say wealth, prophecy, miracles, healing etcetera are on the other side of eternity

I think you might have just paraphrased me without the aim or intention to achieve greater clarity with it
- you've tried repeating my remark(s), but ended up repeating it out of context, omitted words or watered it down a bit and thereby misrepresented the crux and intent of my original remark(s)

This is part of what I said:
Wealth, prophecy, miracles, healing etc all are for the moment and so have a shelf life (i.e. after a length of time they all become immaterial, unusable, unfit for consumption, inconsequential etc)

Three things will last forever--faith, hope, and love--and the greatest of these is love.
- 1 Corinthians 13:13 NLT

1 Corinthians 13:13 above is a summation of what the new brigade is all about (i.e. a full circle, back to Eden, where Adam, pre-fall, was meant to live a life based on faith, hope and love)

What are the specifics that SOME are saying, are already immaterial now? (i.e. is unimportant under the circumstance now)
What exactly is the "they" that are already immaterial now? (i.e. a list of what are immaterial now as allegedly said by SOME)

mbaemeka, mind you, what SOME might be saying is that, unimportant now doesn't necessarily mean, it does not happen, it can't or it won't happen. SOME might be saying that these things though unimportant now to some degree, are still valid, as they are parameters, in the use-by-date or expiration date function (i.e. the shelf-life or time-to-live function) The sovereign power of God however has a stake in all this too and at will supersede events situations or outcome

mbaemeka:
Someone said, what if the Indians performed a bigger sign than the Pastor and I said how could that be?
At the mention of the name of Jesus, every other power bows. That's what the bible says and I believe it.

Reading that "...how could that be..." just struck me as a catchphrase of a world famous person known for saying that
- what a small world we live in

My brother,
I know too well that a Mount Carmel experience is most believer's nirvana where raw power of God settles argument. And I know one too many urban legends along those lines. Those are EXCEPTION and extremely rare. How many believers turn to Christ out of the miraculous? Very few. Am one of them. Look at the church history. Was the church sustained by the miraculous? For a better part of its life, Christianity was just about as miraculous as atheism. And even today, it is largely propelled by anything but the miraculous.

In Acts 2, it was Peter's preaching not tongues that drew them to God. The tongues MERELY aroused their curiosity and actually caused a significant number to dismiss them as drunks.

Your two sentences below shows your intention and mindset; no power, no faith. Once again,this statement is in bad taste. You will only believe God if you saw miracles, otherwise he is as powerful as Shiva.

Remember the rich man in hell;

Luke 16:29 -31 (KJV)
Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


Recall also Jesus' words;

Matthew 11:20-24 (KJV)
Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: 21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. 23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

They witnessed Jesus at His finest and repented not. Who told you that miracles quadrupled today among Christians would draw more men and demolish arguments?

I have nothing else to add apart from appeal to you to withdraw those words in blues. Thank you

mbaemeka:


How can you prove the message you believe is right and what others believe is wrong?

Are we to trade words till eternity? If what you believe is true let God back it up or else we can assume he doesn't exist.

mbaemeka:


I said John did NO SIGNS (i.e didn't heal the sick etc.) and that is exactly what the bible said: signs and not MIRACLES. A miracle does not have to be spectacular. What qualifies anything to be called a miracle is it's supernatural descent, cause or initiation. In that sense, John's ability to identify the Messiah was nothing short of miraculous. That's all I have said.



Here is the reasoning. If Jesus had done no signs, wonders, mighty deeds but he was able to tell the woman at the well her life history she would have still referred to him as a Prophet even though the multitudes would have been right in saying Jesus performed no signs. She would have been right in calling Jesus a Prophet because he did something miraculous by telling her things about herself that she didn't expect anyone else to know let alone a Jewish stranger. It was miraculous because he could have only known it beyond natural means A.K.A supernaturally.



The emboldened doesn't bother me. He proved his office by identifying the Christ- healing the sick et al albeit wonderful add or take nothing away from his calling.



That word only is very strong. You might do me well to point where I said that is the only way to distinguish one message from another. The point I was trying to make is for e.g someone says the name of Jesus is not for the church. Jesus only said it to the "Jewish believers" and they were able to latch-on to what the Holy Spirit was doing post-Pentecost that is why the signs and wonders were possible then. And I refute that statement by saying Jesus was referring to all those who believe in him, How are we to resolve the issue? I can take up a case (Like meeting a demoniac) and I can cast out that demon to prove to the cessation guy that the word still works. That is the best way to settle the dispute instead of the endless quibbling over words and Paul shares sentiments with me. Read him:

1 Corinthians 2:4-5Amplified Bible (AMP)
4 And my language and my message were not set forth in persuasive (enticing and plausible) words of wisdom, but they were in demonstration of the [Holy] Spirit and power [[a]a proof by the Spirit and power of God, operating on me and stirring in the minds of my hearers the most holy emotions and thus persuading them],

5 So that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men (human philosophy), but in the power of God.



Ofcourse no. I believed the word before I saw anything and I recommend it for all christians but I have found out from experience that if you believe something (the bible way), you would act like it is true and you will doubtless see that it is.

Let me share the story I heard from someone about a show where they brought a christian and some atheist or Pagan I don't know, to debate on the verisimilitude of the word of God and Christianity as a whole. The show began with the Atheist saying all sorts of blasphemous things about the bible while the christian looked on. When the atheist seemed to be getting too far the Christian instructed the demon talking through that atheist to come out in the name of Jesus. There and then, the atheist started manifesting and the debate was ended. You see, what he could not do by arguing the logos with the atheist with persuasive words he did by simply demonstrating the power of the word. That is the level we ought to be at.

One pastor said he went to India to preach and as soon as he brought out his bible the people there in brought out many other religious books like the Koran etc. Whenever the Pastor said A they would read something else from those other books that seemed to contradict what the Pastor had said and then ask him which they should now believe. The Pastor left India sad. Years later and after seeking the Lord he went back to India and as usual he met those folks who liked to refer to the words of other books. This time around the Pastor came prepared. When those folks tried to contradict him, he looked for a sick person and commanded the ailment to check out in Jesus' name and it did then he asked them to do same in the name of whatever deity they believed in and of course, nothing happened. Debate ended, now they had to believe in the bible. Someone said, what if the Indians performed a bigger sign than the Pastor and I said how could that be? At the mention of the name of Jesus, every other power bows. That's what the bible says and I believe it.

BabaGnoni:


I am not sure what you agreed with, as I certainly didn't say wealth, prophecy, miracles, healing etcetera are on the other side of eternity

I think you might have just paraphrased me without the aim or intention to achieve greater clarity with it
- you've tried repeating my remark(s), but ended up repeating it out of context, omitted words or watered it down a bit and thereby misrepresented the crux and intent of my original remark(s)

This is part of what I said:
Wealth, prophecy, miracles, healing etc all are for the moment and so have a shelf life (i.e. after a length of time they all become immaterial, unusable, unfit for consumption, inconsequential etc)

Three things will last forever--faith, hope, and love--and the greatest of these is love.
- 1 Corinthians 13:13 NLT

1 Corinthians 13:13 above is a summation of what the new brigade is all about (i.e. a full circle, back to Eden, where Adam, pre-fall, was meant to live a life based on faith, hope and love)

What are the specifics that SOME are saying, are already immaterial now? (i.e. is unimportant under the circumstance now)
What exactly is the "they" that are already immaterial now? (i.e. a list of what are immaterial now as allegedly said by SOME)

mbaemeka, mind you, what SOME might be saying is that, unimportant now doesn't necessarily mean, it does not happen, it can't or it won't happen. SOME might be saying that these things though unimportant now to some degree, are still valid, as they are parameters, in the use-by-date or expiration date function (i.e. the shelf-life or time-to-live function) The sovereign power of God however has a stake in all this too and at will supersede events situations or outcome



Reading that "...how could that be..." just struck me as a catchphrase of a world famous person known for saying that
- what a small world we live in

Huh?

I said the et al would be immaterial on the other side of eternity because I understood that to be your position and I agreed with it. If that is not your position let me know so I can retract my agreement with you.

vooks:
My brother,
I know too well that a Mount Carmel experience is most believer's nirvana where raw power of God settles argument. And I know one too many urban legends along those lines. Those are EXCEPTION and extremely rare. How many believers turn to Christ out of the miraculous? Very few. Am one of them. Look at the church history. Was the church sustained by the miraculous? For a better part of its life, Christianity was just about as miraculous as atheism. And even today, it is largely propelled by anything but the miraculous.

In Acts 2, it was Peter's preaching not tongues that drew them to God. The tongues MERELY aroused their curiosity and actually caused a significant number to dismiss them as drunks.

Your two sentences below shows your intention and mindset; no power, no faith. Once again,this statement is in bad taste. You will only believe God if you saw miracles, otherwise he is as powerful as Shiva.

Remember the rich man in hell;

Luke 16:29 -31 (KJV)
Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


Recall also Jesus' words;

Matthew 11:20-24 (KJV)
Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: 21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. 23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

They witnessed Jesus at His finest and repented not. Who told you that miracles quadrupled today among Christians would draw more men and demolish arguments?

I have nothing else to add apart from appeal to you to withdraw those words in blues. Thank you

Brother, there is no need for the front and backs. My words very clear and my concomitant explanations were equally as clear. The 2 people I engaged in the cause of making that statement are professed christians who say

1. No christian has the Holy Spirit in him
2. The Holy Spirit's role as it was in the early church has ended.

You have engaged number 2 and you didn't sway him even if the both of you kept tossing scriptures at each other. What you didn't know about Number 2 is that you were right in saying with his style of discussing scriptures he would still maintain his beliefs in the next 20 years. We can readily prove it by viewing his past exchanges with people from last year to the year before on the same issues. What that brother needs is a demonstration and not the endless arguments.

I have few words for the number one because he is even more confused. Try telling him from scripture that the Holy Spirit enables you to speak in tongues amd watch him tell you that you do not have him in you. Then let me see you debate scriptures with him.

As per my claims, I would not be retracting them as they are not wrong and I can back them up with many scriptures. I never said seeing is believing. I said if you believe something long enough you will see it. So it is not about using miracles to convince anyone. It is about proving that what I believe is right by demonstrating it and showing that it works. Thank you.

BabaGnoni:
The shelf life occurs for the things mentioned above at the other side of the part of life or eternity
- there, they will be no need for money, no need for healing, no need wealth, no need for prophecy, no need for miracles etc. No need at that side.

"the time for such to be immaterial" sic, is undeniable or unquestionable

What really, exactly or specifically is what you "may not agree with is what people interpret as the time for such to be immaterial." sic

mbaemeka:
Some say they are already immaterial now. You are different. You say it is on the other side of eternity and I agree with that.

mbaemeka:
Huh?

I said the et al would be immaterial on the other side of eternity because I understood that to be your position and I agreed with it.
If that is not your position let me know so I can retract my agreement with you.

This is what happens when ducking questions (i.e. my question like "What really, exactly or specifically is what you "may not agree with is what people interpret as the time for such to be immaterial."" sic)

No answers to when I asked what are not unimportant now, what is it that some say are already not important now.

I haven't asked what you and I agree on yet, just wanted to know what the are is, which you say SOME claim to be already not important now.

My position with a few list given, is unambiguous on what becomes immaterial on the other side of eternity
- it is crystal clear enough that it doesn't require affirmation, validation or endorsement nor need duress of agreement retration

It is well my brother.
Those two extremist positions are toxic

I just won't go as far as claiming their faith is invalid if they have nothing to show by way of the miraculous

mbaemeka:


Brother, there is no need for the front and backs. My words very clear and my concomitant explanations were equally as clear. The 2 people I engaged in the cause of making that statement are professed christians who say

1. No christian has the Holy Spirit in him
2. The Holy Spirit's role as it was in the early church has ended.

You have engaged number 2 and you didn't sway him even if the both of you kept tossing scriptures at each other. What you didn't know about Number 2 is that you were right in saying with his style of discussing scriptures he would still maintain his beliefs in the next 20 years. We can readily prove it by viewing his past exchanges with people from last year to the year before on the same issues. What that brother needs is a demonstration and not the endless arguments.

I have few words for the number one because he is even more confused. Try telling him from scripture that the Holy Spirit enables you to speak in tongues amd watch him tell you that you do not have him in you. Then let me see you debate scriptures with him.

As per my claims, I would not be retracting them as they are not wrong and I can back them up with many scriptures. I never said seeing is believing. I said if you believe something long enough you will see it. So it is not about using miracles to convince anyone. It is about proving that what I believe is right by demonstrating it and showing that it works. Thank you.

vooks:
It is well my brother.
Those two extremist positions are toxic

I just won't go as far as claiming their faith is invalid if they have nothing to show by way of the miraculous

Their faith is not invalid if they have nothing to show. It is invalid if they insist that it has nothing to show.

I don't know but forgiveness of sins is far much greater than the most spectacular miracle. So it is a question of WHAT you want their faith to show.

The Jew wants a sign

mbaemeka:


Their faith is not invalid if they have nothing to show. It is invalid if they insist that it has nothing to show.

Galatians 5:13 KJV

For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

vooks:
I don't know but forgiveness of sins is far much greater than the most spectacular miracle. So it is a question of WHAT you want their faith to show.
The Jew wants a sign

There is a faith for salvation from sin, forgiveness and one for healing etc for self. Good. But until one's faith is used in service for others then that faith is still in the confines of selfishness and Christ hasn't been fully formed in such a person because true faith is motivated by love for others.

There is a world of sick, broke, depressed and frustrated men. A rendezvous of broken humanity. Are we to tell them to remain that way till the next world or can we do something about it through faith? Paul says faith works by love (Galatians 5:6).

So let that faith grow away from just receiving forgiveness. Let it also help heal sick but forgiven men. Ciao.

There is something about making proselytes twice as son of hell.
If you tell them that their faith is useless because they are 'just' forgiven, you beat Jews in looking for a sign. That's not faith growing into something, that's faith diluted. That's John the Baptist wondering whether Jesus is the Messiah halfway through his assignment

mbaemeka:
Galatians 5:13 KJV

For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.



There is a faith for salvation from sin, forgiveness and one for healing etc for self. Good. But until one's faith is used in service for others then that faith is still in the confines of selfishness and Christ hasn't been fully formed in such a person because true faith is motivated by love for others.

There is a world of sick, broke, depressed and frustrated men. A rendezvous of broken humanity. Are we to tell them to remain that way till the next world or can we do something about it through faith? Paul says faith works by love (Galatians 5:6).

So let that faith grow away from just receiving forgiveness. Let it also help heal sick but forgiven men. Ciao.

mbaemeka:

So let that faith grow away from just receiving forgiveness. Let it also help heal sick but forgiven men. Ciao.

When did healing the sick become a scale for measuring selflesnees?

vooks:
There is something about making proselytes twice as son of hell.
If you tell them that their faith is useless because they are 'just' forgiven, you beat Jews in looking for a sign. That's not faith growing into something, that's faith diluted. That's John the Baptist wondering whether Jesus is the Messiah halfway through his assignment

If all we needed faith for was for receiving forgiveness then there is no need for faith to grow.

shdemidemi:


When did healing the sick become a scale for measuring selflesnees?

When did having faith to receive forgiveness for your own sin become a scale for measuring selflessness?

No need to ramble, for faith to be selfless it MUST be used or directed to help someone else get faith or develop more faith in Jesus. So think of the many things that fit into that box.

.

Joagbaje:
.

you do not want to respond to my last two mentions?