₦airaland Forum

Oga Tayo i bow sir . . . thou knowest who i am. But much respect . . . let us go through your riposte.

Tayo-D:
@4Him,

I just have to come in and say a few things following the way you are using the scriptures unscripturally here. I often wonder how people who have done nothing for the kingdom, nor given up so much for the kingdom have the audacity to condemn those who through by reason of fellowship and walk with God have broght growth to His Kingdom. Now to address some of the things you mentioned.

Oga i could not type a response for a good 3 mins . . . i rolled off my bed in laughter.
Just a question sir . . . in what way does a church using tithes and "offerings" to build a university that is way out of reach of 80% of the congregation part of "bringing growth to His kingdomm"?

Tayo-D:
Jesus said He was about the "business of His Father." So church business is the Father's business.

With all due respect sir . . . Jesus Christ was 12yrs old when He made this statement . . . he had neither a church no was he "bishop". Clearly when He talked of His "Father's business" He was not talking of building a giant religious complex but the "business" of salvation on the cross.
This is comparing apples with oranges.

Tayo-D:
Whose money was stolen? In whose hands do you think the money stand a better chance of being used for the gospel - the Church or those armed robbers?

Frankly neither. While the church is rich majority of the people (those the bible identifies as the real church) are poor.
How has the church used all the money for the gospel? By building schools (for the rich only), restaurants and purchasing private jets? If that is the measure of how the gospel is to be preached one wonders how the apostles managed behind prison walls and on donkeys.

Tayo-D:
I will suggest you read your Bible too Sir. You can't use an isolated incident that teaches something else to condemn the use of money in churches. Have you forgotten Jesus sat by and observed the temple treasury when He taught us about the widow's mite? Why didn't He drive them away then?

you are equally guilty of the very charge you lay against me. What Christ was observing in that verse was the giving of offerings to the Lord in the temple. He brought up a very valuable lesson . . . the emphasis is not on how much you have (and can give) but the state of ur heart.
Today the widow wont even be allowed anywhere near Canaanland . . . remember "their God is not a poor God"

My oppinion?
Pls by all means stay with this man . . . he is right . . . only an animal will stay with an animal. I dont know any other sane woman who will sit down and watch porn movies with her husband. Nigerian women would have broken that TV screen and banished the man to the guest room long ago.
By all means remain with him and let him continue treating you no better than his christmas goat.

He beat you and pushed u off the floor? Pls stay until the day he actually breaks your head.

Still need my oppinion?

@ Router

I think it is safe to say that Revelation 14:4 and Leviticus 15:19-30 are sister verses.

We have gone through Rev 14 and shown that the writer of the article was clearly bereft of any deep understanding of that verse at all to be able to assume it is saying the same thing as Lev 15.
Lev 15 no longer applies to christians today as we are no longer under the law of sin and death but under the law of grace.

Birth of any female is a loss: Ecclesiasticus 22:3 ", and the birth of ANY daughter is a loss" (From the New Jerusalem Bible. It's a Roman Catholics Bible).

That cannot be true. Deborah was a female judge of Isreal for several yrs. Annah was a prophetess in the temple and many of Christ's close confidantes in His time on earth where female.

Daughters inherit nothing when there are sons: "If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter. (Numbers 27:" So the American law of splitting everything equally is not Biblical.

Again not true . . . Micah was a daughter of King Saul . . . David, through his marriage to Micah, claimed some inheritance . . . remember that King Saul also had Jonathan as a son.

Jesus himself in Revelation 14:4 considered women as dirt that defiles men. Even Jesus, the Christians' highest model, despised women in the Bible!! It is crystal clear that women in the Bible are nothing but a defiling dirt and trash to men. This is no insult to women by me. This is just simply the way the Bible views women. Ironically, Jesus confirmed this view.

The author produces no single shred of evidence beyond Rev 14:4 to buttress his misguided point. His understanding of Rev 14 has been proven to be false so we can safely deduce that the author is merely struggling to interject his own oppinion here.

router:
In the Bible:

Jesus considers women as dirt that defiles men (since Jesus, the GOD, is the one who supposedly inspired the New Testament as Christians claim): Revelation 14:4 "Those are those (men) who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as first fruits to God and the Lamb."

The verse does not say "those who did not defile themselves with fornication or adultery".

the above caught my eye because +osisi pointed it out. The fact that the author of the initial article that router plagiarised assumed that since the verse says nothing about adultery and fornication automatically means that the bible was portraying women as dirt shows his lack of understanding of biblical concepts.

1. Where those 144,000 people only men? Certainly not . . . 4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

The bible does not tell us they were just men only (what of women and children?) . . . and we know from several other passages that the bible uses the term "men" as a generic term to refer to a group of people, men, women or children.
So quite clearly the 144,000 people would have included women.

2. Rev 14:4 says these "men" were virgins (pls see again verse 4 in highlights) . . . but was it talking about physical virginity? Definitely not, God instituted marriage . . . it would thus not make sense that he chose 144,000 virgins! Would that preclude all married couples who are also believers? No.

When the bible refers to "virgins" . . . it is talking about being pure and undefiled from the influence of the world . . . pls read Rev 17 for an example of where the bible uses the term "fornication" not in reference to sex but to refer to worldly influence.

Thus Rev 14 cannot be literarily interpreted to suit the ignorant purpose of the confused author of this plagiarised article. In simple terms . . . those 144,000 "men" refer to the body of Christ . . . it is in that context that they are refered to as "virgins" who have not defiled themselves with women.

router:
lol, Did it provide a good answer to lies posted by your shameless holyghost inspired brother in christ or not,

no it didnt. It simply reaffirms my belief that muslims cannot clearly defend their "faith" and have to rely on plagiarised volumes of nonsense from spurious websites which they themselves do not understand.
It is doubtful that you even read more than 2 paragraphs of your own "copy and paste" post.

All the answer that was required was a honest personal response.

router:
Friend why would Jesus make this statement in one verse and in another verse say this , And his disciples came and begged him saying, ''send her away, for she is crying after us.'' Jesus answered,''I was sent only to the lost sheep of israel.''
Mathew15:21-24
Then sometin must be wrong somwere

the only thing wrong there is your perception. Christ FIRST was sent to the jews and through that race the gospel became available to the rest of the whole world. Before His death Christ was God only to the jewish race . . . but after His death and resurrection . . . salvation was shed abroad into the hearts of ALL NATIONS.

router:
Well, if u are warning someone, then u are alike a light to that person bringin him out of darkness

Being a "warner" is not the same as being a "light". A "warner" merely tells others of supposed danger to come . . . a light actually guides. The word of God (the bible) is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our paths . . . not only does the bible warn us of the dangers of sin it also leads us the path to eternal life and has the power to keep us from sin . . . a warner has no power neither can he guide.

Another point to note: there is no concept of sin or darkness in islam . . . how then can mohammed be a warner to bring others out of darkness? Which darkness and to where?

Router . . . when you are ready to do a lot more than shamelessly plagiarise http://www.answering-christianity.com/polygamy.htm then we can reason together.

Amen! How come a lot of us have the same prayer points for this yr?

joshjosh:
bro you can't be 4Him on one hand and be against the prosperity and well being of His church on the other hand. even if the church was poor the fact you have such high numbers of people there every week makes it a force you can't ignore.

Sir, have you read Christ's description of the Laodecian church? Rev 3: 14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

Dear sir . . . Christ had only a band of 12 fishermen, tax collectors and sinners yet within 3yrs He brought a message that continues to resonate 2000yrs after. The size of a church makes it a force to be reckoned with IN THE SIGHT OF MAN but is of no consequence to God. Remember Gideon's army.

The church is not the organisation or the building, it is the people . . . is it not surprising that at the time the organisation is so rich most of the people (the real church) are spiritually and physically poor?
The Lord is concerned about the "prosperity" of His Church . . . the prosperity of the souls of His people.

joshjosh:
i don't fellowship there but you guys have to understand we are all Christians all these non-sence of your church is better than mine need to stop. as someone said on a different thread all these things are sworks of envy.

I have no affinity to any denomination . . . anywhere the undiluted word of Christ is preached there shall you find my feet. I dont care if they are redeemed or winners.

joshjosh:
no theif have the right to go rob anywhere. church or no church. that is my point.

Well supported. Armed robbery shld have no place in our society.

joshjosh:
if you apply the "In the begining it was not so" theology. my question to you would be why are you doing things that were not done in the beginning? you probably are in north america and europe. in the beginning our people don't travel why did you travel kind sir? i bet you use planes, cars and trains. in the beginning these things were not so sir.

when i say "in the begining it was not so" i refer to the start of the early church right from Christ's ministry to the gathering together of the early apostles in Acts 1.
Nothing to do with cars or planes or travel.

joshjosh:
be fair theives are theives i didn't think i would live to see the day people would be rejoicing that banks have robbed because they are situated in church premises.

Rest assured that those days are not here yet. No one is rejoicing that a bank is robbed in a church . . . i am just worried that we now have banks inside churches. Are they for keeping the offering?

joshjosh:
you might as well say theives should steal your car and property because in the beginning 4Him didn't have anything.

May God have mercy

Again you misunderstand the general thrust of my oppinion.
May God have mercy.

Tboy007:
Irrespective of our faith inclinations, I think this is a wonderful prayer tract"

"Oh Lord,protect for me my sight,my hearing & my thoughts. There is none like you. Kindly protect me from Poverty, disbelief & hatred. All praises,honour & thanks belong to thou holy name".

As "wonderful" as that prayer sounds it is completely meaningless if you dont know who you are saying the prayer to. To whom would the Ogun worshipper (irrespective of his faith inclinations) be addressing this prayer?

router:
@ Millena

Dont be hard on yourself, its true that God doesnt lie but men can make mistakes because the bible is a collection of books written by men so this might just be one of the many arithmetric conudrum caused by men of men founnd in the bible.

If you were interested in the truth (as most muslims usually arent) you shld have seen the very second post on this thread that addressed babs787's alleged conundrum.

router:
@4Him
, And his disciples came and begged him saying, ''send her away, for she is crying after us.'' Jesus answered,''I was sent only to the lost sheep of israel.''
Mathew15:21-24

Matthew 28: 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

router:
Blessed is he Who has sent down AL-Furqan(something which differentiates between what is true and what is false) to his servant(Muhammed ASL) that he may be a warner to all the worlds Quran 25:1

Matthew 5: 14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

In your haste to produce a verse that sounds like mohammed is proclaimed as the "warner" (not a light) to the world you forgot that babs787 made a fundamental error. Christ did not call Himself a light to the world but WE.

joshjosh:
it is like you guys endorse robbery. by the look of it the bishop is your enemy so anything that robs or affect him is an endorsement of your hatred. you might as well have pulled the triger. i can see why the mercy and thanksgiving prayer flowed freely earlier

God have mercy on us all with people like these in our society. God's mercy can flow to a killing thieve but can't reach david oyedepo

lol i see where you are going. Take off the blinkered glasses of loyalty and try to be a tad bit objective.
First and foremost i must point out that in no way do i support armed robbery, in normal countries such miscreants shld be behind bars right now not enjoying their loot.

Back to my main point: why is a church now so rich? Why is a bank situated in a church? In the begining it was not so. Christ flogged money changers out of the premises of the temple accusing them of turning a house of prayer into a den of thieves . . . are we not witnessing the same today?

Our churches have become schools, restaurants, banks and miracle houses. Is this what the saviour meant when He said we shld lay NOT for ourselves treasures on earth where moth and rust do corrupt?

I dont support robbery but i wont condone the misuse of Christ's name as a tool for personal aggrandisment either which is what canaanland symbolises.

Gamine:
How can twist this like that

so someone can't pray over something again??

Wetin be worship for here

May God have mercy o!

Yes you can pray for security but the fact that the robbery took place in "Canaanland" does not make it any different from bank robberies on Ozumba Mbadiwe.
While Christ enjoins us to build up treasures in heaven "Bishop" is busy building his own canaanland on earth . . . when the robbers come for their share you all start calling fire and brimstone.

Gamine:
@4Him

the Bishop talked about the whole canaanland

whether bank, school, house, restaurant

its all covered

This is becoming Bishop worship. Where in the bible did the apostles sit down building business empires to make money? Was it when Paul was being shipwrecked on the way to Jerusalem or when Stephen was being stoned or with Philip being transported to meet the Ethopian eunuch?
May God have mercy.

olrotimi:
logic! a bank in a church,
logic! killed cops in the bank in the church!
logic! stole cash from the bank in the church!
what else do we call that.

simple logic . . . when did banks become part of a church?
Did Christ patronise money changers in the temple or drove them out with whips?

not logic dear . . . read ur bible.

moraachi:
guys without much ado if u watched it, clinton is d best 4 d job as far as both candidates are concerned.

the same clinton with flip flopping positions on illegal immigration and the war on Iraq?

Gamine:
when will this rest

i feel this a test

Bishop said smthing about this at shiloh

now these robbers have come to test Gods power

they are in for it!

puhleeese give me a break. They robbed banks . . . is that part of God's house too?

that is what you get when "churches" end up as business empires - - the den of thieves.

Alphazee:
[b]Please I'm seeking clarifications on those Biblical verse[/b]s and not comments about your (or anybody's) faith or belief, which is personal. The Bible was presented to me by a preacher, to read and believe. I have read, but should I believe without questions? Should I not be “open to reason” (James 3:17 RSV)?

no you certainly are not. I observe you never stick around to read any of the "clarifications" only to pop up on another thread "seeking yet more clarifications".

dtw_sola:
4Him, that is a poor analogy. A slave is purchased property of the slavemaster. A driver or housegirl is not property. They are paid wages, and they can leave at anytime if they so choose.

dtw_sola you are very right . . . while the bible never outrightly condoned or condemned slavery it gave specific instructions on how slaves were to be treated. Remember that those were primitive days and slavery was a product of society and not a biblical commandment.

Deut 15: 12 And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.
13 And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty:
14 Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.

Certainly sir . . . Hebrews could only keep slaves (if we must use that term) for 6 yrs only and those slaves were paid handsome wages. More like a househelp or driver today except we dont buy them anymore simply because we as a culture have since come to regard slavery as morally wrong.

By God's grace this is no conundrum but a concerted attempt to read a puzzle where there is none.

babs787:
Arithmetical conundrum

Luke 24 v 33; and they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem and found the eleven gathered together and them that were with them

1. Which eleven?

2. Did they include themselves in the numbers they find?

Even if they do, the disciples there (of the elected 12 of Jesus) could never be more than 10 altogether because on this visit of Jesus to that upper room, Judas and Thomas were definitely not present.

You quote Luke 24:33 BUT your actual reference is in John 20 (the chapter that mentions thomas' absence when Christ first appeared to the disciples.
John 20 indicates clearly that Christ appeared to the 11 TWICE:

John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

Verse 24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

Note that verse 19 talks about the first meeting where Thomas was absent. But verse 26 records that there was yet again another encounter with the disciples in a room where Thomas was present and would have been counted among the 11 disciples.

26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

Obviously Luke 24 records only the second and what was to be the final meeting with His disciples before His ascension.
Please note also that there were more than 12 "disciples". There were many others who were also called "disciples" but were not numbered among the 12. There was a time he sent out 70 "disciples", certainly many of these were with the 11 apostles.

babs787:
Also Paul said that after the days, Jesus was seen of Cephas (Simon Peter) then to the twelve.
3. Which twelve?

The word ‘then’ excludes Peter. Even if you add him, you will never get the twelve because the traitor Judas had committed suicide before the alleged resurrection!

I will start from the second question: the word "then" in no way excludes Peter . . . it merely says that Peter was the first to see Jesus Christ, He later appeared to all the disciples at once.

Back to your first question: i did mention earlier that there were a lot more than 12 disciples for those who have paid a lot closer attention to the gospels. There were 12 who were more prominent but there were certainly others who were in the background.
Paul mentions that Christ was seen of the 12 apostles before His resurrection . . . remember that Mathias was chosen to replace Judas after the ascension of Jesus Christ and thus became the 12th apostle.

Paul definitely counted Mathias among the 12 . . . Mathias clearly was one of the over 500 disciples who also saw Jesus before He ascended up into heaven as it is unlikely that the apostles would have chosen a complete outsider to replace Judas. Clearly Mathias had walked closely with the apostles and had known Jesus Christ personally.

In that context Paul's statement in I Cor 15:5 then becomes clear . . . he was already counting Mathias among the 12 disciples who saw Christ.

Hope this helps.

dtw_sola, would you then assume that it is biblically wrong to have a driver, gardner or housegirl?

babs787:
Sister, Jesus was the way, light for his community during his time and he told you that he is the light of the world as far as he is in the world meaning that if he leaves, another light takes over.

That would only be true if it satisfies two conditions:
1. that Christ at any point did indicate that He was a light only for as long as He remained physically on earth as a man.

2. That mohammed at any point in time indicated that he was a light of any sort to anybody.

Since those two premises are false therefore your earlier conclusion is false.