MuttleyLaff:
You are still bent on embarrassing yourself further by taking delight in being an ignoranus, hmm? I guess you're a glutton for embarrassment, erhn? Oyaks, is a pastor preaching to himself. Preaching sermons in codes, about himself and whats going down in his marital life. The shoe has being pinching his toes sotay, long time, before it got taken off

All men are created equal, then a few become glorified firemen, like Maestro21 putting out fire for Oyakhilome

Maestro21, have you finished reading the voice of reason from peteonline above, hmm?

positivelord, you know I tried but the truth is a bitter pill for some people like Maestro21 to swallow. Maestro21, peele, ndo. Or is it too late now to say sorry?

You really are serious about this going about desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel business sha

"In that day,” declares the LORD, “you will call Me ‘my husband,’ (i.e. Ishi) and no longer call Me ‘my Master’ (i.e. Baali)."
- Hosea 2:16

"And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali."
- Hosea 2:16 KJV

Hosea 2:16, clearly makes a distinction between husband and master, where incidentally master, means lord as in owner, just as I earlier pointed out about Sarah and Abigail.

Abigail, a badass strong, successful, powerful and intelligent virtuous woman, at 1 Samuel 25:41, in a token of humility, responded to David's proposal of marriage, and replied back saying: "Behold, let thine handmaid be a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord." Abigail, the badass strong, successful, powerful and intelligent virtuous woman, without compulsion, without psychological preaching tactics games or gimmick, brought herself down and small before David, as if she is an insignificant person, then saying to him, she wants to take care of David's servants and then referred David, as her lord.

Many years before Abigail, used it, lord is the same adjective, Sarah, used for her husband Abraham too. Lord, is the same word we get landlord from, which means the owner of a house, apartment, condominium, land or real estate which is rented. Sarah and Abigail, were merely recognising that their husbands are their owners, just as they are equally, the owners of their husbands.

If he truly was right, why does Hosea 2:16, clearly make a distinction between husband and master, hmm?

Blind loyalty, is such an interesting term and you dont cease to amaze me with your blind loyalty to Oyaks to the extent of defending his false teachings and heresies.

You say that an Omniscient God, an all knowing God, a God knowing everything, had an epiphany, hmm Maestro21? Chai! You no go keel pesin with profane talk with matter wey boku for ground already, come join am put with this your blasphemy. Maestro21, please brush up on Isaiah 46:10a, to get rid of your tooth truth decay

Please tell Maestro21, when God created Adam with a peniis, was Adam meant to fairk himself to procreate ni, hmm? I think you must be a sheeple. SMH. I just wish you use those little grey matter of yours better and properly because this thing about you, just dey tire me.

You are still bent on repeating this garbage that women were an afterthought, after being told it is a right load of old codswallop, hmm?

Oyakhilome is advocating elitism. Suck it up

In his teaching Oyaks is looking for a yes-woman, a weak person wife, who always will agree with the president and founder of Christ Embassy church, Chris Oyakhilome, the superior at work and master at home.

Listen Maestro21, man and woman, might have different roles to play and its true their roles might be different, but their rights are equal.

Of course, the man is the head, no one is disputing that, but the woman is the neck too, and she, as the neck, can turn the head whichever way she pleases. Maestro21, man doesnt need to or have to demand submissiveness of his wife, because this has to come naturally by the woman's own volition and not by hook or by crook methods, like the ones preached by the president and founder of Christ Embassy church, Chris Oyakhilome.

Maestro21, if you let your head get too big, it'll break your neck and he who waits for the sword to fall upon his neck, will surely lose his head. This is why its advised to cover and protect our wives. Husbands, are to love their wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her.

Unlike Oyaks and probably you too Maestro21 included, everyone knows that when a husband puts his foot down on the neck, he develops a stiff neck, that will likely drive him insane. When a husband breaks the neck, he eats no more. Husbands should try neck kisses, as nobody is immune to the neck kiss, but oohh no, Oyaks is too spiritual for that

What is the bible chapter and verse reference to this improbable concoction you've made up please? Thank you.

GuestLog:
Dont be deceived by eloquent write ups. Chapter 1 is a summary of chapter 2. The first chapter talks about the whole creation story while chapter 2 breaks down the story in detail. Man was created first, after God saw that it was not good for man to be alone, he made woman out of man. A woman is subjected to man, she is his product. A man is the head of his home just as Christ is head of the church. God communicates with man, and man communicate to his family.

In the ways of God, all things are not created equal, there is hierarchy in the things of God, it is evident in the food chain, ecosystem, animal's social behavior and as described in revelations about heaven & God's throne. In essence, God loves orderliness. Two captains cannot stir a ship, one has to accept directions from the other. God bless his word.

LilMissFavvy:
We all know the purpose of this preaching is to sugar coat a failed marriage. After his wife divorced him, he now has time to chase everything in skirts as he wishes. So shameless. your wife moved on, move on as well, stop confusing gullible believers.

donnie:


That message was preached several years before the divorce, you dingbat.

Maestro21:


You put up the most laughable arguments ever and how you aim to brandish yourself as someone who is researched even makes it more comical. In 2002, 10 years into his marriage he is throwing shade at his wife and her father. In 2007, 15 years into the marriage he is doing same. But it takes his wonderful wife, 7 years after this to realize the shade? Someone just tried to pass this off as an intelligent comment.

In the realm of common sense, we call what you are trying to do revisionist nonsense. You have proceeded to accuse him of throwing shade now because he is divorced, for a message he preached 7 and even 12 years prior. Imagine if he used a hypothetical example of sons who disobeyed their fathers. I guess you would have to wait for eternity to find who the shade was directed at since he has no biological male children to be shading. Because in your distorted sense of reasoning, every example a teacher uses, must be somewhat related to his own personal life. I don't think your type of intelligence is useful to the world or the church.

Which segues into another not too useful way you tried to cover up your "ish" and "aner" misapplication. Contextualization is your friend and not your enemy. In Genesis 3:16, when the Bible says "her desire will be for her ish" it could very well translate to her desire will be for her man, but since the context here was referring to the man being hers it was contextually proper to use husband. That same word ish was used in Genesis 2:23 but there we see it translated and transliterated into its original meaning "man".

There is another word that was used as husband as well. Baal. In Jeremiah 31:32 when God says he is husband to his people the word translated as husband there is from the Hebrew baal which means master. So in that context the same word, husband did not mean man. It meant master.

Interestingly, in Hosea 2:16, the Bible says call me ishi and not baali. This could have very well been translated as call me your husband and not your husband but it will make no sense. So contextually it was more meaningful to say call me your man and not your master. Call me your husband and not your owner. This undeniably proves that the word husband contextually means man, master, ruler, owner. But whilst ish could mean man or husband. Baal unshakeably meant husband or master.

So if Pastor Chris says the word husband means master he was right by the Bible.

Now, why did God create male and female animals? That is not the right question. The right question is, why did God create male and female animals at the same time? Because of procreation. But when it came to man, the Bible says he created the man alone. It is important because Genesis 2 gives a more descriptive trail of events than Genesis 1 that was a summary. In Genesis 1, we understand that God placed male in female into the man he created. Then in Genesis 2, we see where God seems to have an epiphany and says it is not good that the man he created is alone. So he takes out the female in him and creates him a woman to help him.

You may not like the construction of the term but it is clear as day that the woman does appear to be an afterthought unlike the animals which he created at the same time. Which is why Paul expressly states by the holy spirit, that the woman was made for the man and not man for the woman (in other words, I did not make man because I had a woman in mind. I made a woman because I already made a man who was alone). Again, what does that imply? That since she was made because of the man. The man was the original idea and she was the secondary idea. It is not that hard to reason. There is a reason why something is called SECONDary. It is because it comes AFTER the first.

This pretentious and deceitful advocacy for egalitarianism in marriage you are trying to portray is contrary to the scripture. Pastor Chris teaches about the equality of male and female in Christendom but stresses that the dynamic changes in marriage. Unlike the error you have in your transcription, He also says that he wonders why many women in Christianity are so eager to get married considering how submissive the Bible expects them to be. In another teaching, he taught on how women's role in the union was to "lead from behind". So he was not emphasizing a master-slave relationship but only pointing out that the woman's authority in a marriage was not equal to her husband's. She was to be under his authority. And Paul taught EXACTLY the same and even advised women, that to him, it was better for them not to marry especially if they wanted to be leaders in the church. As that will put them under their husband's authority which could pose untoward consequences if the man in question was not godly or spiritual.

Ubenedictus:
no one says there is no hierarchy but it is a hierarchy of love not slavery.
Woman was always part of God's plan

Maestro21:


You put up the most laughable arguments ever and how you aim to brandish yourself as someone who is researched even makes it more comical. In 2002, 10 years into his marriage he is throwing shade at his wife and her father. In 2007, 15 years into the marriage he is doing same. But it takes his wonderful wife, 7 years after this to realize the shade? Someone just tried to pass this off as an intelligent comment.

In the realm of common sense, we call what you are trying to do revisionist nonsense. You have proceeded to accuse him of throwing shade now because he is divorced, for a message he preached 7 and even 12 years prior. Imagine if he used a hypothetical example of sons who disobeyed their fathers. I guess you would have to wait for eternity to find who the shade was directed at since he has no biological male children to be shading. Because in your distorted sense of reasoning, every example a teacher uses, must be somewhat related to his own personal life. I don't think your type of intelligence is useful to the world or the church.

Which segues into another not too useful way you tried to cover up your "ish" and "aner" misapplication. Contextualization is your friend and not your enemy. In Genesis 3:16, when the Bible says "her desire will be for her ish" it could very well translate to her desire will be for her man, but since the context here was referring to the man being hers it was contextually proper to use husband. That same word ish was used in Genesis 2:23 but there we see it translated and transliterated into its original meaning "man".

There is another word that was used as husband as well. Baal. In Jeremiah 31:32 when God says he is husband to his people the word translated as husband there is from the Hebrew baal which means master. So in that context the same word, husband did not mean man. It meant master.

Interestingly, in Hosea 2:16, the Bible says call me ishi and not baali. This could have very well been translated as call me your husband and not your husband but it will make no sense. So contextually it was more meaningful to say call me your man and not your master. Call me your husband and not your owner. This undeniably proves that the word husband contextually means man, master, ruler, owner. But whilst ish could mean man or husband. Baal unshakeably meant husband or master.

So if Pastor Chris says the word husband means master he was right by the Bible.

Now, why did God create male and female animals? That is not the right question. The right question is, why did God create male and female animals at the same time? Because of procreation. But when it came to man, the Bible says he created the man alone. It is important because Genesis 2 gives a more descriptive trail of events than Genesis 1 that was a summary. In Genesis 1, we understand that God placed male in female into the man he created. Then in Genesis 2, we see where God seems to have an epiphany and says it is not good that the man he created is alone. So he takes out the female in him and creates him a woman to help him.

You may not like the construction of the term but it is clear as day that the woman does appear to be an afterthought unlike the animals which he created at the same time. Which is why Paul expressly states by the holy spirit, that the woman was made for the man and not man for the woman (in other words, I did not make man because I had a woman in mind. I made a woman because I already made a man who was alone). Again, what does that imply? That since she was made because of the man. The man was the original idea and she was the secondary idea. It is not that hard to reason. There is a reason why something is called SECONDary. It is because it comes AFTER the first.

This pretentious and deceitful advocacy for egalitarianism in marriage you are trying to portray is contrary to the scripture. Pastor Chris teaches about the equality of male and female in Christendom but stresses that the dynamic changes in marriage. Unlike the error you have in your transcription, He also says that he wonders why many women in Christianity are so eager to get married considering how submissive the Bible expects them to be. In another teaching, he taught on how women's role in the union was to "lead from behind". So he was not emphasizing a master-slave relationship but only pointing out that the woman's authority in a marriage was not equal to her husband's. She was to be under his authority. And Paul taught EXACTLY the same and even advised women, that to him, it was better for them not to marry especially if they wanted to be leaders in the church. As that will put them under their husband's authority which could pose untoward consequences if the man in question was not godly or spiritual.

petra1:


He didnt say that. His point was that man was his main idea and woman was given to man as support .

Genesis 2:18
And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. . . .And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

1 Corinthians 11:9
-- Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

TheIkoro:
I will write more on this later; but, for now, this I will say.....

Once have I said, twice have I had it said;
I pity Woman. I once used to believe men to be they of the endangered gender.

Damyonline:
President and founder of Christ Embassy church, Chris Oyakhilome preaches at his church saying, "Woman was not God's original idea."

Pastor Chris Oyakhilome can be heard saying,

The reason God made woman was because of man
He made the woman because if the man that is why he made the woman
so woman was not his original idea, this is reality
ok scripture, let's see what the Bible says;
When God had made everything and he then had made Adam, everything was VERY GOOD
Already, everything was very good, no problem.
Then he got Adam... listen... ok...

If most women had their fathers bold enough to talk to them, they would be more successful in marriage and they will be very happy.

Most women have never been taalked to by their parents, their father especially
That's their biggest problem they dont know who a man is, they think he is another woman see...in a marriage, you are the man, who is the head of that union
and because he is the head of that union, it is important to understand him
now you think he is the one that needs to understand his wife, that is where you are wrong he will but until you know the man who you have married, the man that came..

it is like working for somebody and not knowing what he wants...

Kobojunkie:
Why people listen to this band of eejits still, I will never understand!

wirinet:
Religion is truely a virus that once it infect the brain, it starts to delete its rational sectors slowly but surely.
If woman was not the original plan of Pastor Oyakhilomes god, then what was his original plan, and why did he change it? If male and female of every animal (and plants) were part of the original plan, why was man different. So only one man was supposed to live on the entire planet with animals and plants reproducing.
The man being master is the most reprehensible doctrine I have heard, it's no different from Islamic terrorist doctrine on women. No wonder he can't keep a wife, as no woman would agree to marry her "master".
I advise ladies to shine their eyes very well before saying I do to any man. They should flee from any man that believes he is going to be her master in marriage, so as to avoid the pastor Anita experience.