₦airaland Forum

^
In a word Karma.

nuclearboy:
This your "implied causality" concept - how does it explain the death of a spanking brand new baby? Or the decision of a fulani man to machete the head of a 4 day old baby? How does that fall within the "free will" of the baby?

^
An almost never ending cycle of cause and effect. Call it Karma. That's the answer you will get.

. . .nothing new from the OP. Another spin on "revelation". I suppose this thread will probably die a quick and painless death, since Jo is going to shy away from further posting.

@Gbawe: why bother?

qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent.

kasiem:
Lord lugard: under his care that three culturally and historically distinct tribes were corced into a union in the name of 1914 almagamation.

^
The OP is ignorant about history. Get a life!

Ðip▓§hïtë = Deepsight

It's a joke arising from this thread

Deep Sight:
σταματήσει αμέσως!

Γελάω στα ελληνικά

Yes sir. I will comply forthwith.

[quote author=e.dynasty link=topic=686094.msg8510943#msg8510943 date=1307975812]ένα μετενσαρκώθηκαν αυτο  [/quote]^
οι οποίοι έχετε προηγουμένως

I am going to use strong language for you. . .because you boldly and barefacedly persist in your lies. You are a false teacher who is too lazy to even check the bible verses you claim that support your lies and who tries to change the meanings of words.

Image123:
The Numbers 6 in my Bible give different things a nazarite was to separate from(i.e everything related to grape), not a distinction of alcoholic beverages.

This is what Numbers 6:2 says:
Num 6:3 He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.

Image123:
to intoxicate is to fill or soak. That it's often linked to alcohol doesn't mean that it always should be alcohol as is clear. In this case, you can be full with food or water.

^

in·tox·i·cate
1 : poison
2a : to excite or stupefy by alcohol or a drug especially to the point where physical and mental control is markedly diminished
2b : to excite or elate to the point of enthusiasm or frenzy

Does intoxicate mean to fill or soak? Your lies mount up.

Image123:
Who says its not forbidden by God, are you aware of the passages that speak against wine or do i begin to lay them out.

^
Please do lay out for us to see the passages that forbid drinking wine. Note I do not ask for passages that condemn drunkenness (because those are the ones that you will produce). If you cannot produce just one bible verse that forbids drinking of wine (even in Num 6:20 the Nazarites were permitted to drink wine); then it is proven that you are a lying false teacher!

Image123:
Is DRINKING alcohol for pleasure an appearance of evil?

^
You are no Apostle. Was God promoting an appearance of evil when he commanded:
Deut 14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,
Or when Jesus changed water into wine?

Image123:
John was on a vow from birth. It's not an indictment on Jesus as an alcoholic. Jesus did not take fermented/old wine. Its not in the scriptures. What He took was grape juice, which was also called new wine. It's a world away from what we compare today, our champagne, ale and lager beer. You and your kind of doctrine are influencing the drinking habit of millions of people around the world, and it's on the negative. People are picking up their vintages and 10-20%s, their gins and spirits, and destroying themselves and their families. i'm also on the look out for those people who drink and don't get drunk.

^
How silly you are, grasping at straws and propping up straw men. Who here says Jesus was an alcoholic? In all ages people have always drunk alcohol. Did Noah need any doctrine to get drunk? Sinful men will find occasion for sin and it is the power of Christ that gives the victory not your silly and unbiblical injunctions.

Azibalua:
Nepiotic nepios

^
Who is this silly little female child throwing around words she doesn't understand? I am almost certain the only reason you are in CE is because you have wasted your youth and are now looking for one unfortunate man to trap. . .which accounts for all these your "notice me, I am a church worker" efforts. You get excited by words like nepios, how pathetic you are. . .how sad.

. . .lots of pretentious self-hating idiots on this thread.

@OP:
This is the 4th, 5th or 6th thread you are opening on the same topic? Is something wrong with you? What is the purpose of opening multiple threads on the same subject. Come to think of it: I understand, your belief in these men has been seriously shaken and you now seek to reassure yourself by opening this threads. I have already told you; the size of the crowds or congregation is not a mark of genuineness. How many was Elijah? How many were the prophets of Baal? Between Jesus (the Son of the Father) and Barabbas (the son of the father); who did the crowd choose?

Instead of following crowds, and men. . .take your bible and go into the inner closet where only you and God will be and seek his face in prayer and bible study. Ask him to grant you wisdom and discernment from on high.

Stop all these nonsense.
All the people you mentioned are rogues and thieves. God did not send them.

^
As always the same M.O in operation. . .to make it seem that he's being persecuted. It will not stand. Any one who cares to research the aforementioned threads will find that Joagbaje revels in self-advertisement and thus invites such research into his "personal" affairs. As soon as the heat is on, he switches tactics and starts alleging insults and persecution. The leopard cannot change it's spots.

Notice how they have successfully changed this conversation from Joagbaje's false gospel to his "right to privacy". Nonsense.
@DeepSight: I am unto you.

gsuccess:
I was into alcoholism

^
Stop projecting your personal experiences unto God's Word. Yes, you were an alcoholic given to habitual drunkenness. For you; it is absolutely necessary that you have to abstain 100% from it. Unfortunately your self-righteousness leads you to condemn what God has not condemned to wit drinking wine. Be thankful for the grace that God has extended to you and stop your self-righteousness. Are you holier than the one who wrote this:
Deut 14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,
It is the weak-willed and foolish ones who cannot differentiate between drunkenness and taking wine; who use the excuse of wine being mentioned in the bible as a license for drunkenness. The sons of the Most High have liberty in Christ (not an excuse to sin). That means we are free men and reject any attempt to forbid what God himself has not forbidden us. Interestingly this is one of the hallmarks of false teachers: to forbid what God has not forbidden.
1Tim 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. Just as HE commanded Israel in Deut 14:26.

As it is written: it is not good to have zeal without knowledge.

gsuccess:
Abstain from all appearance of evil.

Evil as defined by men or as defined by God. Why do you call evil that which God has not called evil? Exactly as the Pharisees called Jesus a wine-bibber!

gsuccess:
I'm, not surprised at your points, but the summary of my response is found in 1 Corinthians 2:14 ('But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned') and in 2 Corinthians 4:3,4 ('But if our gospel be hid,it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them').

^
Be quiet there! You roll out your usual pentecostal stock phrases when you cannot defend your misinterpretations. Do you think a Christian will be cowed by bible verses that are supposed to be our meat and drink? What needs to be spiritually discerned about drunkenness? Even the unbelievers know that it is bad.

gsuccess:
I equally argued like you are doing till I repented and gave my life to Christ, then I began to understand the scriptures by the Spirit of God. The Pharisees & Sadducees also argued the Words of Christ because they want to be justified in their sin.

^
Again I say to you: Be thankful that you received grace from God. Most of your ilk in your self-righteousness assume that everyone who opposes your erroneous interpretations drinks alcohol. Since you quoted Proverbs, I will direct your attention to it: Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
You people add to the word of God, that is why even drunken unbelievers reprove you using the same bible. You duty is to preach Christ and him crucified not go around self-righteously forbidding what God did not forbid.

gsuccess:
BY THE WAY, THE LORD'S CHOSEN CHARISMATIC REVIVAL MINISTRIES WILL BE HAVING AN INTERNATIONAL CRUSADE IN ABUJA, at Eagle square next month, July 23-24. Every sinful harbit and yokes of bondage will break by the annointing. PASTOR LAZARUS MUOKA WILL BE MINISTERING.

^
So the whole point of this your tirade is to advertise another of them false teachers! Of course the bolded part above is derived from another pentecostal stock phrase: Anointing breaks the yoke.
Begone hence and take your false man-glorifying gospel with you!

There is no teaching referring to an anointing that breaks a yoke in the New Testament, nothing. It is the blood of Jesus that cleanses and God’s Spirit indwells the believers to give them power to not walk in bondage. This phrase was used specifically for Israel in their captivity. There is no experiential anointing taught, that would immediately break ones bondage. Anointing is mentioned four time and 3 are in 1 Jn.2 about our having this anointing already, once in Jms.5. Anoint is used 5 times and it is used twice for Jesus’ burial (Mk.14:6,16:1; the women anointing Jesus’ feet Lk.7:46, a rebuke on fasting Mk.6:17, and re.3 for the spiritually blind.)

This does not mean the Holy Spirit cannot deliver, He still does, but not in the “anointing package” that is being offered today by the prosperity teachers.

@Image123:
By and by the truth reveals itself.

Image123:
What i mean here is that almost/(basically, majorly) everything liquid aside water is translated as wine in the kjv Bible.

^
This is a barefaced lie. Only those ignorant of the Bible will be taken in by this. I can see you are no different from he-who-shall-not-be-named in how you loosely handle the bible.

Image123:
Maybe its a lack of vocabulary or words, by the writers, to demarcate the different drinks but i hardly find the words like beer or juice or malt or soft drink or mineral etc in the kjv. I believe they had fruit juice and drank fruit juice in those days, and its not hard for me to figure that they would also group it as 'wine'.

^
Quite disingenuous but transparently silly.
1) You expect to find malt, soft drink etc in the Bible right? Because Coca-Cola established a bottling plant in Moses' time? I have told you to take James' advice; obviously you rush to reply without thinking!
2) In the Numbers 6 verses pertaining to the Nazarites you will find different distinctions of alcoholic beverages.
3) You need to obviously do more bible study because you do not understand that that which you call beer in English is referred to in the Bible as strong drink.

The word itself is שׁכר
shêkâr shay-kawr'
Total KJV Occurrences: 23
• drink, 21
Lev 10:9; Num 6:3(2); Deut 14:26; Deut 29:6; Judg 13:4; Judg 13:7; Judg 13:14; 1Sam 1:15; Prov 20:1; Prov 31:4; Prov 31:6; Isa 5:11; Isa 5:22; Isa 24:9; Isa 28:7(3); Isa 29:9; Isa 56:12; Mic 2:11

Note that in all these references above there is a distinction between strong drink and wine so your argument about advanced taxonomy falls flat on its face. Wine has always referred to alcoholic beverages produced from grapes.

Only once, I repeat once is shêkâr translated as wine in Numbers 28:7. It would also interest you to note that:
The word  שׁכר (shêkâr) would seem to mean "drink not made from grapes." Of such only pomegranate wine is named in the Bible (Song of Solomon 8:2), but a variety of such preparations (made from apples, quinces, dates, barley, etc.) were known to the ancients and must have been used in Palestine also.

Image123:
It seems you're arguing with the wrong person here. i just re-checked again to be double sure. i mentioned the fruit of the vine ever before i mentioned 'alcohol' or 'new wine'. It's in my second post on this thread where i said " it's not esoteric knowledge that the wine used for communion was the fruit of the vine". i'm yet to say that new wine is non-alcoholic, talk about being slow to speak.
There's nothing  to anticipate, i already mentioned it before speaking with you on this thread. It's after i mentioned it in post 17 that you quoted those passages in post 18. It's not funny but am i safe to ask if you've been drinking?

How sad when pride gets in the way. Here is your first post:

Image123:
Bla bla frosbel, bla bla. You're guilty of what you accused the other of. 'of course it should be fermented wine ko', of course it should be frosbel ni.

^At this point, you hadn't fully revealed your hand but your sarcastic words 'of course it should be fermented wine ko' clearly showed that you aligned with gsuccess false dichotomy of alcoholic versus non-alcoholic wine:

The question is this, which type of wine? strong intoxicating wine or non alcoholic wine (vine-as he drank with His apostles)? Offcourse, that was non alcoholic wine!!

You may not have directly said "that new wine is non-alcoholic" but your words strongly implied it!
Here is your second post:

Image123:
The context of that passage is talking about being full with food(solid or liquid) and otherwise. Anyways, it's not esoteric knowledge that the wine used for communion was the fruit of the vine.
And it's safe to imply that responsible Jews settled for new wine ahead of old wine. It doesn't take a B.Sc before one knows that new wine is new/fresh, while old wine is the fermented one. You'd unfortunately be deceiving yourself to use the communion incidences as an excuse to take gulder and star and co.

^
1) Of course, it has already been shown that you are twisting the scriptures when you say that the word drunken in 1 Corinthians 11 refers to being replete with food. Virtually all translations of μεθύω methuo means to drink to intoxication, i.e. get drunk not eat to the point of being full as you disingenuously put it.
2) Your words "It doesn't take a B.Sc before one knows that new wine is new/fresh, while old wine is the fermented one," clearly reveal your mindset: as far as you are concerned the new (unfermented) wine is non-alcoholic while it is the old fermented one that is. In a further bid to misdirect you say "the wine used for communion was the fruit of the vine," as if there is any wine that is not fruit of the vine. It is exactly on such false interpretations and interpolations that the WoF movement thrives.

Image123:
Are we in Bible class? my answer may not be what you've deduced btw but lemme give a fast-try. The nazarites were not allowed to take the grapes because they were separated at that time/period and were under a vow. The grape and its derivatives is symbolic of merriment, while the vow needed sobriety and consecration. I don't know how it compares to Jesus' words but Jesus was not a nazarite anyway in case that's what you're connecting. So kindly give us exposition on the remaining, we are willing to learn.

^The question I asked was this: What is the prophetic significance of the Nazarites? In what way do the Nazarites point to Jesus? Jesus is the key to unlocking the scriptures. What distinguished the Nazarites from the rest of Israel? What did their name mean? How does Numbers 6:20 compare to Jesus' words. What is Jesus' physical relationship to his people at this time? Jesus drank wine and certainly took grape products while on earth? What does he now have in common with the Nazarites?

Image123:
i thought i mentioned that you may need to go learn what wine connotes, that's my answer to you on that.

^
Repeating a lie over and over does not make it true. You lot are confused by modern marketing strategies that package and present "non-alcoholic wine". You assume that as it is for you so it was then. In Jesus' time, wine was simply the beverage produced from grapes (fruit of the vine). No doubt you have heard of wine presses. What did you think they were for? Here is a description:

Wine Presses:

Many of the ancient wine presses remain to the present day. Ordinarily they consisted of two rectangular or circular excavations, hewn (Isaiah 5:2) in the solid rock to a depth of 2 or 3 feet. Where possible one was always higher than the other and they were connected by a pipe or channel. Their size, of course, varied greatly, but the upper vat was always wider and shallower than the lower and was the press proper, into which the grapes were thrown, to be crushed by the feet of the treaders (Isaiah 63:1-3, etc.). The juice flowed down through the pipe into the lower vat, from which it was removed into jars (Haggai 2:16) or where it was allowed to remain during the first fermentation.

Image123:
On 5v23, here it is
1Timothy 5:23  Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.
Was Paul saying Timothy should no longer drink water?

^
Stop chasing shadows! Who here is arguing that Paul said Timothy should stop taking water? The passage is clear, Paul was asking him to add a little wine to his diet!

Image123:
In the context of that verse, yes it means to be full/satisfied.

^
No it doesn't.

Image123:
Let's swap positions a little, you quoted Acts 2:13  Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
and you said or exchanged 'full' in this verse for 'drunk' in post 19. i did a similar thing and exchanged 'drunken' for 'full' in 1Corinth 11 and it makes me the egregious liar that needs edification? You either see the context or you don't, where do you stand? The context is "For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

^
*sigh* You not a child. Stop responding like one. I guess your bible stops at Acts 2:13 right? Here is Peter's response:
Acts 2:14-15 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

Peter's response in more modern terms is simply this: We are not drunk because it's still too early in the day. In all my years; you are the first person I am meeting who is telling me that the common usage of "drunken" means to be filled with food. All usages of that term both metaphorically and literally are based on its allusion to the state of intoxication. So according to you people get inebriated or intoxicated by food? Stop this silliness right now!

Image123:
You quoted Revelation 17v6 and you're asking if people get drunk on food. i should also be asking for good measure, do people get drunk on blood?

^
Don't be a fool! Is that verse describing a human?

Image123:
Like i hope i just showed you, to be drunk/drunken is to be intoxicated, but as should now be obvious, it doesn't legalistically have to be an intoxication with ALCOHOL, it could be power or joy or something else like the above.

^
Do you get intoxicated by food or water? Are we to now add English to the list of things that you should learn? Don't you understand the use of metaphor and simile? Doesn't the word intoxicate that you use suggest something to you? Or are you so far gone in your legalistic traditions that you cannot know rightly handle the Word?

Image123:
This is all grammar. What is the difference between old wine and new wine?

^
You can get drunk on both old and new wine. Only difference is that the new wine is of higher quality hence the remark of the governor of feast in John 2:10.

Image123:
So you're saying that i'm not a pharisee and that i'm not foolish?

^
I didn't say so in my earlier post but based on this last post of yours; I may be forced to reconsider my position.

Image123:
Well it is true life, real life. Do you approve of people ruining their health through eating? For me, i don't approve, i 'condemn' unhealthy eating, and i 'condemn' people taking a bottle of star and claiming Jesus took it and that what He said is MUCH.
And how many people do it for these 'good reasons'? If you understood my position, of course people should use all things for good reasons, the earth is God's and the fullness of it. But don't come here bullying us with statements like frosbel's Of course Jesus wine was fermented or Timothy took wine let's pop the stout and quit legalism.

^
The reason such statements arise is because you lot falsely and foolishly use the Bible to condemn all drinking of alcohol. Like I said there are good and "Christian" reasons for abstaining from alcohol. Those of you who try to forbid what is not forbidden by God end up looking foolish when the people you are trying to convince not to drink use the same bible to punch holes in your arguments. And of course Jesus took wine in contrast to John the Baptist. That is a fact that you cannot argue away! Your distinctions as to new/old; fermented or not fermented; fruit of the vine or not etc are specious man-made legalisms.

Image123:
Please, try to stay in context of what i have said, not what i haven't.
This post is also foe Enigma btw.

^
A lot of what you have said on this thread is a farrago of faulty exegesis and misapprehensions of bible history that must not be allowed to stand.

^
I would have let your comment pass but for some egregious untruths.

Image123:
Well to answer your question fully, you may need to know what 'wine' connotes. And also pls note that anything and everything outside water is basically 'wine' in scriptures(kjv), even your orange juice and soft drinks.

This is exactly just what Joagbaje and co do. Where exactly are the scriptures that say this? You do not even differentiate where your personal opinion ends and Bible truth begins! So orange juice is now wine! Nothing that one will not hear due to faulty exegesis on NL.

BTW; you go on and on about "new wine"; when shown conclusively that new wine is alcoholic; you retreated into the position of "fruit of the vine". It is because of this anticipated position of yours that I posted the specific verses from Numbers 6 as well as the dictionary reference to tirosh. Here is another question for you? Why were Nazarites expressly forbidden from eating anything pertaining to grapes during the period of their separation? How does this compare to Jesus words in Matthew 26 & Luke 22. What does that tell you about the prophetic significance of the Nazarites and Jesus Christ as the firstfruits from the dead? You do not see how interconnected and linked is all the scriptures. There is no command or word that is out of place or without a purpose. Their testimony is of Jesus.

Furthermore, your evasion of 1 Tim 3:8 and non-answer of 1 Tim 5:23 is noted.

Image123:
Here is what we see in 1Corinthians 11,
1Corinthians 11:21  For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
The above is a sentence talking about supper(the Lord's supper before you click the 'imply' button) and eating. The conditions of the 'eaters' is described as one part hungry, and (in all fairness) the other part full. [size=16pt]The word druken there in fairness means full/satisfied as compared to hungry.[/size] i don't think it refers to been intoxicated with alcohol. Paul wasn't correcting intoxication here but the way in which the supper was taken.

^
You are indeed too hasty to reply. Why don't you take James' advice? Be slow to speak. Were it not for your moniker, I would I have thought I was discussing with one-whom-shall-not-be-named. So drunken means to be full/satisfied? What do you make of this verse then? Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; Do people get drunk on food? For your edification: here is what drunken means:
[quote author=Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary]1. Intoxicated; inebriated with strong liquor.
2. Given to drunkenness; as a drunken butler.
3. Saturated with liquor or moisture; drenched.
4. Proceeding from intoxication; done in a state of drunkenness[/quote]Moreover even in the Greek original the word translated drunken is μεθύω methuo (meth-oo'-o) v. 1. to drink to intoxication, i.e. get drunk. [G3184] You can confirm for yourself. This word occurs 6 times in the NT and is translated as drunken 4 times as:
Acts 2:15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
1 Cor 11:21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
1 Thess 5:7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.
Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Does any of these suggest aught but intoxication? Not even the other 2 occurrences in John 2:10 and Rev 17:2 do; so whence cometh your intepretation of the word drunken?

Furthermore in trying to prop up your erroneous exegesis of 1 Cor 11:21; you attempted to smuggle in a false dichotomy between new wine and old wine with regards to their intoxicant properties. A position that Acts 2 destroys hence your redoubt to "fruit of the vine". 

Image123:
Oh and so now i'm not just Jo's adoptee and woF, i'm also a pharisee and foolish? Because we're not on the same page here? Soon i'll be a fraudster and a scammer because i don't 'fit your theology'. Take am easy o.

^
Who called you a Pharisee or foolish? I made a remark concerning the Pharisees' twisting of scriptures and how Jesus rebuked their foolishness. Or are you like the old woman in Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart who's always uncomfortable when people around her are talking about dried bones?

Image123:
i'm yet to see one who drinks alcohol who never got drunk, won't be surprised if i start HEARING of such now. i'll be v.v.v.v. very shocked if i actually saw one. It's about a year now one of m neighbours, he used to give me these sort of logic too. He had all the wine scriptures and a bottle at his fingertips, his liver failed him, plus he nearly ruined his family(and that's a lucky story among the millions)

^
But this is an emotional argument compounded by tradition. Millions around the world ruin their health every year through eating. Lots of people also take alcohol in moderation. That you have not met any of them is entirely your affair. Why don't you condemn eating as well?
As I stated earlier:

aletheia:
By all means there are good and Christian reasons to avoid alcohol if that is your personal decision but do not forbid that which God has not forbidden by your legalistic traditions. There are also good reasons to take some wine as well.
1 Tim 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

No Christian needs legalistic man-made traditions to refrain from alcohol. The power of Christ in us is sufficient to help us abstain totally from taking alcohol if so needed. What you don't realize was that wine was an integral part of the meal in Jesus' time and is so in some parts of the world even now.

^Don't get your knickers in a twist.
Here is what you said. It appears you have adopted Joagbaje's selective interpretation style:

Image123:
The context of that passage is talking about being full with food(solid or liquid) and otherwise. Anyways, it's not esoteric knowledge that the wine used for communion was the fruit of the vine.

What passage?
1 Cor 11:20-21 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

1) First you make an appeal to vague authority in claiming: "Anyways, it's not esoteric knowledge that the wine used for communion was the fruit of the vine." This is the usual trick with words that the WoF crowd are always playing. First of all by definition: all wine is fruit of the vine. Therefore, it is a falsity to imply as you do that there is wine that is not "fruit of the vine."

2) What is the activity for Christians meeting together in worship. As we see here:
Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. Also cf Acts 2:42. But as we see the Corinthians were a rowdy lot and here is Paul admonishing them that they were bring disrepute and treating the Lord's Supper with disrespect. You attempt to parlay your position into implying that verses 20-21 is not about the Lord's Supper. That this is untenable is shown by the context where we see Paul in verse 23 write:
1 Cor 11:22-24 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

So from the verses in 1 Corinthians 11, we see that some did get drunk on communion wine thus showing that it was alcoholic!

Image123:
And it's safe to imply that responsible Jews settled for new wine ahead of old wine. It doesn't take a B.Sc before one knows that new wine is new/fresh, while old wine is the fermented one. You'd unfortunately be deceiving yourself to use the communion incidences as an excuse to take gulder and star and co.

^
No one here is making excuses for drunkenness or using the Lord's Supper as an excuse to take beer. But there are no Bible verses that support the legalistic interpretation that forbids Christians from taking alcoholic beverages. You also make an unproven claim "that responsible Jews settled for new wine ahead of old wine." Where is the support for this position of yours. As I pointed out earlier the verse of Acts 2 demolishes your premise which is that new wine was not alcoholic: Acts 2:12-13. And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
Obviously the onlookers thought the disciples were drunk on new wine. Why would they have thought this if new wine was non-alcoholic. I guess you didn't see that verse because it pulls down your new wine hypothesis.

By all means there are good and Christian reasons to avoid alcohol if that is your personal decision but do not forbid that which God has not forbidden by your legalistic traditions. There are also good reasons to take some wine as well.
1 Tim 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

The Pharisees were very good at that. Here is an example:
Matt 23:18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
From a human perspective it sounds all so holy and religious, doesn't it? But here is Jesus' response to their foolishness: Matt 23:19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

Quick questions for you:
1 Tim 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
Why does the qualifier "much" occur in this verse? You do realize the world of difference in meaning if the word much is dropped from the verse, don't you?

And to help you better elucidate your position: The Hebrew word for new wine in the OT is tirosh

Properly this is the fresh grape juice (called also mishreh, Nu 6:3), even when still in the grape (Isa 65:8. But unfermented grape juice is a very difficult thing to keep without the aid of modern antiseptic precautions, and its preservation in the warm and not over-cleanly conditions of ancient Palestine was impossible. Consequently, tirosh came to mean wine that was not fully aged (although with full intoxicating properties (Judg 9:13; Hos 4:11)) or wine when considered specifically as the product of grapes (Deut 12:17; Deut 18:4, etc.). The Septuagint always (except Isa 65:8; Hos 4:11) translates by oinos and the Targums by chamar. the King James Version has "wine" 26 times, "new wine" 11 times, "sweet wine" in Mic 6:15; the Revised Version (British and American) "vintage" in Num 18:12; Mic 6:15 (with the same change in Neh 10:37; Neh 10:39 the Revised Version margin; Isa 62:8 the English Revised Version margin). Otherwise the English Revised Version has left the King James Version unchanged, while the American Standard Revised Version uses "new wine" throughout

frosbel:
I am beginnig to think you are on this forum for a laugh.

^
This world is his home! Where else will he have his jets and mansions and fat bank accounts? Such teaching threatens their livelihoods so. . .

[quote author=haka_nai link=topic=687396.msg8492205#msg8492205 date=1307701701]Wallahi, by Allah, if what happened at the National Mosque that day were to be in a church the government would have formally apologised to the Christian community in Nigeria for the embarrassment meted on its faithful by security agencies around their places of worship. But with the Muslims, anything goes; and who cares?[/quote]^
Just exactly why he was asked this question:
[quote author=haka_nai link=topic=687396.msg8492205#msg8492205 date=1307701701]Dr Mohammed Halliru Bello, PDP Acting National Chairman, was visibly upset, came to me when worshipers started dispersing and said: ‘Ustaz Siddeeq, why are you inciting the people against the government?’[/quote]Just because the writer is obviously unhappy with the government who he personally believes did not win the elections as his words betray. . .is it any reason to seek to incite Muslims against Christians. God will judge his duplicity and attempt to manipulate people through religion.

And concerning your assertion about new wine:

Image123:
And it's safe to imply that responsible Jews settled for new wine ahead of old wine. It doesn't take a B.Sc before one knows that new wine is new/fresh, while old wine is the fermented one. You'd unfortunately be deceiving yourself to use the communion incidences as an excuse to take gulder and star and co.

Read in Acts:
Acts 2:12-13. And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

So obviously people did get drunk on new wine!

^
Can one get drunk on grape juice as you seem to imply? The verse quoted from 1 Corinthians does not suggest so. The Bible only explicitly forbids wine for two groups of people:
1) The High Priest when he was ministering in the tabernacle.
Lev 10:8 And the LORD spake unto Aaron, saying,
Lev 10:9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:

2) Nazarites during their vow of separation:
Num 6:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD:
Num 6:3 He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.

We should be careful in adding our traditions and interpretations to God's word.

ogoamaka99:
“Is Pastor Chris an entertainer?”

^
Yes!

ogoamaka99:
If he is an entertainer, what kind of entertainment is he giving the people that they are paying money to enter stadium?

^
Precisely why people are paying money to enter stadiums to watch him; just like people will pay to enter stadiums to watch Lionel Messi play.

ogoamaka99:
If he is not an entertainer what are people paying money to enter stadium to listen him if he is a fraud, a charlatan or criminal?

^
He is an entertaining fraud and charlatan.

ogoamaka99:
Knowing fully well that people don’t celebrate criminal, a fraud or a charlatan. People don’t pay money simply to go and listen to a criminal. I wait for the answer.

^
Deluded folks like you pay money, even sell all their goods to listen to charlatans like Chris Oyakhilome.
2Tim 4:3-4 For the time will come when they [read ogoamaka99] will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers [read Chris Oyakhilome etc], having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

. . .and all the world wondered after the beast.

Quite frankly; you are downright silly, shallow and pathetic. And stop opening silly threads whose only argument is that Chris Oyakhilome is genuine because of the crowds that attend to him.

Pastor AIO:
Those links are nothing. I used them as an example. They are dummy links. You guys need to provide the links. That is what I meant. That is the point of this project. So that anybody chancing on the site for the first time will not just say, 'why is everyone just picking on this poor guy and hurling accusations?'.

^
But I'd already done that on the other thread in some of my posts.

aletheia:
You pretend piety asking for quotes of your words. Do you think we forget your lies as easily your ilk forget the lies of your mentor Chris and swallow his honeyed poison. Your words are plainly recorded and they reveal you as these threads show:

Joagbaje, Come And Answer Your Paul James Query.
How Joagbaje Became God

^
As we were usually asked during CRK in those days: "To whom and on what occasion?" Rightly divide the word.

^
When he quotes scriptures; he twists it the way the serpent twisted God's word and beguiled Eve. You are of the party that gathers around themselves a great number of teachers to teach them what their ears are itching to hear. Joagbaje is just obliging you.

^they got drunk on black currant juice! Of course there is no such thing as non-alcoholic wine in the Bible.

Snowwy:
@Joe,
Thanks a lot for posting these scriptures.
They are deep indeed.

^
Oh yes, as usual the CE Greek chorus shows up. It was only a matter of time before the usual ego-massaging, praise-singing, acolytes turn out.

Joagbaje:
The scripture you quote is for critics like you. Sheep without shepheard .

^
It is not in doubt that there will be other sheep not of Christ. As you yourself have declared several times, your god and shepherd is pastor Chris. As Jesus himself said: His sheep hear his voice and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. Jesus Christ of Nazareth is my Shepherd and my Lord not "pastor" Chris.
I understand your angst: your livelihood is threatened; that is why you are on the offensive against aletheia. No doubt if you had my email, by now you would be sending your duplicitous missives my way.

Joagbaje:
Rather we  here wof , wofer, wolves,false teacher, etc because you know that when you enter abuses ,I will sign out. What are you afraid of?

^
By your words. . .you are a ravening wolf, a dissembling hypocrite, a false teacher whose god is his belly. You have been described as "clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots" Begone you!

You pretend piety asking for quotes of your words. Do you think we forget your lies as easily your ilk forget the lies of your mentor Chris and swallow his honeyed poison. Your words are plainly recorded and they reveal you as these threads show:

Joagbaje, Come And Answer Your Paul James Query.
How Joagbaje Became God

How can Igbos be marginalized when 70+% of the land in Abuja is owned by them?

Joagbaje:
^^^^
So how does your blabbing justify your lie below, give me the quote .

^Like the deluded Emperor you can continue to perambulate naked in the market place for all I care. Your poisonous brew is well known and as been recorded in different places on this forum. . .so I am not ready to oblige you. Just be informed that the time for tolerating your rubbish is over.

NLMediator:
Generally, my take is that it is not good form to bring up the fact or content of private correspondence into the public arena. Except extraordinary circumstances warrant divulging such information, like when a life is directly at stake. E.g., somebody writes that he or another person plans to hurt Miss B or Mr. C.

^
These are extraordinary circumstances and and lives are at stake. It was good for nuclearboy to so expose them so that the world will see just what sort people these are:

nuclearboy:
How? Long time! "Pastor" Joe contacted his "worst enemies" (in his estimation) on NL ---> SirJohn (the misguided liar as he calls him), KunleOshob (can you imagine?) & myself (the ignorant babyteeth boy) via email quietly outside NL. Let me leave the list at that. His first mail to me was titled "My Appeal" and specifically said he was not sent officially to NL and thus, our "stressing" him could cause problems back at church HQ.

nuclearboy:
When people who fight with you openly on NL sneak behind and start writing you letters titled "My appeal" and in these, appealing that you please back down with criticism so that their livelihood is not affected, then it becomes obvious this is not about truth or love or sincerity but simply about livelihood/money/bellies.