₦airaland Forum

MuttleyLaff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr6sMxUSD88
^{by Derek Walker}

@softapples @malvisguy212 @Adaeze003 @oreos @menxer
@freecocoa @haul @Papa5050 @portable86 @lomprico
@etenyong @Adesiji77 @Taiye4Christ @Orikinla @CSTR2 @gmaribel @Abumenre
@5starmilitant @Appleyard @ApexTitan @chuna1985 @luvprince4real

[size=18pt]1 Corinthians 14:34-35:
Should Women be Silent in Church?[/size]

[size=16pt]VIDEO'S TRANSCRIPT:[/size]
One controversy concerns the role of women in church ministry. One scripture in particular seems to exclude women from any public ministry:

'Let your women keep SILENT in the churches,
for it is NOT PERMITTED FOR THEM TO SPEAK;
but they are commanded to be under obedience,
as THE LAW also SAYS.
And IF they want to learn something,
let them ask their own husbands at home,
for it is SHAMEFUL FOR WOMEN TO SPEAK IN CHURCH.'
(1 Corinthians 14:34,35)

Some would explain this away as a special command to the unruly women at Corinth to straighten-up, rather than a general command to all women everywhere. But if we treat one scripture this way, what is to stop us treating every scripture this way? Surely the New Testament is written for the whole church.

The subject of the passage is: 'THE WOMEN IN THE CHURCHES (plural)'. This means-'all women.' Moreover the command is based on 'the law' which means it applies to all, rather than just to those in a particular culture or time.

Let us consider what this passage is literally saying. The word for 'silent' does not mean 'quiet' Thus it is not saying that women should have a quiet (meek) spirit. The word translated 'silent' means no word can be spoken!

It is saying WOMEN MUST BE (completely) SILENT IN CHURCH. This doesn't just disqualify them from teaching but also from testifying, praying, prophesing and moving in the gifts of the Spirit-the latter being the context of these verses (1 Cor 12:1)

The First Problem with this passage, is that it contradicts Paul's other teaching in this book.
For he says women may pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor 11:3-5).
In 1Corinthians 12, especially in v13-27 he teaches that all members of the church (men and women), are members of the body and thus have a function in the body working in co-ordination with each other, and so we can all be used in the gifts and ministries of the Spirit.

So, he says: 'if ALL (men and women) prophesy' (1 Cor 14:24)
'When you come together, EVERY ONE (men and women) of you has a psalm, has a doctrine, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation.' (v26)
'You may ALL prophesy one by one.' (v31)

So, why would he say 3 verses later that all women must be silent in church? Is he being doubleminded?
So the first problem is that in the middle of encouraging everyone to move out in ministry, he is telling all women to be silent!

This also contradicts the spirit of the New-Testament with Jesus treating women with honour, with the churches set free from all Jewish traditions (Acts15), with full equality in the church (Gal 3:28) and with the Spirit poured upon all flesh (male and female) to give power for ministry (Acts 1:8, 2:4,16-18)

A Second Problem is the discouragement upon women from even learning:
'and IF THEY WANT TO LEARN.' The tone of this is condescending to women, that not only should they not speak, it is optional for them to learn the Word (it is even mildly frowned upon as if it were not really their place.) This is clearly in contradiction to the New Testament teaching for women and contrasts with what Paul said in 1Timothy 2:11: 'LET a woman learn.' Here he encourages women to study the Word. Here he speaks against those who would discourage them.

A Third Problem is the AUTHORITY used:
'IT IS NOT PERMITTED FOR THEM TO SPEAK ..AS THE LAW ALSO SAYS.'

Which Law is this? There are 4 possibilities:
(1) The Old Testament Scripture. (The Law of Moses)
It is usually referred to by 'It is written' (1 Cor 1:19,31; 3:19,20; 4:6; 9:9; 10:11, 14:21; 15:45,51)

(2) The Teaching of Jesus (1 Cor 7:10).

(3) The Apostolic Teaching and Tradition
-that which Paul and others received by revelation from the Lord (1 Cor 7:12) Paul received special new revelations to meet the needs of a new situation (the Church Age where many Gentiles were becoming believers on an equal footing with the Jews). For example: 1 Cor 2:10-13,16; 4:1,15-17, 7:6,10,12,17,25; 11:1,2,16,17, 23; 14:36,37; 15:1,3

(4) The Oral Law of the Jews (later written as the Talmud)- the interpretation of Moses' Law by the Scribes and Pharisees. It is followed by the Orthodox Jews to this day as of equal authority to the Bible. They falsely claimed it was passed down from Moses by word of mouth. Jesus clashed with Pharisees over this law. He rejected it and came against it's legalistic spirit (Matt15:3, Mark7:3).

Now when 1 Cor 14:34,35 refers to a law of silence for women, it couldn't be:
(1) because there's no such law in the Old-Testament and he would say 'it is written';
neither is it found in the Gospels (2).
Neither is it (3) because it is clearly a pre-existing law.
Therefore by a process of elimination it must be (4) The Jewish Oral Law (the laws of the Pharisees)

This is confirmed by the phrase: 'As also SAYS the Law.' - a reference to the ORAL law rather than the WRITTEN law (scripture).
(see also Matt 5:21,27,31, 33,38,43)

Also, we know this because it agrees completely with the Talmud and applies to Orthodox synagogues today. The service is for men only. Women are discouraged from even learning, but are sometimes allowed to watch from the gallery, for their place is at home not with things too high for them! And it would be shameful for them to speak in a meeting.

TALMUDIC QUOTES illustrate this:
A Jewish Prayer:'Praise God He hasn't created me a gentile, a woman or an ignorant man.'
'The woman, says the law, is in all things inferior to the man.'
Only men could speak in public (Beraktoth 4,36; Mishnah Aboth 1,5)
No woman could give a testimony or conduct business. (Mishnah Shabbath 4,1)

Women were viewed with disregard and repression, and the Talmud contains many distasteful insults of women's character. They were to be avoided. They were not required to know or fulfil the law and so few were learned.

One said: 'May the words of the Torah be burned rather than be given to women.'
In public worship they were segregated and silenced and so had to ask questions of their husbands at home.

Clearly the writer of 1 Cor 14:34,35 reflected this Pharisaical attitude to women and used this Jewish Law to support his views.

So why would Paul say something that stands in contradiction to the immediate context and the rest of the New Testament? Why would he establish this teaching on Jewish Laws that elsewhere, both he and Jesus rejected?

The simple answer is these verses are not Paul's teaching!
Paul's letters are written in response church situations. 1 Corinthians is the most responsive of them all. Paul had received reports about what was going on (1:11, 5:1, 6:1,8 ), and the church had sent a letter to Paul with many questions (7:1,8,10,12,25; 8:1,4; 12:1; 16:1). There was disunity (1:10-12,3:3). In particular there were 2 groups of people saved from different backgrounds disputing -Jews who tended toward legalism, and Greeks who tended toward license. Paul goes through the issues and questions raised one by one.

Examples of when Paul is clearly responding to what one group has said are 6:15-20 (Greeks); 9:1-11; 11:1-16 (Jews) and 15:12,35,36.

Sometimes he refers what they are saying and then he answers them -e.g.1 Cor 4:8: 'You are already full! You are already rich! You have reigned as kings without us.' (this is what some of them had claimed) --'and indeed I wish you did reign, that we might also reign with you.' (Paul's answer - see also 4:10)

Sometimes he even quotes what they say and then answers them. The problem is that there are no punctuation or quote marks in the Greek and the translators often miss them out.

Some examples of this, are when he responds to the 'loose' Greeks as in 6:12,13:
(You say) 'All things are lawful for me.'
(I Paul) say: 'but all things are not helpful.'
(You say) 'All things are lawful for me.'
(I Paul) say: 'but I will not be brought under the power of any.'
(You say) 'Food is for the stomach and the stomach for foods.'
(I Paul) say: 'but God will destroy both it and them.'
We see the same in 10:23,24.

In questions about idols Paul challenges those who pride themselves in their knowledge but who do not hold it in love. (8:1-3) 8:4: 'We know that -'an idol is nothing in the world and that there is but one God' (again he quotes their words (their knowledge) before he answers as confirmed in v10,11.

Other examples are when he responds to the 'legalistic Jews', 7:1:
'Now concerning what you wrote to me,
(some of you said) 'It is good for a man not to touch a woman.'
(But I Paul say) 'Nevertheless because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife...'

Now we can understand what is happening in 1 Cor 14:34,35.
Paul is quoting what some Jewish converts to Christ, had written in a letter to Paul, complaining about women being involved in church services. Although they were saved they were used to male-dominated synagogue - worship and so found the equality of women in church life hard to take.

They were saying: 'Paul, these women are prophesying, praying out loud, speaking in tongues. The Oral law says it's shameful for a woman to speak in public. Tell them to shut-up!'

So as Paul is teaching on every member participating in church services, it is the natural place for him to deal with their objection. So he quotes what they say: 'Let your women keep silent in the churches, for it is not permitted for them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for women to speak in church' (v34,35)

Then he answers them: 'What, came the word of God out from you? or came it to you only? If any think himself a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write to you (not the Talmud) are the commandments of the Lord (the true authority) But if any (choose to be) be ignorant, let him be ignorant.' (v36-38) Paul replies by asserting his apostolic authority above the Talmud.

This also explains why these verses come out of the blue, interrupting the flow of thought, which is picked up again in v39,40: 'Therefore brethren, covet to prophesy and do not forbid to speak with tongues.'

The placement of v34,35 in the passage as a clear interruption and marked contrast to what Paul is teaching, serves to separate them from Paul's own views.

We conclude that Paul isn't silencing women, rather the opposite!

Those who are too quick to agree with v34,35 have unwittingly submitted to an unchristian pharisaical spirit

Hahahaha! The "intellectuals" will stop at nothing in trying to disprove the scriptures, re-write the Bible and propagate their lies and hypocrisy. That vs 34-35 are not Paul's own opinion or writings? What a babel! The problem we have is that alot of us easily interprete scriptures out of context, in other to buttress our own selfish points. The summation of the youtube interpreter and his conclusion is a typical example of such nonesensical interpretations.

Now lets reconsider what the particular verses said.

"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints"..(it is the intention of God that Peace be in ALL CHURCHES of the saints- not just the church in Conrith). Let your women keep "silence" (silence as in how? ) in the "churches" (again, all these should also apply to all the churches): for it is not permitted unto them to speak (again, why? ); but they are commanded (by whom? ) to be under obedience as also saith the law (which law? ). And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak (what manner of speaking?) in the church....

Now let us answer the questions raised above.

In the begining back in Genesis, God created Man and made him lord of all in the garden of Eden. But God, in His own infallible and unquestionable ways, deemed it fit that man can not live alone, and He created the woman to be a "helpmeet" (someone who should be with him and assist him in all the things he shall do) not a subordinate! (this must be noted). In other words, The man Adam and the Woman Eve were equal in status, and complimenting one another. It was only after the fall of man(brought by the woman) in the garden that the woman lost her equal status to the man (who was not actually the source of the fall). This was clearly stated by God in Genesis. 3vs16

"and unto the woman He said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shall bring forth children, and (pls take note) THY DESIRE SHALL BE TO THY HUSBAND (the man), AND HE SHALL RULE (have dominion in all things) OVER THEE."

what happened above is that, God striped the woman off all her rights and entitlements as it relates to status between the man and the woman. And this became the standard way or modus operandi in social and religious living all through the Old times (O.T) into the new (N.T), and down till the end of days.

This was what Paul was refering to in 1Tim.2vs14. Now, when Paul in 1Cor.14vs34 said "silence in the church", he clearly meant that the woman should not teach nor in any form usurp authority over the man in the church. 1Tim.2vs12. It was the freedom or equal right that the woman had with man that destroyed the first fellowship and corrupted man in the begining. So by "speak", Paul is simply saying don't assume the ro,e of pastorship, deacon, Overseer, Bishop, Choir leader, Ulsher, - all of which are positions of authority, where commands, orders, directives, ratification/implementation of communiques, opinions ,suggestions or recommendations are made. This was in line with the original order put in place as punishment unto the woman by God in Genesis.

Not the other way round!

Even in politics, God is never comfortable and happy that women are ruling over His people, how much more in His house.... "As for my people, children are their oppressors, AND WOMEN RULE over them. O my people (just immagine the feeling of unhappiness God is showing here), they which lead thee (just like today) cause thee to err, and destroy the ways of thy path." Isaiah 3vs12.

Yeah! Just like today where many have destroyed the very foundation of the apostls doctrines, and taking heed to doctrines of the Devil, Leading the people astray from the ancient landmarks of truth, by teaching the commandments of men rather than the one God Himself gave. Paul in 1Cor. 2vs1, and 4, makes it clear that eloquent of speech, enticing words of man's wisdom, does not teach the scriptures regarding the mind of God. Those who claim to fear God will keep to His words without a second thought. The decree God made in Genesis 3 was the same decree that was reiterated in 1Corinthians 14 vs34, and particularly at vs 38, where the Apostle reminded them that it was actually the Commandment of the Lord (refering back to Genesis 3vs16), and which MUST be observed in all churches of the saints. It is the same commandment he kept and also ordered his son in the Lord (Timothy) to duely observed and enforce in the church at Ephesus.

The word of God is yeah and amen. It is either you accept it as it is or you don't accept it at all. You can not accept the word of God conditionally, neither can you bend it or mis-interprete it or over emphasise it to suit your taste and like. Alot of intellectuals like the youtube one above, would always want to point out that there are errors, misquotations, misuse of words, misrepresentation, mistranslation, etc; and such others like puntuations, quotation marks, aspects of verbs, etc, etc. But the truth is, God is unlimited, beyond errors, and knows all things even before they came to be. What has been written, has been written. The way the Bible is today is how God wants it to be, and as far as God is concerned, nothing is wrong with the scriptures! No scriptures is of any private interpretation (2 Peter 1vs20). The word of God interprete itself, but it is only them that have faith in it, and doesn't seek after their own, that would catch the revelation, while the rest continue to grope in intellectual darkness.

Thus, those who are redefining God's law, or trying to give the woman back her lost position, can continue on such course of deviance and rebelion against God. Just as Paul said it, "If any man choose to be ignorant, let him be ignorant".


"Behold i come quickly"...Rev.3vs11; 22vs7. "...to give every man according as his work shall be". 22vs12.



Shalom!

The concept of women becoming preachers of the gospel in the church, is one of the numerous satanic doctrines that is working against the church today. Satan, just as he did Eve, has so made people to "reason" with the word of God instead of accepting what God have said unconditionally.

Women preachers; where do you find such things in the bible as women preachers, women bishops, deaconess, pastoress, reverend Mrs and so forth? Jesus never ordained such things nor did the apostles of Jesus Christ. This is simply the doctrine of devils which has crept into the church to make the foolish virgins fall away.

when men and women gather for church services, the bible forbids a woman leading in any aspect of the service. The Bible could not be more explicit when it stated that;

"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. LET YOUR WOMEN KEEP SILENCE in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the 'law'(old testament)....for it is a shame for women to speak in the church....But If any man (like our preachers and intellectuals of today) think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD (Jesus). But if any man be ignorant (thinking that they know more than lthe LORD that gave the commandment), let him be ignorant.
1 Cor. 14 vs 33-38. Also repeated in 1Tim.2vs11-15.

Some church leaders who have lost respect for the Bible will/have deny/denied this and go/gone ahead to appoint women as Rgt reverend Mrs, Choirmistresses, Pioneers, Songleaders, Pastors, Overseers etc, where there are men. Judgement is coming.

God forbid women taking the position of men in the church, and beyond, in preaching and in prayer leading everywhere. 1Tim.2vs8-12. Titus 2vs 3-8, Matt 28vs16-20, Mark, 16vs14-20, Acts 1vs2, Acts 6vs8-10, Acts 8vs3-8; Acts 18vs24-28.
See the Bible way women participate in Preaching of the Gospel- Luke8vs1-3. It was in this pattern that the noble Sister Lydia made provision of accomodation and feeding for Paul and his Evangelical team in Philip of Macedonia. Acts16vs14,15. It was in similar fashion that Sister Phebe served the church in Cenchrea (as succourer) by rendering help to those who have material needs including their Overseer - Paul (Romans 16vs1-2). That was how Sister Priscilla laboured with her husband -Acquila in the conversion of Appolos Apollos in Acts 18vs24-28. What about Dorcas, Sister Euodias? None of these were seen heading the churches in their time. Why should it be different now?

The truth is God is not the author of today's confusion about sisters roles in Gospeling, but the problem is with our i sabi-too much, stiff necked educated church leaders who think they know more than God and the Apostles.

But at the end, we all shall have our reward.

pass111:
In Christ there is no such thing as slave nor free born, there is no Jew nor gentile, no Woman nor man , all are equal before the lord remember The grace is available to ALL ... even the grace to preach, minister etc.

The place you are trying to quote is Galatians 3 vs 28, which has nothing to do with the preaching of the Gospel or the position of authority. The whole of the chapter 3 of Galatians was primarily talking about the concept of righteouness brought about by salvation through grace by faith in Christ Jesus-the fulfilment of the promise of Abraham.
The verse 28 of the said chapter simply finalized that the whole concept of grace-justification, sanctification, and Baptism- the finished work of salvation, was made available to all, regardless of sex, age, colour, or status.

It does not have anything to do with the issue of officiating, authority or preaching of the word in the church.

We must understand that when it comes to worship, there are rules for Divine Worship, otherwise, we will be worshiping God in His Anger; doing God a service without His will.

softapples:
The Word of God proclaims, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” ( 1 Timothy 2:11–12). In the church, God assigns different roles 2 men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created and D way in which sin entered the world ( 1 Timothy 2:13–14). God, through the apostle Paul, restricts women from serving in roles of teaching and/or having spiritual authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors over men, which definitely includes preaching to them, teaching them publicly, and exercising spiritual authority over them.
There are many objections to this view of women in pastoral ministry. A common one is that Paul restricts women from teaching because in the first century, women were typically uneducated. However, 1 Timothy 2:11–14 nowhere mentions educational status. If education were a qualification for ministry, then D majority of Jesus’ disciples would not be qualified.

you are spot on. The word of God can not be broken. Many people simply don't want to take what is explicitly stated by the bible, rather they will chose to believe what man tells them, what their bishops and reverends tells them to do. This has been, and is still the problem with christianity of today.

DictatorZAR:
While I agree with most you said here I have a urge to put in my own 2cents worth

In a event where it would come to war I would put the yanks and there Nato Allies in a air to air confrontation a few notches ahead.

The F-35 vs T-50 is a non starter simply because both systems are still in there developmental stages. The T-50 would only be in the Russian inventory late 2016 or early 2017 at best and while the F-35 is already undergoing weapon systems trails, in both its sea and land variant.

The Su-35 with AESA radar can match a F-22 any day simply because the F-22's are also too few in numbers build(round 200) and if war breaks out especially in the Ukrainian peninsula Russia with its air and ground defense systems would have a advantage. But that said we are not counting in the Typhoons, Gripen E/NG and Rafale who in their own right are just as capable if not more then both F-22 and F-35's.

In my conclusion the Russians will only have an advantage due to there superior air defenses, but there fighters who in there own right is a match for any thing the West can through at them will simply loose because of sheer numbers and quality from Nato/US fighter jets.

On the side, judging by the current stance of EU countries like France/Germany they would rather sit on the side then go into a war with Russia. Besides the Ukrainian issue if the US wants war they should go at it alone and leave EU especially Baltic states out of it.

Honestly you make alot of sense in your concise analysis.
But come to think of it; why should one nation be up against 28 other nations? That won't be a fair fight, you know. The idea of NATO plus the US taken on Russia alone is something that always amuse me. It is amusing in the sense that, should this be the case, some myopic and brainwashed West/US fan boys still expect such a war to be conventional, when it is clear that from the first shot fired, Tactical Nuclear weapons would be the other of the day. And i can tell you, its Europe that will suffer most from such outcome. Not also forgeting the 99% possibility that the likes of China, Iran, Korea, the CSTO, BRICS, CIS member nations, and even some countries in core Europe would definitly their lot along side the Russians. This is most likely given the continuous breakage of the the world into small economic/political blocs/Units, as well as the ever increasing resentment of the US and its actions and inactions globally.
Another factor that would also play out against the attacking forces is the long and endemic history of hate and mistrust among some NATO member nations. Honestly i dont just see how the Turks and Greecians would work together.

On the other hand, France and Germany becoming hard against further antagonising of Russia, is simply out of understanding the backlash that would result from any foolish match on moscow. It would be suicidal to attack Moscow and expect the whole of Europe to remain the same again-both economically and politically. The truth is, Europe have much to lose than Russia in the event of any war.

Now, if NATO (say without France, Germany, ) along with US should attack Russia, the possibility of Nucluear use is still very high as Russia would be fighting on multiple fronts. But should China and the likes mentioned above joins the party, the East would easily swamp the West.

Now, lets consider a one on one face off between US vs Russia. If the US is to attack Russia, they will lose in a conventional sense.
I know that our American friends like to think that their
army is the best. But I would say most certainly that
USA will NOT win the conventional war on Russia's SOIL. Everywhere else, long way from Russian border USA has
more chances, but NO CHANCE whatsoever to win Mother Russia on her own land.
Remember Vietnam? War against peasants with outdated (since Russia didn't give them thier best tech, because of the fear Chinese would be able to copy it) even by that time standards Soviets tech? It's still considered as a hell by Americans and they lost this war embarrassingly to say the least. And now just imagine 1000x harder and tougher war. Start to imagine this? Russia has sophisticated weapons, tough soldiers, vast territory, sheer WILL of her people. Sorry to disappoint fanboys team USA but the SECOND this war will start, they'd be the first to regret to fight against Russia.

No country in the world is able to win a direct war against Russia on her own land, including USA.
If you would look at the history only Mongols were able to conquer Russia, however there wasn't Russia at that time, there was many small regions without central
government, so I can't say in that time there was a united Russia. As for WW2, remember that war? German
army was considered vastly superior to Soviet, arguably very similar how nowadays US army is considered superior to Russia's. And Hitler thought he will win the war quickly. He couldn't have been more wrong. Major reason why US can't win a war with Russia. US has
always relied on air-superiority. First bomb them heavily, only then boots on the ground will do the rest. However
Russian air is heavily protected. S400 SAM is the best in the world and it's just one example, although one of the mostdistinguished. Russia has a huge variety of surface-to-air sophisticated systems, such as Tornado, Bastion etc, etc.
You don't want to deal with Russian fighters like Su-35 either and 5gen fighter which arguably would be the best -PAK FA. Without dominant air superiority US will have to put boots on the ground.

First of all it's virtually impossible to conquer all this vast
amount of land. Land is actually weapon in itself and very important one. Also for Russia there's always a space to
regroup. On the ground there wouldn't be much ease for
Americans either. With Russia's sophisticated artillery (also in vast numbers and yes, including new models like
Koalitsiya SV which is superior to any analogue in the world) and huge numbers of tanks (including the best tank Armata ever built to date) as well as knowledge of the land. Army is undergoing a huge modernization right now.
And in terms of technical superiority it would be Russia superior when it comes to quality and USA with bigger quantity (for example USA will have more F-22 against smaller numbers of PAK FA, which according to preliminary reports will be better F-22 AND the list go on).

Americans will suffer huge casualties, they don't have war experience against tough opponent. They crushed helpless Serbs, Iraqis - yes, but it hardly can be considered a war -more of the elimination, extermination of the weak. Whereas Russia has recent experience in tough war in Chechnya. But more importantly, Russia has second to none experience with fighting tough, impossible wars. USA, on the contrary has only one such experience -Vietnam, where they lost embarrassingly. Which brings us to next point. Another point. US can't afford high number of casualties. Remember the last time where Americans faced rigorous resistance? Yes, Vietnam. There was low spirit among public about high number of casualties.
In case with all-out war with Russia, number of casualties would be 10-40x more (for each American soldier killed in Vietnam there will be 10-40 soldiers killed in Russia, if not more). Possible turmoil and unrest would stir American society from the inside. As we know US is pretty much a police state . And police will have to fight against their own people. On the contrary Russian people will be united and determined to fight till the last man standing. Civilians will also fight, not only military (that's actually one of the many reasons of popular stereotype that Russian military fight with quantity not quality, because of the high number of casualties in WW2. In reality USSR military lost 11 mln which is high, but the most casualties were actually the civilians. And Nazis also committed slaughters in vast numbers) . All population will support army in every possible way including children and women.

In a nutshell, The US would win any war with Russia but only outside Russia. But going to attack Russia in it's own turf would be suicidal.
And if NATO joins the party, then you can expect the skies of Europe and American cities to be illuminated with the happy cries of Nuclear missiles, and humanity shall be rolled back a hundred years, with the crocroaches, scorpions, and the bacteria taking the chief seat.

We just hope common sense prevails at the end!

DictatorZAR:
Nothing new this is old tech used by many nations who has the latest in ECW systems.

This is the very reason dedicated net sentric Data-Links were developed in order to counter such threats in a high EW's environment where radars are useless. The Russians has good EW systems but I would bet more on a attack of 10-25 Sun burn hypersonic anti ship missiles to destroy a USN aircraft carrier then a ECW system which in itself can be jammed by counter EW attacks.

I think you are making sense.

illitrate:
U are living in the past bro, the usa military now has missles that take instruction from an onboard smart algorithm coded with the whole mission, no more sattelites and gps.

And you think you are living in the present? Pls go and read up the use and effectiveness of algorithm in guided missiles, whether it is only available to the Us army alone, then the importance of gps and satelites, and come back to tell me. I will be waiting!

worksmart:
Conspiracies usually involves the criminal elite deceiving the masses in some form.

Most Nigerians know this the norm rather than the exemption, it rather in appropriate to call it a mere theory when in most cases it is factual.

There is nothing such as "conspiracy". What many people calls 'conspiracy' are actually facts based on real events by connecting the dots in a chain of causal relativism to discover the 'missing link' and arrive at a viable conclusion and forming a propable theory of opinion.

Some people are just too daft or rather self restrictive that they never want to believe anything, and by so doing, they have become victims of misinformation, propaganda, and brainwashing.

Just a waste of time. He can never be arrested by anyone from the West, because Some "animals are more equal than others".

ArtanK:
In this hypothetical war, all the US and it's allies need to do is place sanctions on China. Most of China's top 10 export partners are US friendly nations and it would result in yearly losses of up to 2-3 trillion USD.

How would they be able to place sanctions against China when China is a major US creditor/bond bearer?

Fleshly:
Even in bean counting, the ruskies are ahead of the yanks in many areas such as:

Tanks
Nuclear bombs
Personnel reserves
Attack helicopters

In virtually all aspects of modern warfare, I think the Russians are decades ahead of the yanks. These aspects include: air power, with the new T 50 pak-fa bomber jet the f35 fighter jet of the yanks would be rendered useless.

The moderns SAM's of S400 will make their airspace impenetrable. The idea that Russia is far behind America in weapon technology only exists on the deluded minds of the yanks.

Yeah! Too much Hollywood has brainwashed alot of folks, ande so many don't realise that it is our of "actual fear" that pentagon generals are whimpering bitterly,pretending as some will say, in the wake of Russia's re-emerging conventional military power. The US is still way ahead in terms of NUMBERS, but when it comes to actual fact regarding technological possession, they matched the Yankees in every areas in the sense that there is nothing own by the US the Russians don't have. And when it comes to effectiveness, it is either what the Russkies are deploying equally match those of the Yankees, counters it, or denies it, or simply outperform it.
Yes! The Americans are still way off in conventional capability, and apart from the blue water navy and over 800 bases world wide, i think they are also leading in the area of attack Helicopters you mentioned. But the real deal is that, while the US leads in Huge numbers, the Russians have made up for the margin by the strategy of deniability through increasingly notorious, unstopable missile programs and a very wicked array of Jamming electronic devices. Russia's mastery of electronic warfare is second to none! The latest noiseless electronic Jammers would make the US fleet Carriers useless, while becoming perfect ducks for Russian fifth generational missiles and underwater boats which the US have confessed they can' detect.

The latest Amata T14 Tank is 20 years ahead of whatever the Yankees have in that field. And come to think of it, is like the F35 raptor is already obsolete: why? Just look below.

Air Combat Weapons: USA- F35 Lightning - II This aircraft is capable of :
• Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+ (1,200 mph, 1,930 kmh)
(tested to Mach 1.61)
• Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel
• Combat radius: 613 nmi(1,135 km) on internal fuel
• Service ceiling: 50,000 ft(15,240 m)
• Wing loading: 107.7 lb/ft² (526 kg/m²; 745 kg/m²
max loaded)
• Thrust/weight:
◦ With full fuel: 0.87
◦ With 50% fuel: 1.07
• Maximum g-load: 9 g Armament
• Guns: 1 × General Dynamics 25 mm (0.984 in) GAU-22/
A 4-barrel Gatling gun, internally mounted with 180 rounds
• Hardpoints: 6 × external pylons on wings with a
capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg)and two internal bays with
two pylons eachfor a total weapons payload of 18,000 lb (8,100 kg)and provisions to carry combinations of:
◦ Missiles:
▪ Air-to-air missiles:
▪ AIM-120 AMRAAM
▪ AIM-9X Sidewinder
▪ IRIS-T ▪ MBDA Meteor (pending further funding)
▪ Air-to-surface missiles:
▪ AGM-88 AARGM[546]
▪ AGM-158 JASSM[251]
▪ Brimstone missile / MBDA SPEAR
▪ Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) ▪ Storm Shadow missile
▪ SOM
▪ Anti-ship missiles:
▪ Joint Strike Missile (JSM)
▪ Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)
◦ Bombs: ▪ Mark 84 or Mark 83 or Mark 82 GP bombs
▪ Mk.20 Rockeye II cluster bomb
▪ Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD) capable
▪ Paveway series laser-guided bombs
▪ Small Diameter Bomb (SDB)
▪ Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) series ▪ AGM-154 JSOW
▪ B61 mod 12 nuclear bomb


Russia - PAK FA T-50 This aircraft is capable of:
• Maximum speed:
◦ At altitude: Mach 2.3 (2,440 km/h, 1,520 mph)
◦ Supercruise: Mach 1.6 (1,700 km/h, 1,060 mph)
• Range: 3,500 km (2,175 mi) subsonic
• Ferry range: 5,500 km (3,420 mi) with one in-flight refueling
• Service ceiling: 20,000 m (65,000 ft)
• Wing loading: 317–444 kg/m2 (65–91 lb/ft2)
• Thrust/weight:
◦ Saturn 117: 1.06 (1.19 at typical mission weight)
◦ izdeliye 30: 1.24 (1.41 at typical mission weight) • Maximum g-load: +9.0 g
Armament
• Guns: Provision for 1× 30 mm GSh-301 cannon in right
LEVCON root
• Air to air loadout:
◦ 6× K-77M or 4× izdeliye 810 ◦ 2× K-74M2 or 2× izdeliye 300
• Air to ground loadout:
◦ 4× Kh-38M or 4× Kh-58UShK or 8× KAB-250 or 4×
KAB-500
◦ 2× K-74M2 or 2× izdeliye 300
• Air to sea loadout: ◦ 4× Kh-35
◦ 2× K-74M2 or 2× izdeliye 300
• Hardpoints: Six external hardpoints.
◦ Kh-31
◦ R-73
◦ R-77 Avionics
• Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic
system (MIRES)
◦ N036 Byelka radar system
▪ N036-1-01: Frontal X-band AESA radar
▪ N036B-1-01: Cheek X-band AESA radars for increased angular coverage
▪ N036L-1-01: Slat L-band arrays for IFF
◦ L402 Himalayas ECM suite
• 101KS Atoll electro-optical system
◦ 101KS-O: Laser directional infrared countermeasures
◦ 101KS-V: Infrared search-and-track ◦ 101KS-U: Ultraviolet missile approach warning system
◦ 101KS-N: Targeting pod.

The truth is, war goes beyond movies and propaganda.

mysticcodedprof:
exactly

Yeah

Thank God someone else knows. Alot of folks finds it appealing and easy to bean count between the US and Russian conventional ansenals while foolishly over looking the major determinants as highlighted up above in this thread.

I just dey laf.

Russia has developed a “noiseless” system of
neutralizing aircraft carrier battle groups without
missiles or torpedoes.

The notion of “unsinkable” aircraft carriers may
soon become history for the simple reason that the
planes they carry will be rendered totally useless. Aircraft carriers have long been considered the world’s most powerful and deadliest weapons systems only a nuclear warhead can destroy, again if it is lucky enough to cut through the flattop’s powerful missile defenses. No more. You no longer need to go around the carrier’s air defenses or launch missile and torpedo attacks. All you need to do is cut the onboard planes’ communications with the mother ship and jam their “friend or foe” electronic identification system.

Russian know-how in this tricky field of electronic warfare is really second to none and the upcoming
MAKS-2015 airspace expo will showcase the country’s latest systems of electronic jamming.

The history of Russian electronic warfare technology goes back to the 1997 MAKS show when a small R& firm rolled out an electronic jammer which effectively disabled signals sent down by the GPS. The Americans were so impressed that they purchased several such units. Testing them back home they were unpleasantly surprised to see their high-precision cruise missiles being sent off course by the Russian jammers. Needless to say that Russian electronic warfare technology has come a long way ever since and can do much better than the simple prototypes which raised so many eyebrows about twenty years ago… At the start of the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq not a single cruise missile was able to hit its target. Five days and dozens of lost cruise missiles later the Americans accused Russia of redirecting the Tomahawks towards the desert away from their designated targets. Only after the Americans had located the positions of the Russian jammers and destroyed them in a series of carpet bombing raids, did the Tomahawks manage to regain their smart capabilities… Electronic jamming may prove equally deadly when used against carrier ships by turning off the incoming planes’ electronic identification systems. This done, the ship’s computer “labels” such planes as UFOs and activates the accompanying frigates’ air defense systems to shoot them down. The commanders will take some time to sort things out and before that happens most of the incoming places will have been knocked out effectively depriving the carrier battle group of its intended purpose…

The Bad Ass Russians!

Lanre747:
I think I do sir: What did Moses say in Deuteronomy 18?

15 The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

Now, this ties up with Isaiah 11, and Isaiah 11 speaks of the end times. God shall send Israel a PROPHET (not God himself, in form of man, but a prophet) in the same way he gave them Moses. Now did Moses claim to be God? Did the people of Israel pray to Moses same way Christians pray and sing hymns to Jesus?

So you can see from Deuteronomy, that that verse undeniably does not fit the description of Jesus. So I ask you, who is Deuteronomy 18 talking about?

I think you are misconstruing the scriptures . First, you should try to understand who a prophet is, who is Jesus? Why was he also called a prophet? What are the signs of the end to Isreal?

First, Prophets are presented in the Bible as having several functions.
First,-- prophets are spokesmen for God. When the people of Israel asked the prophet Samuel for a king, God told Samuel,“Listen to all that the people are saying to you;
it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king” (1 Samuel 8:7). Samuel was responsible to
relay the Word of God to the people of Israel, and God states that He was the source of Samuel's authority and words. Thus, Samuel the prophet was God's representative. Many other passages in the Old Testament have statements such as “the word of the Lord came to. ..” indicating that the source of the message was God and not the prophet(e.g., 2 Samuel 7:4; 2 Kings 20:4; Jeremiah 1:4; Ezekiel 3:16; and the opening verses of Hosea, Joel, Micah, Jonah, and Zephaniah). Similarly, Jesus taught a heavenly message: “My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me” (John 7:16). He also stated that He spoke“just what the Father has taught me” (John 8:28). In Jesus’ High Priestly Prayer, He says, “I gave them the words you gave me” (John 17:. Thus, Jesus clearly fulfilled therole of a prophet, as He was a spokesman for God. The second primary function of a prophet in the Bible is what people commonly think of when they hear the term prophecy, and that is foretelling or predicting future events throughdivine revelation.

Foretelling, though not the prophets’ most common
task, is another form of their primary role. In speaking on God’s behalf, sometimes the message would include predicting the future. Jesus predicted the future when He told His disciples “that hemust go to Jerusalem and
suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life” (Matthew 16:21). This prophecy is recorded as fulfilled in all four
Gospel accounts (Matthew 27—28; Mark 15—16; Luke 22—24; and John 18—20). Jesus also predicted that,
shortly after His ascension, the disciples would receive
power at the coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:. Acts 2 records the fulfillment of the prophecy: the apostles
received the Holy Spirit and spoke in languages they did not know to proclaim the gospel to at least fifteen different
language groups present in Jerusalem for Pentecost.

Thus, Jesus clearly fulfilled the role of a prophet, as He
spoke predictively. A third function of some of the prophets was healing and miracles. Moses performed many miracles,
including parting the Red Sea (Exodus 14:21–22). Elijah performed a miracle when he called fire down from heaven to burn up a sacrifice (1 Kings 18:36– 38). Elisha performed a miracle when he made the ax head float in the water
(2 Kings 6:6). All four Gospel accounts record Jesus performing many miracles and healings (e.g., Matthew 8:14–15; Mark 1:40–45; Luke 8:42–48; and John 6:16–21). The title “prophet” is used many times in the Gospels when other people refer to Jesus (Matthew 21:11; Luke 7:16; John 4:19).

JESUS THE PROPHET OF DEU 18.

Jesus alluded to Himself as a prophet in Mark 6:4. God had told Moses that someday He would send another prophet to Israel, “and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him (Deuteronomy 18:18). Jesus was the prophet who fulfilled that prophecy (see Acts 3:22; 7:37). Jesus fulfills all the requirements for a prophet in title, word, and deed. He is the ultimate prophet in that He is the very Word of God Himself (John 1:1).

Also see (Psalms 61:1; Luke 4:18-19; John 8:28; John 12:49; John 14:24).


Deut 18 has nothing to do with the Jews end of days events. Prior to the end, Jesus is, and would remain the Last Prophet to the Jews. It is after Jesus have return and gone up with the church, shall the TWO, (not one) prophets be sent to the jews during the reign of the anti-Christ, and the anti-Christ shall make war with them and shall overcome them them.

isaiah 11 is strictly on the ministry of the messiah-Jesus, which goes from one stage (the first coming-the gospels) to the other (the second coming-the rapture of the saints-end time of the gentile church age), and down to the 3rd (the return to the Temple as the " Son of David",-the millineum setting in etc).

.

Lanre747:
Is Christ God?

of course Jesus is God!

lonelydora:
That's just the truth

Yeah

The world is always full of surprises!

Honestly, Isreal has the capability to attack Iran from the air, but the real danger they would face is, should Iran counters, it would be a devastating counter attack-with missiles that may overwhelmed the Isreali Iron Dome. The small size of Isreal does not also help matters; not to mention that they would also find it difficult to operate with boots on the ground, given the distance between the two nations, unless The Saudis allowed them the use of their air space. And dont forget that Iran has a very good air defence capability, and can also cause alot of pain if they activate proxy militias to take on Isreal. Remember the Lebanon war? If Hezbolla alone could stand up tall against the Isreali mighty army, that should tell you Iran in a full scale war, especially one that will occur mostly on the ground, would be an extremely difficult nut to crack.

Nevertheless, Isreal is a badass military power!

Good points write up. But your point 8 and 9 are something else.

Lanre747:
I'm sorry sir, but I believe Isaiah 35 speaks of a time to come. It has the hallmarks of end time.

verse 8: And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.

This has not taken place.

Oh, brother, much of it has, and is still taking place. You still have not grasp it! Much of what Isaiah and most of the other prophets of old talked about, is the restoration and salvation of Isreal (the gentiles inclusive), which was only made possible by the coming of the Messiah as recorded in the synoptic gospels. Jesus reference to the signs done in answer to John's confusing question, was only a testimony to the fact that the whole of the Chapter 35 was prophecying the ministry of the messiah. The restoration and salvation of Isreal started from the physical ministry of the messiah (Jesus Christ-his birth, ministry, death, burial and resurrection), which ministry has left the physical stage (the first appearance as contained in the Gospels) and has entererd the spiritual stage (the outpouring of the Holy Ghost after his departure) to this day.

Now, did i hear you mention "END TIME" OR "END OF DAYS?"

You must understand that the ministry of the messiah goes way beyond the synoptic gospels, and down to the end of days, and beyond the end of days. A two-fold ministry of salvation and restoration. Of salvation-the Jews first-but who were partially blinded so that the Gentiles can be grafted in through grace and faith in Christ (Romans 11 vs 11, and 25). The First appearing and ministry of the messiah kick started the work of grace and salvation-sealing the elect (mostly Gentiles and including Jews that will believe in Him) through faith in Christ until the day of the "catching away".
The Second appearing shall finish the work of salvation started by the First coming, through the rapturing of the gentile bride and elect in Christ--THIS IS YOUR END OF DAYS!
The final salvation and restoration of Isreal shall come to be only after the Gentile bride goes UP, and then He (Jesus) shall return to the rebuilt Temple as " the Son of David", after showing himself to the traditional Jews as the one God they killed on the Cross (Zachariah 12 vs 10). Or where else did they pierce Jehovah?

So when we talk about The End of Days or End Time, it simply means the Second Coming of Jesus that will rapture those who believe in him, including those that died in truth before now. After that, life goes on. The Anti-Christ is now free to fully operate because, He that has been withholding him (the Holy Spirit-2nd Thess 2 vs 5-10) is now taken away. The tribulation starts, 12,000 each is chosing from each tribe of Isreal, the Lamb make war with the Anti-Christ, its destroyed, the Millineum sets in, etc, etc, etc.

The final end time shall only be when the Devil is cast into the lake of Fire.

Thus, This Whole chapter of Isaiah was more on the reign of Christ--from one stage to the other!

This chapter implies:

Isaiah 35:8 And an highway shall be there, and a way Not two ways, but one; the way shall be a highway, a way
cast up, raised, and "elevated" ; this is to be understood principally of Christ, the only way of life and salvation; and of the lesser paths of duty and ordinances: and the
meaning is, that in those desert places, where Christ and
his Gospel had not been preached, at least for many ages,
here he should be made known, as the way, the truth, and the life; his Gospel preached, and his ordinances administered; and multitudes, both of Jews and Gentiles,
should be directed and enabled to walk here. Christ is a
highway to both; a way cast up by sovereign grace, which
is raised above the mire and dirt of sin, and carries over it, and from it; a way visible and manifest, clearly pointed to and described in the everlasting Gospel; it is the King's highway, the highway of the King of kings, which he has
ordered and appointed, and is common to all his subjects, high and low, rich and poor, stronger or weaker believers, all may walk in this way; it is an old beaten path, which saints in all ages, from the beginning of the world, have walked in; it is the good old way, the more excellent, the most excellent one; all obstructions and impediments are removed, cast in by sin, Satan, the law, and the world; nor is anyone to be stopped and molested in this way, and all in it shall come safe to their journey's end: and it shall be called The way of holiness; or, "a holy way" ;

Christ is perfectly holy in nature and life, and the holiness of both is imputed to those that are in this way; all in this way are sanctified by the Spirit and grace of God; this way leads to perfect holiness in heaven, and none but holy persons walk here: salvation by Christ no ways discourages the practice of holiness, but is the greatest motive and incentive to it.

Christ leads his people in paths of righteousness; in the paths of truth, of ordinances, and of worship, public and private, all which are holy; and in the path of Gospel conversation and godliness: this way is so holy, that the unclean shall not pass over it; all men are unclean by nature; some are cleansed by the grace of God and blood of Christ; and though, as sanctified, they are not free from sin and the pollution of it, yet, as justified, they are "the undefiled in the way"; and none but such can pass over, or pass through this way to heaven.

Thats all there is to this chapter.

CaptainJune:
While this question is not addressed to me, let me briefly answer it pending MrPresident1's reply.

You don't need to be confused. David's reign was physical and temporal but Christ's reign is eternal. God had made a promise to David that his descendants will always sit on the throne of Israel, therefore, by His eternal plan Christ came through the lineage of David. The prophet Isaiah said:

"There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots." Isaiah 11:1

"And in that day there shall be a Root of Jesse, who shall stand as a banner to the people; for the Gentiles shall seek Him, and His resting place shall be glorious." Isaiah 11:10

In Romans 15:12, apostle Paul connects Jesus Christ with the scriptures in Isaiah 11:10.

In the book of Luke 1:32-33, the angel of the Lord told Mary, "He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end."

What this means is that Christ, not David, shall have the crown and scepter to rule His people forever. The use of David's name in the book of Ezekiel is only symbolic and futuristic of the reign of Jesus Christ.



I shall briefly explain this verse. God had told Abraham he would be a father of many nations, and to seal this promise God told him that Sarah would bear a child for him. Isaac was born as a child of promise. He had two children - Esau, the first son, and Jacob, the second son. Even before their birth, God had chosen Jacob for the fulfillment of His promise to Abraham. On a certain day, Esau sold his birth right to Jacob. This made Jacob the first son. After he wrestled with an angel all night, his name was changed to Israel.

It is not as if Isaac is not the first son, but God does not choose according to man's thinking. He does things according to His plan and promise. Israel would be God's chosen nation to spread the knowledge of God, the light of God to all the earth. Israel is God's first born son by promise, and not by right.



Jesus is the Most High. If you see Jesus, you have seen the Father. Jesus is the Word of God made flesh. However, one of the qualities of Christ is humility. Philippians 2:5-8

"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross."

Hope you understand...

Perfect explanations! @ lanre747, captainjune just nailed home the perfect answers that i dont need to bother on it anymore.

However, allow me to add this to help you assure your mind that most of what took place in the old testament was only a shadow of the things to come-and did came in the new testament.

For instance, God in Isaiah 35 vs 4-6, was speaking through the prophet Isaiah that:

Isaiah 35:3-6 King James Version (KJV)

"Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees. Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert."

That was God speaking assuring his people that He God himself will come to deliver them. Remember that the Jews have only One God wish they know and believe to be so (Deu. 6 vs 4). Therefore, it was this same God that is now making this promise and assurrance. And pls take note of the characteristics what is to happen when this Ghod will come..the lame to walk, the blind to see, the deaf to hear, etc etc.

The question now is, did this promise ever came to pass? Did God Himself actually came to his people? Well, lets see..

I believe We knew about John the Baptist, how he testified and bare record concerning Jesus to be the messiah-the one whose coming is prefer and so on, right?
Now consider this: in John 1 vs 23-36, John confirmed that he knew Jesus to be the Son of God, and even declared in verse 29,

"behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world".

What this implied is that John understands and knows whom Jesus is...right?

BUT......behold the shocker!


In Mattew Chapter 11, this same John who was in prison as at this time, heard about the works of Jesus, and he sent two of his disciples unto Him saying:

" Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?"

wow! Why would john ask this type of "silly" question, given his own earlier testimony about Jesus? Is something wrong with John from the suffering in the prison? Or is he simply contradicting himself?
The answer is an emphatic NO! Nothing was wrong with him, neither was he mad or confused. It was a deliberate and clever question to reveal a mystry, and the answer of Jesus to that effect nailed home that purpose.


verse 4-6,

" Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: The BLIND receive their sight, and the LAME walk, the LEPERS are cleansed, and the DEAF hear, the dead are raised
up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me."

Halleluya! What does this tell you? Prophecy FULFILLED! Isaiah 35 vs 3-6 was now fulfilled! Jehovah came as he promised. Jehovah God of the old testament fulfilled His promise as Jesus of the new testament!

Isn't that wonderful?

@OP, you must understand that salvation is a free gift given by God to whomever is willing to recieve it. You have known the way of truth, judging from how you confessed to have been following posts here and there on Nairaland, hence it would be foolish to suddenly turn off your interest and believe in God as it relates to the New Testament, for by so doing, you have directly rejected the priceless gift of salvation that was delivered to you in the New Testament-hence am afraid you might be loosing or have lost your coveted position in the faith with God. This is because, anyone who disbelieve or rejected the teachings of the New testament is DEAD ALREADY (enternal seperation from God). Disbelieving the synoptic gospels or the teachings of the New Testament simply implies disbelieving Jesus Christ-His arrival, death and resurrection, and for such a person, there is no life. John 3 vs 18.

Brother, you came accross someone on the internet disputing and denouncing what you have accepted as truth for long, now you are suddenly turning away; is it that convincing that you didnt even bother to cross check what you have been told with what you have learnt from the Bible itself? Have you done your own research, or prayed about this sudden predicament threatening your entire spiritual life? or have you so quickly forgotten that there are many anointed sons and intellectuals of Satan out in the open to contradict, denounce and twixt the word of God through false teachings and doctrines of the devils, so that many could be turn away from the truth, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of Satan? 1Timothy 4 vs 1-2.

Well, brother, i will like to know exactly what is it that is troubling you now, since i can not access online videos with my phone. Pls, do reply and lets see if God through His word will not prove such issinuations wrong. Just relax and roll them out.

And i am assuring you in advance-that the old Testament is the father of the new Testament. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the old Testament. If there is no old Testament, there can be no new Testament.

I will be waiting...

Stay well.

upwardmode:
Defence Section on Nairaland Seconded!!!

Supported as well! See as body just dey sweet me! Motivate the lads and see what they can do in the face of challenges. They must continue on this part!

funlord:


They need to come and also monitor this nairaland! After all these biafran and wailing _imbeciles are also veritable pools from which terrorist groups can easily recruit from!

Supported!

worksmart:
Also regarding the UN September D- day as you put it, it is interesting that the coupist have chosen the same month as the month the ministerial list would be revealed.

hmm! Interesting! Eyes wide open!

worksmart:
Thank you for being objective. Buhari's visit to Chad and Niger occurred before 9th of June.

Have you tried to get a video clip of the trip?

It is impossible to find a video clip lasting long enough to get an idea of the month the trips occurred , in fact video clips of his trip to Chad have no audio at all.

The president has not held any press conference since his inauguration.

This is worthy of note. Hands on my chins, elbows on d table.

kayworld2:
Your ebook as been sent.

Thanks alot. Godbless you!