MizJanet:
Strollin along some of the threads , I saw someone quote this bible verse . Pls lets use our brain here .
______________

" fear him who can destroy both soul and BODY in hell' matt 10:28 .

The question that arise is : do BODY go to hell ? , BODY go to where ? Hell or grave . I thought body is placed in the grave or religion is clueless ?

Learn to study the bible and not just read it.

If you had studied that passage you would have discovered that the greek word translated "hell" there is the word "gehenna" which is the place of final damnation that unbelievers will go to after resurrection. It is different from hades. People enter gehenna with their souls and bodies after resurrection.

Two greek words are translated hell in the new testament: Hades and Gehenna

Hades: The place where the souls of unbelievers go to after they die. Only souls go to hades. The body is buried in the grave (mnemeion) while the soul goes to hell (hades)

Gehenna: This is the place of torment and final destruction; it is also the place called the "Lake of fire". Nobody is in gehenna yet. Sinners will go to gehenna after the final resurrection. And they will enter with their soul and bodies.

Matthew 5v29 -...for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that THY WHOLE BODY should be cast into hell (gehenna).

Matthew 10v28 -...but rather fear Him which is able to destroy BOTH SOUL AND BODY in hell (gehenna).

Both soul and bodies go to gehenna (or lake of fire), but only souls go to hades for now.

Only the soul of Jesus went to hades or sheol (hell) while His body was in mneneion (grave)

Psalms 16v10 - Because thou wilt not leave MY SOUL IN HELL (sheol), neither suffer thine Holy one to see corruption.

Acts 2v27 - Because thou wilt not leave MY SOUL IN HELL (hades), neither suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Also, the rich man in the parable of Jesus was being tormented in hades.

Luke 16v23 - And in hell (hades) he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bossom.

Souls and bodies go to gehenna (the lake of fire) but only souls go to hades. Although both are translated hell in english.

Study the word don't just read it.

God bless.

businessline:
If the story coming in from Christ Embassy is anything to go by, then Pastor Chris Oyakhilome and his estranged wife, Anita may be coming together soon.According to a source in the church, the couple have reconciled for the sake of their children.

Read More>>>
http://nigeriacamera.net/finally-pastor-chris-oyahkhilome-anita-back-together-christ-embassy-couple-reunite/

Is there an official statement yet from the church?

But if it is true I'm really happy.

Lilimax:
Can you identify the men of God in this picture?

Archbishop Benson Idahosa and Bishop David Oyedepo.

Humble beginnings.

CAPTIVATOR:



That Jesus was made better than other angels (messengers) doesnt mean he himsef is not an angel (= messenger 'angelos' ) . The same way king solomons greatness that other kings doesnt mean he (solomon) himself is not a king.
"so King Solomon was greater than all the other kings of the earth" how is he greater? "in riches and wisdom" 2 chro 9:22

Jesus too (a spirit angelos (mal 3:1 septuagint) ) was made better than other spirit angelos how ? " he obtained an excellent name than theirs"

Hebrew 1 is just hightighting the exaltation of the firstborn SON over all other fellow heavenly SONS of God. Though he is a son and a spirit MESSENGER too .

I think this argument is just a tip of a much bigger doctrinal error. We will be going in endless circles until we address it from the root.

I can explain why Jesus needed to have his name exalted. I can explain where He was before He sat at the right hand of the Father. But the explanation will not solve the real error.

Its Yahshua and His name that needed to be exalted (Phil 2v9-10) not the Word of God. The Word of God was always superior to all the angels in heaven, in name and in everything else, from the very beginning. Infact, He was the creator of all the angels (John 1v3).

But when the Word was made flesh and became Yahshua; He was made a lilttle lower than the angels (Hebrews 2v9). He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8v3). He could suffer temptation and die.

But when He died and rose; Yahshua became exalted and inherited a name better than any angel (Phil 2v10-11). And He sat at the right hand of the Father.

Where was the Word in heaven before He became Yahshua and before He sat at the right hand of the Father? He was in the bossom of the Father in heaven (John 1v18). Same way Lazarus was in the bossom of Abraham in sheol.

But all these arguments are not really the root problem. These arguments are used to mask and evade the real doctrinal error.

Let me ask you this? Do you believe that Jesus is the Word of God? And that ALL things were made by Him -including the world and all the angels?

JMAN05:

Jesus is really an angel per excellence, but many of you misunderstand Paul's letter. lets start from the beginning:

"Long ago God spoke to our forefathers by means of the prophets on many occasions and in many ways. 2 Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things , and through whom he made the systems of things. 3  He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power. And after he had made a purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. 4 So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs."

Jesus received many privileges, especially after his sacrifice on earth. After this sacrifice, he sat down at the right hand of God - he was not there before.

The scripture now said, "so" he "has become" better than the angels. why? "to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs".

--- should we not ask why the almighty Jesus became better than angels after his sacrifice on earth, if he is God almighty, shouldnt he innately be better than them? shouldnt his name be naturally more excellent than the angels whom he created? (ie if we are to take trinity teaching serious).

So, Paul was comparing the superior position that Christ attained immediately after living the earthly scene, and the position of angels who are in heaven before he came back. He is telling us that Jesus had received elevation cos of his achievements compared to angels in heaven. He is still viewing Jesus as a human who just left the earth to a higher post. And he, in succeeding verses showed the statements and promises that supports his statement in verse 4.

I think this argument is just a tip of a much bigger doctrinal error. We will be going in endless circles until we address it from the root.

I can explain why Jesus needed to have his name exalted. I can explain where He was before He sat at the right hand of the Father. But the explanation will not solve the real error.

Its Yahshua and His name that needed to be exalted (Phil 2v9-10) not the Word of God. The Word of God was always superior to all the angels in heaven, in name and in everything else, from the very beginning. Infact, He was the creator of all the angels (John 1v3).

But when the Word was made flesh and became Yahshua; He was made a lilttle lower than the angels (Hebrews 2v9). He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8v3). He could suffer temptation and die.

But when He died and rose; Yahshua became exalted and inherited a name better than any angel (Phil 2v10-11). And He sat at the right hand of the Father.

Where was the Word in heaven before He became Yahshua and before He sat at the right hand of the Father? He was in the bossom of the Father in heaven (John 1v18). Same way Lazarus was in the bossom of Abraham in sheol.

But all these arguments are not really the root problem. These arguments are used to mask and evade the real doctrinal error.

Let me ask you this? Do you believe that Jesus is the Word of God? And that ALL things were made by Him -including the world and all the angels?

JMAN05:


Thanks so much,but pls read that Thessalonians very well. Who was actually coming with an archangel's voice sir? And pls respond to that john 5:28, 29.

I know the verse, and I've read it again already. The interpretation you're trying to give it is really a stretch.

1Thess 4v16 -For the Lord Himself shall descend with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

By your own interpretation of this verse, you're trying to say it means Jesus is the one shouting, He is the archangel speaking, and He is the one blowing the trump of God -as He is descending.

And I am saying no, that is not so. The verse depicts the scene of all that will be taking place as Jesus descends. It means Jesus will descend; as He descends, there will be a shout, the voice of the archangel, and the trump of God -all blasting.

That doesn't mean Jesus is the one shouting, or He's the archangel speaking, or He's the one blowing the trump of God. Remember He's not descending alone; He's descending with the host of heaven (angels and archangels and some glorified saints) -its not just Him.

The verse depicts all that will transpire as He descends; not necessarily what Jesus Himself will be doing in person. Jesus is not the archangel speaking.

Then as to the other verse you raised.

John 5v28 -Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice.

I suspect what you're trying to infer here is say that, since Jesus said it is His voice that the dead will hear and rise, that means Jesus is the archangel speaking in 1Thess 4v16.

If you're conversant with scriptural expression; you will realise that when angels are sent of God to speak in His name or under His authority; their voice is depicted as the voice of God Himself. For example;

It was an angel of God that appeared to Moses in the burning bush; but when the angle spoke to Moses, the scripture expressed it as God Himself speaking.

Exodus 3v2 - And the angel of the Lord appeared unto Him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush:

v4 -And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush,

v7 - And the Lord said, I have seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt,

It was an angel of the Lord that was speaking, but it was the voice of God that called out.

Now according to Jesus in Matthew 24; it is angels that Jesus will send when He descends from heaven, to gather His elect.

Matthew 24v31 -And He (Jesus) shall send His angles with a great sound of a trumpet, and they (the angels) shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

I believe when this angels sent by Jesus to gather His elects speak under His authority, the dead will hear and obey their voice as the voice of Jesus and rise. Does it mean the angels are Jesus? No

The voice of an angel or archangel speaking under the authority of Christ is the voice of Christ; and it will be heard and obeyed as the voice of Christ. But that doesn't mean the archangel is Jesus; anymore than it meant that the angel speaking to Moses in the burning bush was YHVH.

The archangel in 1Thess 4v16 is not Jesus. He is just one of the great heavenly host that will accompany Christ and descend with Him at His coming.

The writer of Hebrew made it absolutely clear that God has never, at any time, called any angel begotten. Yet the Father called Jesus His begotten. If we do the math, this proves that Jesus Christ, the begotten Son of God, is not an angel or archangel. Never was; will never be.

Shalom

CAPTIVATOR:


delete the english word messenger in matt 11:10 and u will see John d baptist been called an " angelos" !


Angel/messenger is an assignment delegated to i) a spirit messenger ii) a human messenger

1) is Jesus a spirit messenger of God ?

2) What are spirit MESSENGERS of God Called ?

Hebrew is an ambiguous language. It does not differentiate between some specific terms even though they are different.

The sky, where birds fly is called heaven in hebrew, the universe where the sun and the stars are is also called heaven in hebrew; and the paradise of God where His throne is is also called heaven. But traditionally, the word heaven means paradise; where God's throne is. When God said heaven is my throne; He wasn't talking about the sky but paradise.

Can you now say that the sky is heaven? Or that if you go to the sky you are in heaven? It is in english that this differencies are made clear and explicit. You need to study them carefully to differentiate them in hebrew.

Trying to capitalize on the ambiguity of the hebrew language, to say that Jesus is an angel, because the word for messenger and angel are both malak is far reaching.

It is clear that the malak of a messenger is different from the malak of a traditional angel. Just as the heaven of the sky is different from the heaven of paradise, even though the hebrew does not have an unambiguous term to differentiate them.

Trying to say Jesus is an angel is like saying the sky is heaven. And that is taking the ambiguity of the hebrew language too far.

The writer of Hebrew said there is no angel that God ever addressed as begotten; yet the Father addressed Jesus as begotten.

Do the math! It means Jesus is not an angel.

JMAN05:


True, there are persons specifically called angels, but this only occurs in English translation. Are there beings specifically called "angels" in the original manuscript of the bible?

That's a relative opinion. While there indeed might not be a hebrew term distinguishing the word "angel" from the word used to describe anyone sent as a messenger, because hebrew language could be ambiguous; it is clear however from application that not everyone sent by God with a message is traditionally an angel -a ministering spirit.

The hebrew language is an ambiguous language. It didn't different between the heaven of the atmosphere (where birds fly), or the heavens of the universe (where the sun and the stars are), or the heavens of paradise (where God's throne is); even though they are different. It just calls everything heaven. It is with study you differentiate it yourself.

Hebrew also did not differentiate between spiritual death and physical death, even though they are different, it just calls them death. It is with study you differentiate it yourself.

Same thing here, hebrew doesn't have a word to differentiate between an angel malak and a messenger malak. It simply calls both malak, even though not every messenger is an angel (ministering spirit). It is with study you differentiate traditional angel from a messenger. Hebrew is an ambiguous language.

There are different spirit beings in heaven that are not angels even though they could also be messengers of God. We have the lamb of God, the seven spirits of God, the four living creatures, the 24 elders, the saints and then the angels. There is a marked difference between these beings and "angels", just as there is difference between anyone that can be sent of God and the beings called angels specifically. And the lamb of God is not an angel.

The writer of the book of Hebrews made this clear when he showed that the person called the Son is different from the class of spirit beings traditionally called angels.

Hebrews 1v5 - For unto which of the angels (archangel or regular angels) said He at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?

This is a rhetorical question; and the obvious answer is "NONE". The writer implied here that there is no angel at all that God, at any time, ever said those words to. Because there is no angel begotten of the Father. Meaning the person God said those words to is not an angel.

JMAN05:


Do u disagree that Jesus had gone errand for God before?

Ofcourse Jesus has been sent of the Father before. But if that is the context in which you want to classify Him as an angel; then all of us are angels in that context. Because Jesus said; as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you -John 20v21.

If you want to imply that everyone who has ever been sent of the Father with a message is an angel; then all the prophets (Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Ezekiel etc) are angles. And all the apostles in the bible are also angels. And every true servant of God alive today is also an angel -going by your generalized definition of the term "angel" to mean anyone sent with a message by the Father.

JMAN05:


2. Read 1Thes 4:16

A. From that portion, who do u think is the archangel? If that archangel is not Jesus, why would Jesus, your almighty God, use the voice of a lesser creature to resurrect the dead? Is Jesus voice powerless?

B. Whose voice is spoken of as the one that will resurrect the dead at john 5:28?

Must the voice of Jesus be powerless for an archangel to do something under Christ's authority? It is also an angel that will bind the Devil and throw him into the bottomless pit for a thousand years at the beginning of the millenial reign. Does that also mean Christ isn't powerful enough to have done it Himself for Him to let an angel do it?

If an angel or archangel speaks or does something under Christ's authority, it is as good as Christ doing it. Even so, that doesn't mean the angel or archangel is Jesus Christ.

The account of Matthew shows that it is the angels that would be sent of Christ to gather the elect.

Matthew 24v31 -And He (Jesus) shall send His angels with a great shout of a trumpet, and they (the angels) shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

So the shout, the voice of the archangel, the trump of God are everything that will happen at the coming of Christ. It doesn't mean they would be done by Christ personally or mean that Jesus is the archangel.

Remember Ezekiel at the valley of dry bones. He also spoke under God's authority and the dry bones came alive, the bones heard and obeyed him as the voice of God Himself. Does that mean Ezekiel is God or that God's voice is powerless? It definitly doesn't mean Ezekiel is God anymore than it means that the archangel in 1Thess is Jesus Christ. That's far reaching.

JMAN05:


3. Heb 1:8 you quoted is not correctly worded in KJV. Remember that Paul was quoting from psalms 45;6, ànd that psalm is directed to a human king. Now, will we say that this human king is God?

It is called a messianic prophecy. The Psalmist was talking under the unction and inspiration of the Spirit. The psalm was not directed at a human king. It was talking about Jesus. Remember the psalmist also said,

Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thine holy one to see corruption -Psalm 16v10

Yet David saw corruption and his soul went to sheol; because the psalm was not directed at him or any other human. It was a messianic prophecy and it was directed at Christ; just like Psalm 45.

JMAN05:


Secondly, read verse 9, see where it says "God, ur God anointed you". Now, if he is God as u posit, how can God have a God? And who can ever anoint God? How can u even anoint him when he is the holy spirit himself?

How can God not have a God? What is the implication of the Father being called "The MostHigh God" or "The God of gods"?

Jesus is God according to many verses in the bible but the Father is also His God according to many verses in the bible. Jesus is God but He has a God. Scripture makes that explicitly clear.

And no, Jesus is not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a different person.

Shalom.

johnw74:


The Hebrew word "malek" is used for more than angel

Mal 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger (John the Baptist), and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: (Jesus Christ) behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

The word messenger is used twice in that verse,
firstly for John the Baptist, and you have no problem with that,
but when messenger is used for Jesus Christ, you say it means angel.

Thanks for this verse. I was searching for it in my word search. But couldn't remember how it was phrased.

The verse embosses the explanation I was trying to make; that just because someone is called a messenger doesn't mean the person is specifically an angel.

John the baptist was called a messenger here just like Jesus; even though its clear John is not an angel.

The term angel is specific to a class of ministering spirits of which Jesus and man clearly don't belong; even though Jesus and men could be sent of the Father with a message.

Trying to call Jesus and John angels is really far-fetched and desperate; almost sinister.

Jesus is God; and the writer of Hebrew made His difference from angels and His superiority over them obvious beyond argument.

Thanks again.

JMAN05:


Thanks for being well meaning. When we see a friend heading a way we feel is wrong, it is an act of love to air our view and tell him the way we believe is the best. however, we who directs another might be wrong. This makes it good that we ourselves who directs be open to see if we are the one on the wrong side. I surely think you agree with that.

Many get pissed off when they hear that Jesus is called an angel by some people. You may belong to this category. But sir, why do you think he is not an angel, and what do you think the word "angel" means as used in the scriptures?

In the book of hebrews, there is a marked difference between the beings called angels and the person called the Son.

Hebrews 1v7-8 -And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

This verse clearly shows that the person called the Son is not in the class of those beings called angels.

Angels are called spirits and ministers or ministering spirits. But the Son is called God.

The word "angel" as used in scripture means messenger. Even so, there are beings that are specifically called angels. We are not angels just because we also could be sent of God with a message.

Jesus is not an angel, the Holy Spirit is not an angel and neither are men angels; even though they could be sent of the Father with a message. The name angel is specific to certain spirit beings, not just everyone with a message.

Jesus is God, according to this passage in hebrew; and even John 1v1. Angels are not Gods.

tpiadotcom:
-I come from an occultic background. How can I reconcile my Christianity and my Idolatry?

You can't reconcile the two. Occultism and christianity are poles apart. You can't be going to the north and going to the south at the same time. You have to turn your back on one to go in the direction of the other.

Also light and darkness cannot be reconciled. The two are inversely proportional. When you switch on the light, every trace of darkness vanishes.

Occultism is of the devil and of the kingdom of darkness, from which you have been delivered and translated into the kingdom of of God, the kingdom of light.

The kingdom of God is now responsible for your provision, protection, peace, power and purpose. You are not permitted to bring in any occultic practises into the lifestyle of the christian faith, lest you grieve the Holy Spirit of God.

So, how can you reconcile your christian faith with idolatry? You can't. You have to turn your back totally on one to go the way of the other.

Shalom.

agwom:
The disciples were given the essential ability to speak in the languages of the surrounding nations, so that they could preach the gospel in the native tongue of all those they met. If what we see in churches today is the same gift, why was it absent from the church for over 1800 years?

Throughout the Bible it is seen that God gave His people gifts of the spirit to empower them to do what was required for a particular purpose at a particular time.
It is easy to see why God saw it necessary to give the gift of Speaking in Tongues to the early Church. How else could uneducated men have been able to spread the gospel? The question is then, for what reason would the gift of Speaking in Tongues have been reintroduced to the church after such a long absence. What possible purpose does it serve now that the church is established in almost every corner of the world?

The Bible warns us that in the end times there will be a huge outpouring of false miracles, signs and wonders that would deceive much of the Christian world. Mark 13:22 "For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect".

Most Christians are totally oblivious to the fact that speaking in tongues is also practiced in many non-christian religions. It is practiced in African rituals and in voo doo and occult religions. Independent studies have found that there is no distinction in tongues between Christians and the followers of non-Christian (pagan) religions.

The fact that many churches who are practicing speaking in tongues are also teaching that we no longer have to obey the commandments, which directly contradicts what Jesus taught when He said Mathew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" should make us step back and take a second look at whether this phenomenon being practiced in our churches is of God or from another source

I don't speak in tongues so that someone else can hear or understand me. I don't even speak because I need the interpretation of what I'm saying. I speak in tongues for personal edification.

1Cor 14v2,4 -For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; ...

Just like studying the word, prayer, and fasting; speaking in tongues too is a tool or form of personal spiritual edification.

Infact, other than the day of pentecost; there was no other account of a place where people understood what those who were speaking in tongues were saying -unless they had the gift of interpretation of tongues.

The primary purpose of the gift of tongues is personal spiritual edification and for speaking mysteries with your heavenly Father beyond your natural understanding.

And that is still required now, and will always be required until the age to come. The need for personal spiritual edification and speaking mysteries beyond understanding with your Father did not end with the era of the apostles.

And secondly, I don't get your comparison of demonic tongues with that of the Holy ghost.

So because demons have counterfeit manifestations of spiritual gifts we should do away with the authentic gifts of the Spirit? Should we stop believing for miracles and the gifts of healing because the enemy can also perform lying wonders?

Just because voodoo priests speak in counterfeit tongues, doesn't mean I should not speak in the one my Father gave me.

There were false prophets and magicians too during the time of the apostles. And just as the apostles used the authentic power of God and gifts of the Spirit to put the fake and counterfeit to shame; we also require the operations of the authentic in our lives to do the same.

Speaking in tongues; just like all the other gifts of the Spirit are not only still available to our generation; they are still as needed as they've ever been under any era of the church age. They are the gifts of the Spirit to the church, not just to the apostles. And they will be needed by the church until the end of the church age.

That's why Jesus didn't say, These signs will accompany the apostles. He said they will accompany those who believe. That includes every true believer in every era of the church age.

Shalom

newken

The Bible does not forbid premarital sex. There is no passage of the Bible that references premarital sex as a sin against God. The association between sin and premarital sex is a new Christian idea. The only possible reference to premarital sex being a sin in the Bible is in the New Testament. This premise although, is generally dismissed by theologians because the Greek word pornei, or sexual immorality is commonly incorrectly translated into the English word fornication.

The hebrew word for fornication or harlotry is "zanah". And it is clear from scripture that a married or unmarried person can be a harlot or commit harlotry (fornication).

Genesis 34v1-4 -And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bear unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.

v2. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.

v3. And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel.

v4. And Shechem spake unto his Father Hamor, saying, Get me this damsel to wife.

v7. And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard it: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob's daughter; which thing ought not be done.

v31. And they said, Should he deal with our sister AS WITH AN HARLOT?

You see this? Both Shechem and Dinah were unmarried; yet sexual intercourse between them was still considered harlotry. The fact that Shechem loved Dinah with all his heart and was even ready to marry her didn't change anything. It was still termed harlotry, and that he defiled her.

OP might argue that it was termed defilement and harlotry because it probably wasn't consentual. But no. A harlot is not someone you rape or have non-consentual sex with; but someone you're not married to that that you had sex with.

So if Shechem treated Dinah like a harlot, it is not on the argument of consent. It is because he was not married to her. So harlotry or fornication is sex with someone you're not married to; even if both of you were unmarried.

The only time sex is not a defilement is when it is between two people married to each other. Adam didn't defile Eve -he knew her, because they were both married. But Shechem defiled Dinah because they were not married.

So the OP is wrong that only married people can commit fornication or adultery; or that sex between two unmarried people is not fornication or sin. That is very wrong.

Fornication means sex between two people who are not married to eachother, whether they are married or not. While adultery is when a married person has sex with someone other than their spouse.

Let me break it down:

1. If a married person has sex with a married person that is not their spouse, both of them committed adultery.

2. If a married person has sex with an unmarried person; the married person commits adultery, while the unmarried person commits fornication.

3. If an unmarried person has sex with an unmarried person; both of them committed fornication.

I hope the OP still gets to see this because the account is deactivated.

Shalom.

Qsscruz:
Are you saying Jehova witness is a cult? Watch your tongue. Stick to your believe, leave them to theirs..

How will the church fulfil her great commission to the world if we leave the world to their unbelief? And how will the church itself mature and come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God if we leave one another to our doctrinal beliefs, no matter how inconsistent it is with sound doctrine?

If we see an error of doctrine among the brethren, it is right and needful to point it out; in an attitude of love and meekeness.

Jesus is not an angel. Jesus wasn't created. Jesus is the Word of God and He created all things -including all the angels.

Shalom

MrsChima:


Fake Christians always exposed themselves. . Please show where I said...you must agree with your wife? I know that I didn't say that because I wouldn't expect her to agree with everything you say!

People have rejected and abandoned Christ and YET he gave his life so they can have a chance! ;Can you do the same? I doubt it!

The scripture clearly stated that husband's love your wife as CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH AND GAVE HIS LIFE FOR IT!!!

No matter what...you are to love your wife and if you can't do that...why expect her to submit to you?

Christians are known to be selective obedient!

From all indications and expressions you're the one selecting here. You want a man to love you no matter what but you don't want to submit no matter what?

You've been all about why a man should love her woman whether she submits or not. But why would a woman not submit to her man in the first place?

So you will only submit to your husband if he loves you. So a man's love must be unconditional but your submission is conditional? Now who is selecting scripture here?

1Peter 3v1 -Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of their wives;

See from this scripture; that submission is as unconditional for a woman as love is for a man. That's why its good to marry a believer though.

You claim we rejected Christ yet He still loved us and died for us. Let me ask you, what is the end of those who reject Christ? Will they still make heaven no matter what? Because of the unconditional love of Christ?

Let me ask you this, and answer sincerely. If your man insist you answer his name and you say no. Is his insisting proof that he doesn't love you? Or you refusal is proof you're not submissive?

MrsChima:


I see you haven't answered my questiin, "are you willing to be a slave since the bible supports it?"

First of all I didn't judged you and I simply asked questions to mirror your judgemental tone. Secondly...a chatter said the same thing you have said about men being the head etc and I have responded. I don't need to repeat myself to make a point.

I have also said in my post that Ephesian 5 speaks about a woman submitting to her husband as he submit to Jesus Christ who is the head of the church. The verse is emphasized that husband's love your wives as christ loved the church and gave himself for it.

So if the wife refuses to take your surname because YOU said so...you are supposed to love her as Christ loved the church. You as a husband must walk and talk like Christ when it comes to your wife.

People quote scriptures all day and it means nothing to me. It doesn't mean that you are not a wolf in sheep clothing. All that jazz aint glitter!

Nawa o; see the twisting of the love of Christ.

So your idea of a man loving his wife as Christ loves the church is for him to go with whatever she insists? Is that how Christ loves the church? Does Christ go with whatever the church insists on doing even when He already said no to that thing.

So if a man loves you, he will agree with whatever you insist on, even if he doesn't like it; he must want what you like. That is telling him to both love you and submit to you. That's not the nature of the love of Christ, that's the voice of feminism talking. Trying to make a man submit to you, and saying he doesn't love you if he doesn't submit.

I keep telling you you're twisting the word to suit your sentiments but you keep disagreeing. A woman that claims to submit to a man that loves her will never insist on what he says no to. The love of Christ for his church does not make him go with whatever the church insists on. It is the church that submits to what Christ insists on.

And please where does the bible say we should be slaves?

MrsChima:


There is nothing in the bible that said a woman has to take the man's surname. If you want your wife to take your surname and she doesn't mind...great! We shouldn't tell people how to run their lives if it is what they want to do. If a man has no issue with his wife not taking his name then why does it bother you?

If a man has an issue with a woman not taking his surname then he have a choice...fund another woman who will. Simple. You guys make simple things complicated.

Give me a scriptural justification for insisting that you will bear your father's name and a man that doesn't want that should go find another woman.

On what scripture do you justify your audacity. Or its just "civilization"?

Coz I've shown you where the king told his daughters to forget their father's house.

Its not by force to agree with the scripture, but don't tell me I've not shown you scriptures that prove women are called after the name and house of their husbands after marriage, not after their fathers

baibijay:


I know nothing about that please. Sometimes we should not only think with the scripture but our head too. Because a lady is married to another family doesn't mean she isn't born of her parent. She should bear fathers name please.

There is nothing wrong in reasoning with your head, as long as it doesn't contradict or make you start twisting the word to make it say what you want it to say.

If a man objects to a woman bearing her Father's name after marriage; he has scriptural justification for his stand; more than the woman has to stubbornly insist otherwise. That's what I'm saying.

MrsChima:


The bible said slavery is just..do you mind being a slave?

The bible said thou shall not commit adultery, bear false witbess, obey your parents, do not use God's name in vain; and covet they neighbor wife....do you think a person should be killed instantly if one of these are committed?

The point is people can quote scriptures all day long and only 2% of you are following the scripture like Jesus Christ. It is good to throw scriptures out that benefit you but are you following the tenet of the ENTIRE bible?

Tell the truth!

Are you calling me a hypocrite? Or that I quote scriptures without striving to live up to it by God's grace? Do you judge people without knowing them? Or you are just fond of stereotyping?

I'm not perfect but hear this; if Jesus were to show up to me today and say; Ayo, ask what I shall give you? I will say, Lord, to be like you. To behold your glory and be changed into the image of your glory.

Sister, not everyone is a hypocrite. So please stop stereotyping. Don't judge me by the character of those you've met or know.

That being said; you didn't disprove all the verses I quoted to buttress my point. You just digressed to implying.

While it is true that killing an adulterer falls under the old covenant; the verse that said that the man is the head of the woman and that the man was not made for the woman but the woman for the man are new testament truths.

A man should love his wife as Christ loves the church; and the woman should submit to her husband. Let the scripture say what it said, not what we want it to say.

When a woman marries a man, she marries into the house and family of the man. That is why Jesus was called a Son of David; even though she was born of a virgin and Joseph was the one from the lineage of David.

It proofs that Mary married into the lineage of David through Joseph. That's the way it is. She leaves her father's house and is called after her husband.

Scripturally speaking, a man has more right to demand that his wife bears only his name, more than the woman has to demand otherwise. There is no scriptural justification for a woman objecting to that. Just 21st century civil liberty justification.

baibijay:



No please. They bear the father's name Because he is their father. The woman still have her father. He husband doesn't automatically become her father.

Psalm 45v9-10 -Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.

Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; FORGET ALSO THINE OWN PEOPLE, AND THY FATHER'S HOUSE;

According to scripture when a woman is married she is now married into the lineage of her husband, she no longer belongs to the house of her fathers. She's now Sarah the wife of Abraham, no more Sarah the daughter of Terah.

Her wife role now trumps her daughter role because she's now one flesh with her husband not her father. So she's named after the person she's a wife to, no more after the person she's a daughter to.

Isaiah 4v1 -And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

These are women who can't wait to be married and to stop being called Rachel the daughter of Laban; they long to be called Rachel the wife of Jacob.

According to the bible; to be married is to be called by the name of the person you are a wife to; no longer by the name of the person you are a daughter to.

Men who want their wives to bear their names are in line with the scriptures.

Shalom

yinkard4me:
214 of the girls rescued from Boko Haram
have been confirmed pregnant. (not that I'm
surprised anyway). My question is this,
considering the psychological consequence of this,
both long and short term, can abortion be justified
in this instance??
Christians and Muslims, your view

Sentiments apart, there is no scriptural justification for abortion; only emotional justification.

Unfortunately, we live in a world now that suffering for righteousness sake is now farfetched for many. People can go through physical pain for money, endure psychological stress for fame; but doing something painful but pleasing to God is now too great a demand.

Abortion is murder; pre-meditated murder. It is termination of a life and a destiny.

With God, there is no such thing as unwanted pregnancy. It may be unwanted for the mother but not for God. Once a baby is conceived, he already has an identity and a destiny with God.

Jeremiah 1v5 - Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

From the moment we are conceived in the womb, God already knows us and has ordained a calling for our lives. Meaning every baby in the womb already has an identity and a destiny before God. To abort it is not just to terminate a life but also to truncate an ordained destiny.

Luke 1v15 -For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, EVEN FROM HIS MOTHER'S WOMB.

The Holy Spirit does not fill things or objects, the Holy Spirit fills people and persons. If the Holy Spirit could fill a baby in the womb, it means a baby in the womb is already a person before God, not a thing.

To abort a baby in the womb is tantamount to killing a person. You might as well deliver the baby first and strangle it to death. It's the same thing before God.

If the mother doesn't want the baby because of the circumstance of his conception; I believe that there are some religious bodies that are into child care charities that can take care of the baby. There are also motherless babies homes funded by secular NGOs that can take up the responsibility. Not to talk of countless childless couples who would not mind adopting the babies.

All these are if the mother's say they don't want the babies. And I'm sure some of them may even change their minds when they deliver.

There have been instances where a pregnant woman claimed a pregnancy is unwanted and will give him up for adoption, only to change her mind after delivering the baby, as a fountain of love she never knew she had or was capable of gushed out towards the baby. And was willing to do anything for that baby afterwards, not minding the circumstances of his conception.

And there were other cases where the child was even given up for adoption; only for the mother to start longing and pinning for the baby months or years later.

Abortion should not even be an option much less a last option. If we really know the power of God; and how capable He is of healing our physical, emotional and psychological pains; we will realise that abortion need not be an option at all; it is an error of decision.

That's why the bible says; Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. -Matthew 22v29

Saying children of rape don't deserve to live is an emotional rant, not a scriptural or godly opinion. I know its not easy, but nobody ever said obeying God is. Christianity is about obedience not convenience.

Shalom.

enilove:
@ayoku

Did you not read what Jesus said in Matthew 23:23.? Do you know more than Jesus Himself.

Jesus said ( not me ) that he has not come to abolish the law in Matt 5:17....

A woman with an issue of blood is not bound to follow what the law of Moses required because the Blood of Jesus is purer than that of dove etc required for the cleansing in the old testament.

Don't you think you will be going against the direct word of God by saying tithe is no longer necessary ,since you cannot read where it is written in the new testament that it is no longer required of us to pay.
Jesus also said that it is necessary that the Pharisees should pay tithe . Is that not in your Bible?


It is wise to pay tithe instead of waiting till death to discover that you have disobeyed God.
Everything we do have repercussions. If you give to people you will reap. Your tithe to God can never be a waste. It will be used for the house of God and the gospel.

It is better to be on a safe side than to argue and assume when one is not sure.

You didn't answer my points; you skimmed over the one you could gainsay and kept stressing your view. But let me even let that go. Just answer these ones:


Do you believe in the priesthood of every believer in Christ? Yes or No

Do you believe priests are exempted from the responsibilty of tithing? Yes or No.

If your answer is yes. Wouldn't it mean that those collecting tithes from christians are actually the ones going against God's law?

Then that statement of Jesus about tithing. Was He talking to pharisees and jews; or to priests and christians?

And when He made that statement. Was the new covenant already active? Was the dispensation of the priesthood of every believer already in place. Or it was still under the old covenant?

I'm not using this questions to trap you; but to help guide your thought to see how wrong it is to demand tithe from a christian, someone who is a priest and seed of the high priest; a minister of the tabernacle of witness.

The hypocrisy of tithe collectors and supporters is that they believe in the priesthood of every believer; until you show them how it exempts christians from the responsibility of tithing -according to God's law and covenant of salt.

They don't disprove it, they just ignore or adamantly disagree without showing why all of a sudden priests should now pay tithe under the new covenant.

I know the power of indoctrination; and I can also see that you're paying tithe partly out of fear. You want to be safe than sorry, you want to err on the side of caution.

That's why I'm not imposing my opinion, I'm simply guiding your reasoning with biblical truths so that you will arrive at the truth yourself. I've been where you are too.

And you're also wrong. I don't need to tithe to support the house of God and the gospel. I can support it by simply giving; giving not tithing, just like the early church.

Shalom

enilove:



Ignorance will not exonerate you or anybody from God's judgement . To say "I do not know" is better off than to utter words that will destroy the heaven of someone.

Jesus made mention of tithes in the bible:
. Matthew 23:23 KJV
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

It does not stop there. The Lord said :
Matthew 5:17-20 KJV
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. [19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them , the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

As we can read from the above, Jesus said he has not come to abolish the law and that we must abide by the laws and do more than what the law requires. EXCEPT OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS EXCEEDS THAT OF THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES who pay tithes but neglected love faith right judgement etc.

Jesus said the Pharisees pay tithe which is necessary but neglected the most important part like mercy and faith .
And as Christians our righteousness must be above that of a Pharisees , that is , we too must pay tithe combined with love ,faith ,mercy , kindness ,endurance etc.

The part of the old testament not required to be kept by Christians are those aspect requiring BLOOD SACRIFICES, because of the blood of our Lord Jesus that was shed for us has replaced every blood sacrifice ordained by the law.

If you say you will not give tithe ,you will be empowering Islam over Christianity. What I mean is that the Islamic states are sponsoring these terrorists because their aim is to Islamise the whole world and where the churches lack finance it will die gradually ,God forbid ,in Jesus name.

The only option available for a christian who does not want to. pay tithe is to follow this :

Acts 4:32-35 KJV
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. [33] And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. [34] Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, [35] And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

We need to be careful in what we say ,think & write .

So Christ only ended the blood sacrifices? And the other laws still stand and apply to us?

What of the commandment that said men should not shave their side burns or cut their beards (Lev 19v27). Is that law still applicable?

What of the one that said women on their period should not enter into the house of God. And that no one should touch her or even touch whatever she touches (Lev 15v19-23). Is that still applicable today?

What of the one that said that people with physical deformities are not allowed to minister in the house of God (Lev 21v17-21). Is that still applicable now?

Since according to you, only blood sacrifices was abolished by the death and resurrection of Christ. And the rest still stand.

Let me tell you emphatically. There is no where in scripture where the instruction to pay tithes was addressed to priests. Priests were exempted from the responsibility of tithing because of their work as ministers of the tabernacle of witness.

God gave the high priest and his seeds the heave offering as a covenant of salt; the same way He gave David and his seed the kingdom as a covenant of salt.

Numbers 18v19 -All the heave offerings of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall offer unto the Lord, have I given thee, and thy sons and thy daughters with thee, by a statute forever: IT IS A COVENANT OF SALT FOREVER before the Lord unto thee and to thy seed with thee.

2Chronicles 13v5 -Ought ye not to know that the Lord God of Israel gave the kingdom over Israel to David for ever, even to him and his sons BY A COVENANT OF SALT?

And what is a covenant of salt? A covenant of salt is a perpetual or incorruptible covenant. A covenant that even a dispensational change cannot alter. A covenant whose terms remain constant under the new covenant as it was under the old.

That is why the person sitting on the throne of David now under the new covenant (Jesus Christ) is still a seed of David from the tribe of Judah. Because God gave the kingdom to David and his seed as a covenant of salt.

So just as you can't collect the throne of Israel from a Son of David, you also can't collect the tithe from the high priest and his priests. Whether under the old or new testament. That's why there is no where the commandment or instruction to pay tithes was addressed to priests.

▶ So one; Every christian is now a priest:

Rev 5v10 - And hast made us unto our God KINGS AND PRIESTS: and we shall reign on the earth.

1Peter 2v5 -Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, AN HOLY PRIESTHOOD, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1Peter 2v9 -But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people;

▶ And two; PRIESTS DON'T PAY TITHES under any dispensation -old or new.

So even if tithing has not been abolished according to you; the fact remains every christian has now been elevated to the class of kingdom citizens that are exempted from the responsibility.

Every believer in Christ is now a priest, a seed of the High priest; and a minister of the tabernacle of witness. They don't pay tithes and you don't collect tithes from them.

This was one revelation the early church had and understood. That is why there is no single case of tithe being mentioned as a practise among the apostles, the early church or even the first century christians.

Tithing was never mentioned by the apostles, whether as a commandment to keep, or as a rebuke to those who don't pay it, or as a warning of something not to default in; or even as an encouragment of something to keep doing. It was not mentioned at all.

Because the early church understood and respected the revelation of the new covenant priesthood of every believer.

The High Priest and His Priests don't pay tithe and you don't collect it from them.

Giving is the commandment of the new covenant; not tithing.

Shalom.

An2elect2:


How can your "good leader" teach you what only the holy spirit can?

An2elect2:


Oh that means she doesn't have the Holy spirit. Right? I thought as much.

No matter how Spirit filled we are, we are still just members of the body of Christ. We can't grow in grace and knowledge independently of other members of the body.

It is not everything that the Holy Spirit teaches us directly. Sometimes He teaches us by guiding us into all truth, through experiences, encounters and events in life and with one another.

Sometimes when you ask for understanding, He will not answer you directly. He might send you a book or cd by a servant of God. Sometimes He will guide you to switch on the TV; and Bam! a servant of God will be shedding light on an issue you need help with. Or He may lead you into a dicussion with believers, where what you need to know will just be brought up and dealt with.

Its the Holy Spirit answering your prayers and teaching you; using the members of the body of Christ.

If we shut out our spirit and claim we have the Holy Spirit, I don't need Pastors, or the brethren; we will remain in ignorance; and will be too proud to know it or admit it.

As Rick Joyner would say; "The Lord has put the helper in each of us because He wants us to help eachother and receive help from eachother."

The Holy Spirit is indeed the teacher, but He lives in every true believer; and teaches all of us through all of us.

The Holy Spirit is a river of living water, not an oasis of living water. River flows. We receive the Spirit and we impart the Spirit. He teaches us through others and teaches others through us. That's the cycle.

Having the Spirit doesn't not make us independent of the grace and knowledge God has given other brethren.

These questions are getting exhaustive.

vooks:

I don't follow your logic; how/why do you conclude that this verse is pointing to his resurrection? Walk me through your reasoning

How I concluded that this is a post-resurrection messianic prophecy is because of the preceeding and proceeding verses of that same Psalm 2.

Verse 1 -Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

Verse 2 -The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed?

When did the heathens rage? And when did the rulers take counsel against the Lord's anointed?

All these took place at the trial and crucifixion of Christ.

Verse 8 -Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

When was Jesus given authority over all the earth? Before or after His resurrection?

Ofcourse it was after His resurrection.

Psalm 2 is a messianic prophecy of Christ's crucifixion, resurrection and glorification.

So Verse 7 -Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee

Was after His resurrection. When He became the firstborn of the new creation, the first begotten of the dead.

Secondly, when Jesus was begotten at the beginning, there were no heathen then, no kings of the earth, even no earth. Infact, there was nothing, just the Father who begat Him.

This shows that this begotten of Psalm 2v7 was after His resurrection. When He rose and became the firstborn of the new creation.

vooks:


I reluctantly agree but it still don't explain what begotten is

Begotten means to give birth to, it means to born.

vooks:


This would make much sense if ONLY Jesus originated from the Father. We all did so why is he called the ONLY BEGOTTEN?

As at the time Jesus was speaking in John 3v16; He was still the only begotten of the Father. No one else was begotten of the Father or the Word yet.

But after Jesus rose from the dead, we became His brethren. His Father became our Father. Jesus is now the first begotten, no more the only begotten.

vooks:
What is 'begotten'? Is it an event with a definite starting point?
Psalm 2:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Hebrews 1:5 (KJV)
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?


Use this verse as a reference point

The verse you quoted is a messianic prophecy of after Jesus rose from the dead. When He became the first begotten from the dead; the firstborn of the new creation.

But before that time Jesus was already the begotten son of God.

John 3v16 -For God so loved the world, that He sent His only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

See this scripture? Jesus was the begotten Son of God even before He came into the world.

To be begotten means you have an origin, a source. You didn't come out of nowhere. Only the Father is source-less.

vooks:
This is what I need Ayoku clarifying

The same way the Word was begotten of the Father is the same way the new creation was begotten of the Word.

So if you want to say "being begotten" means you have existed as long as the person who begat you; then it means that the new creation too has existed as long as the Word.

Because the new creation is begotten of the Word as the Word was begotten of the Father.

Jesus wasn't begotten when He came into the world, He was begotten of the Father at the very beginning.

vooks:
In summary,
1. Christianity has TWO Gods.
2. Jesus was begotten just like us...he has a beginning


Unresolved
If the Father is the ONLY TRUE GOD, what kind of God is Jesus?
Was Jesus CREATED?

Hmmmm.

How will I answer this without it looking like mere semantics?

This is how I understand it.

"Only true God", to me, means "The only God without a God". The Alpha God. The unbegotten God.

Jesus is God but He was begotten; and He has a God.

So to answer your question:

vooks:


If the Father is the ONLY TRUE GOD, what kind of God is Jesus?

Jesus is the begotten God. The Father is unbegotten and He has no God. Jesus has a God.

vooks:


Was Jesus CREATED?

No, Jesus wasn't created; He was begotten. To be created is different from being begotten.

Jesus was begotten, Angels and man were created. The Father begat Christ and Christ created all things.

Jesus wasn't created.

vooks:
Is it then safe to say Christianity has TWO true Gods?

Technically, and deductively speaking; christianity has two Gods that are worshipped. Jesus and His God and Father; the Father.

But scripturally speaking and according to Jesus, the Father is the only true God.

John 17v3 -And this is eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

So according to Jesus, the Father is the only true God; even though Jesus himself is also God (John 1v1).

And looking at it, that is true; because every other person called God are those begotten of the Father.

So the Father is the only true God, or Alpha God, if you will.

Now, Jesus calling the Father, "The only true God"; doesn't make Jesus a false God or a "no god". That will equally be contrary to scripture.

I think it just means the Father is the Alpha God. The God that begat all other Gods; including Jesus.

vooks:
So,
Why would you be censured for having other gods? Or that means straying outside the group of Gods making up Elohim?

Good observation; and you've even partly answered your question. But let me just expantiate in my own words.

If by other gods, you mean demons and evil spirits? These are no gods; they are false gods.

I believe to be called "god" (Elohim) you must be begotten of The MostHigh God (El Elyon). Like Jesus and the church are.

Psalm 82v6 -I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Elohims are those born of El Elyon. If you're not born of El Elyon, then you're not an Elohim.

And then secondly; even if those born of El Elyon are called Elohim; that doesn't make them worthy of worship. I can't worship you even though as a child of the MostHigh "Ye are gods".

I believe, and its clear; that in the Godhead (or as I call it -House of El or Yah), we are not on the same level of authority and honour. We are gods but Jesus is our God; and the Father is the God of Jesus.

We may be sons of the MostHigh like Jesus but we are not on the same level of authority with Jesus; we are not worthy of worship like him. Only the Father and Jesus are worthy of the honour of worship.

Also, even Jesus is not on the same level of authority with the Father. Even Jesus was given His authority by the Father. And I also noticed from scripture that both the Holy Spirit and Jesus pray. It is only the Father that prays to no one. He is the MostHigh God -the only God that has no God above Him

So if we are censored from worshipping any other god; it is because only the Father and Jesus are worthy of worship in the Godhead. Not any demon or evil spirit; not even fellow children of the MostHigh who are also called Elohims in scripture.

Oneness in the Godhead or equality in divinity is not equality in authority. I made that point clear earlier.

Shalom

bongolistik:
I know of a guy that earns 50k monthly but find it difficult to pay 5k as tithe, though he is willing to be paying 2k rather, is he rubbing God?

Tell him he is in good company. Because the apostles, the early church and the first century christians didn't pay tithe either. They only gave, they didn't tithe.

Giving is the commandment of the new covenant, not tithing.

Your friend is in good company if he doesn't pay tithe -the company of the apostles and the early church. They didn't pay tithe either.

Shalom

vooks:
Just aksin,
If Jesus is God and Father is His God, are they our Gods? And isn't that polytheism?

You're very right. Elohim in hebrew has always been primarily plural, not a singular term.

The oneness of the Godhead has never been numerical but rather oneness in power, purpose and principles.

Remember that just as the Father and the Son are one (John 10v30); the Father and the Son and the church are also now one (John 17v21).

Is that oneness numerical? Or oneness in power, purpose and principles? Of course its the latter.

So yes, Jesus is God and the Father is God. And the Father is the God of Jesus. That is more than one God.

Let me ask you this.

What is the implication of the Father being called "MostHigh God"?

The Father being called "MostHigh God" implies there are other Gods who are not on the same level of authority with Him. Namely Jesus; and the Church through the Spirit.

I don't know where the idea crept into the church that saying we have more than one God is heresis; when many scriptures show that Jesus is the God with a God.

The Father is called Elohim Elohim (God of Gods). And "Elohim Elohim" does not mean God of false gods.

Psalm 136v2 -O give thanks unto God of gods (Elohim Elohim): for His mercy endureth forever.

So yes; Elohim has always been plural. The oneness of the Godhead is not numerical.

Shalom.