₦airaland Forum

SamueItem337:
Barcelona have been scoring this season too
Anything can happen

Barcelona should win but not by a six goals margin. Ha! There would not even be six goals in the match.

I wish I had good money to stake on this.

I even carried them under 4 with 10 naira stake, though, lol.

abba190:
oyewale0001 food done land u are a heavy staker

Oyewale001 give Slovan Bratislava seven goals handicap; Young Boys six goals handicap and stake huge.

Then thank me after the match.

SamueItem337:
The ones bayern scored 9 against are not in the champions league?

Omo, I don forget oo.

Chai, but this is just unlikely.

It is even easier for Man City playing away to accomplish such a feat than it is for Barcelona playing at home to do same. All in all, there's no guarantee whatsoever.

tojahh:
Wow thanks for the mention. But honestly I already had similar game staked to high heavens

I get you for mind brother man, tho I no go tidy this one for special reasons (I only play games that doubles my investment). But when everywhere good you sef suppose smile.


Happy Independence Fellow Compatriots!

Thanks.

This game is for @tojahh and other heavy stakers.

Nack this two games with a stake of 100, 000 naira and give me the 6k on top abeg

8A58222

There is a reason all the four teams are in the champions league. Dem no born Man City and Barcelona well to score six goals and even if any of dem manage score six goals, the other teams must score. Abeg remember me!

HellVictorinho8:




Cant u see how much hypocrisy and bloodthirst exists in the b@stards always here 2 preach against people getting rich?

I was just trying to be funny. I agree with you, though.

If you can't help others, then give them a break so people who want to assist them would.

You have been spitting all over the place. I hope you're not pregnant?

abba190:
I applied to study architecture they gave me geography I did it, I graduated 2019 all I do now is beg on nairaland, do menial works, and play bet to survive. don't let ur sister be like me.

Lol.

Your sense of humor in the way you pass your words are... is like... like... like a.... like a very, very big bomb.

Abba, you will not kill me. You just got a new follower.

In other words, the OP should choose a professional course to survive in Nigeria.

What is the meaning of this nonsense? Profanity of the highest order.

It's not even funny. These students should be arrested.

UTMOST10:
Well said……..

Thank you, lol.

UTMOST10:
The match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest was a fixed match. Quote me anywhere!

You remind me of that passage of scriptures: thou thinkest that I am altogether like thyself, lol.

Fixed match in England top-tier? Perish. The. Thought.

You need to leave your little hut and travel to England - maybe walk the streets of London, Manchester, or Liverpool for a thorough change in orientation.

Blacks think the Whites are like themselves, so they project their silly, depraved, and warped views on them and anything about them.

The match is fixed. They fixed that match. The referee was paid for the match - and all the other nonsense that gets parroted frequently when result don't go as planned.

Hahaha, this is hilarious, fucking hilarious, my friend. This is soccer and anything could happen. It is improbable but not impossible for underdogs to win a football match, but upset of this magnitude happens way too often, devoid of any poor officiating, for far too many reasons.

I would not even listen to you or give you audience if Nottingham Forest were, for example, a League One team or an England Amateur Southern division team. This is soccer my friend where eleven players face each other on either side.;

Everyday247:
Not really, An absolutely powerful king may enjoy unbounded power for the short run but in the long run they will eventually get bored. There's a reason that YouTube, DStv, Netflix etc come with different channels. This is because doing the exact same thing for a long time leads to boredom.
Let's compare an absolutely powerful king to an average day person.
An absolutely powerful king only has few forms of entertainment:
1. Getting people to fight against themselves (gladiators).
2. Enacting plays of famous events
3. Hiring performers to perform circus acts for them.
*Note that these powerful kings did not have access to their entertainment at any time they wanted I.e They could not wake up in the middle of the night to enjoy these things.
On the other hand, modern average man has access to many forms of entertainment:
1. Tv/videos e.g Movies/Series, music, video games, sports, reality shows, documentaries, News. E.t.c
2. Live events such as amusement parks, concerts, vacation resorts, sports events (If you decide to go to the venue) e.t.c
3. Social Media.
The modern man has a larger variety of entertainment to choose from even a poor man who has access to only an old smartphone has more options and more quality entertainment than ancient absolutely powerful kings. And best of all they can access these entertainment anytime!

Yeah, I would admit that the monotony of having to repeat the same thing again and again is a big negative, but there might be forms of entertainment that we are not privy to. Entertainment is as complex as human behaviour. We would need a time machine to see how the ancients actually enjoyed themselves because public libraries or google would be of little assistance.

They did not have varieties like we do, but even then, what passes for entertainment to you might not be so much to me or to another person. I might prefer the less refined aspect of it; I might only get entertained by the outdoors; or by certain sports that has been around since medieval times like archery, golf, and the likes, but overall, yeah, I agree with you and that is why from the onset, I said you're partially right.

cutecommend:
I am not talking of scoring, but who is the most skillful player you know in football history?

Mine is Ronaldinho, you?

To be extremely skilled, you have to be extremely intelligent. I cannot tell who is more skilled between Lionel Messi and Jay Jay Okocha, but it has to be one of them.

Messi seems to be the most intelligent footballer ever, but Okocha seems to have his way with the ball.

Help me decide.

Everyday247:
Like what exactly?

Okay, you've asked a good question.

When I say "a poor king" I have assumed that absolute monarchy is the norm. Also, and like I said earlier, entertainment is more nuanced than we might think.

Whether a rich or poor king, the very rich of our days do not necessarily enjoy the perks of absolute monarchy. As you know, people have the most fun when they are unbounded - a poor king in days gone-by is able to do the seemingly unthinkable and stupid things just for the fun of it - they could hire circus dancers while another set of clowns fight themselves in the background, or watch public executions while his dance troupes entertain him. They could require their subjects to give a tenth, a fifth, or even a third of anything - especially farm produce - you can only imagine the pleasure of having to reap where you did not sow, lol!

The rich of our days do not necessarily have power, and as you know, wealth and power are different things. I would argue that having power gives you the leeway to enjoy certain entertainment which money cannot provide, at least not in the 21st century.

A poor king is used to being entertained by those whom his warriors conquer and even his subjects for free, but it would cost the very rich so much to afford these today and it might be unaffordable in the long run.

I just struck out the claims that are untrue.

Everyday247:
No bruh, use common sense.
[s] Today's poor man lives in a better house than Solomon. [/s]
Today's poor man enters better transportation than Solomon.
[s] Today's poor man has access to better entertainment than Solomon. [/s]
[s] Today's poor man eats more exotic food than Solomon. [/s]
[s] Today's poor man wears more quality clothes than Solomon. [/s]
Today's poor man has access to better medicine than Solomon. E.T.C

I used a different font for your third claim because you're partially right.

TVS, video games, resorts, and the likes, but these are just a part of what we'd call entertainment.

There are many more means and aspects of entertainment, bro. Entertaining one's self is more varied and the means of getting entertained is more complex than you'd like to think. Even an extremely poor king in days gone by enjoyed some sorts of entertainment that the very rich of our days could not enjoy.

tojahh:
Was about cashing out but decided to let it run.

We March on.

Big, big win as usual! Congratulations.

Oga Tojahh, I am not a fellow that refuses to work and depend solely on pan-handling.

It's just that, for some reasons, I have been quite unfortunate with the employers who choose to hire me and I do not take a rejection of my services with kids gloves, too. If you look through my post here:

https://www.nairaland.com/8138239/christians-house-agree-line-thought

You'd discover that I work in a construction site (which is one of the most grueling place to work) and rightly so, but I have decided to cut ties with them because of the rejection and derision. Their rejection of me is just too much to ignore. Since I'm no longer going to be working there, I would not be getting what little support I get there.

I would really appreciate if you can assist me with a little something for this week, please. Please!

budaatum:
I hope you are aware that if he kindly takes your hands to explain like you are five years old and teach you these things, his hand will not be growing the corn cobs you see here.

In fact, are you so evil that you want him to divert his hands from planting his corn and spend his time instead taking your hand or did you just not understand how evil what you've asked for is?

Please consider being older than 5 years old, and invest in your own education! And accept my apology for being offended by your request that is not even meant for me.

Yes sir, I am evil, incurably evil. I am evil-personified.

I didn't realize that an evil request of this magnitude could make a good person go crazy, but whatever it is, the reign of evil has to continue. Or do you care to accept this evil request?

Woah, what you shared in these pics is fucking, good money - enough to take care of one's need for at least a year.

And when I think about the fact that God has decreed that man tills the ground to eat, I can't help but doff my hat for you. You have it going very, very well for you, my friend.

Could you kindly take my hands, explain like I'm five years old and teach me these things. I don't know what a hoe is. I have never farmed or seen a cutlass before. I don't know how long it takes a maize to germinate, what soil to plant in, or anything in particular. I know almost nothing about farming. I know nothing actually. Please help me. I am based in Kwara state.

oyewale0001:
Sent ✅. Please check

Mad oo.

Even if it's just a portion, it is time you send my own.

Uniquekriss:
it's not so true, I have a family member who relocated to Germany last October with her husband, they're currently schooling and just yesterday she told me they spent approximately 13m, you get paid even as a student even if it's to language study, you're sure of about 500 euros for now.

Migrating to Canada through the study route cost them 13m naira? Are you serious! This is quite expensive if you ask me, crazy I must say.

Omoapena:
You plan to relocate with your wife to Canada with 18m?


Is 18m even enough for 1 person not to talk of couple.

Why do you think 18m would not be enough?


Cc: tensazangetsu20

FxMasterz:
Look into all what you quoted above. They're all talking about the kingdom of God. Not the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus gave many parables about the kingdom of heaven. A woman who lost a coin. A man who found treasure and sold all he had to get it. The shepherd who lost one sheep and left 99 to go find it, etc. All are about the kingdom of heaven. Look, if you don't settle some fundamental things, you'll be confused and fall into heresies. In all of Jesus' references to the Kingdom of heaven, a future kingdom is implied. Meanwhile, the kingdom of God is within us. Not just among us. The kingdom of heaven is not among us yet. Search the scriptures please.

You see, I have asked numerous critical questions in the past, studies the scriptures extensively for a period spanning multiple decades. It's difficult for me to be confused. I can isolate this teaching about the kingdom of God and the Kingdom of heaven and teach it comprehensively. Please they're not the same things. I encourage you to search the scriptures more closely.

Lol. Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven, they are not the same thing? How can you say the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven is not the same thing? What is the Kingdom of Heaven if it is not God's Kingdom. This is one thing I am yet to understand.

Jesus regularly spoken in parables and in his parables he sometimes calls it the Kingdom of God and in other instances he calls it the Kingdom of Heaven. I don't understand why we're trying to separate God from his throne. When Mathew gives an account of a parable Jesus said, he used the Kingdom of Heaven, but when Mark and Luke narrate the same parable, they used the Kingdom of God. They are interchangeable and mean the same thing. Mathew describes the narrow way as the Kingdom of God. We don't have to quibble over the meaning of words. God himself said the Heavens is his throne and the earth is his footstool.

You have not answered any of the objections I put out, sadly.

FxMasterz:
Just answer the question below to see if the two mean the same thing:

"The Kingdom of God is Within You" This is the key phrase in Luke 17:21.

Is the kingdom of heaven within you?

This is a funny rebuttal. The duo are interchangeable and can be used freely. Jesus is a manifestation of the kingdom of God. That is what he is saying basically. This is what verse 20 of the chapter reads:

One day the Pharisees asked Jesus, “When will the Kingdom of God come?”

So in essence, Jesus is saying, for the first time in human history, someone from the Kingdom of God has been sent down and he is standing within you. Could Jesus have used Heaven instead? Yes of course, but that's not the point. The idea of Jesus being a manifestation of the Kingdom of God is reecho in chapter 11 of the same Luke:

But if I am casting out demons by the power of God, then the Kingdom of God has arrived among you.

The Kingdom of God being within you or arriving among you as this verse puts it is the same thing. The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven is the same thing, but that's not the point. God and his throne (Heaven) are inseparable. Whichever you choose to use is fine. The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven have been used interchangeably in the same chapters of the gospel. I don't know where we got this teaching from.

FxMasterz:
Now, look at the bolded above and compare to this scripture below:

John 3:3
"Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

I believe you know Jesus told Nicodemus that to be born again is to be born of the Spirit.

The least in the Kingdom of Heaven is not a spirit being. Rather a man who became born again. Jesus cannot be comparing a human being to a spirit being. That's disorderly.

John 3 explains that those born of the Spirit enter the kingdom of God and by extension, the kingdom of heaven.

You have to understand the members of a bounded and an unbounded set. If Jesus, talking to multitudes, said, among those born of women there hath not risen someone greater than John, then strictly speaking, would that be appropriate to include me and you who lived after John? NO. We are not included. The comparison is between John and those who lived before him. Even though you and I are born of women, we had not existed at the time the statement was made. Jesus did not say among those who would ever live or among those who would ever be born by women. If he had said that, then the whole of human history is placed on the other said of the scale. It seems to me that Jesus is saying of all who have ever lived.

Jesus is talking of people who had lived and existed pre-John because this is Jesus peering into human history and sizing up every creature's righteousness before God. The same is true of the "least in the Kingdom of Heaven." Hence, it cannot stand to reason that the least in question are people who hadn't existed at the time the statement was made. It doesn't make any sense then to infer that the least in the Kingdom are people who would exist in the future. Both parties have to exist at the time of comparison.

Also, again on who the least in the Kingdom are. This is as clear as light and I don't know why you don't see it. You said Jesus cannot be comparing a human being and a spirit being and called it disorderly, but how is it disorderly. The comparison is between the finest and choicest of human beings and the lowest and "basest" of spirit beings. How is that out of place? Would it be disorderly to compare the finest and choicest place on earth to the basest and least desirable of heavenly habitation. It is not out of place. This type of comparison happens all the time. The balance of comparison is in the choice and use of comparatives. It is not best vs best or worst vs worst. This comparison is meant to magnify one at the expense of the other which is not out of place for Christ to do. Christ is only explaining that mankind has a long way to go.

FxMasterz:
My brother, those born of women are on earth. Those born of the Spirit are also on earth.

The kingdom of heaven Jesus was talking about was a future Kingdom which those born of the Spirit on earth would eventually inherit. There's nothing like "Those born of the Spirit in Heaven". Nothing like that at all. All who are born of the Spirit are here on earth. First born of women, then reborn of the Spirit. That's what it means to be born again. The Father didn't get such to worship Him even in Heaven and in the Old Testament but "The time is coming when those who would worship the Father would do so in spirit and in truth because the Father seeks such to worship Him here on earth." John 4:23, Paraphrased.

Now, with this explanation, kindly go through my submissions again to grasp what I'm saying. You see, the scripture is our ultimate authority. Not personal logic.

The irony is that I am taking the verse at face value, but you are the one using logic to interprete it.

I am going to explain this to you one more time, if you still don't agree then we can just agree to disagree.

There is no difference whatsoever between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven. I don't know where you get the difference from. The two words are interchangeable and they mean the same thing.

Now, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

What is he comparing, John the baptist and those who would later be born again saints? Is that what this verse is comparing? Are they the least in the Kingdom of Heaven the latter part of the verse mentions? This verse is clearly comparing something, but is it comparing John and the least in the Kingdom of God which in any arbitrary instance can mean a born again christian? NO! A big fat no, sir.

The comparision is between John whom Jesus calls the greatest among those born of women and the least in Heaven who is a spiritual being. The least in the Kingdom of heaven is not indicative of a person who is born of the spirit, but a spiritual being. When you talk of the earth in the basest form, you don't talk of spirit beings, you talk of human beings. Similarly, when you talk of the Kingdom of Heaven, you don't talk of human beings but spirit beings. I hope you understand. This is as simple as ABC. When he mentions the least in the Kingdom, he is mentioning a spirit

This verse is comparing John the baptist and the least in the Kingdom of Heaven who is essentially a spirit being, not necessarily a person born of the spirit. This is pure common sense. I have tried using different umbrella to make you see that, but must of the poisionous contents online that argue that the least in the Kingdom of Heaven can also refer to a born again christian hasn't made you read the passage without bias. Be without prejudice for once, please. Who are the least in the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus is talking about? Those born of the spirit or spiritual beings? In the basest form, when a man talks of Heaven, is he talking of spiritual beings or those born of the spirit? Spiritual beings, clearly. The comparision of Jesus is like this, the best and finest of men is worse, far worse, than the "worst" of Heaven's dwellers, and the best and finest of men is John who is more than a prophet.

When it mentions among those born of women and it mentions John, that is not out of place. John is certainly born of a woman who might not be born again, but I have to ask where the conjecture for those who are born again is in the verse or in verses surrounding it. Among those born of women is granted, but I can't seem to find where there is any mention of those born of the spirit in the same verse.

Those who are least in the Kingdom of God are not (at the time Jesus was preaching this sermon) those born of the spirit but spiritual beings. How can Christ be comparing a group of people who do not exist with one who does (John)? Can you please point me.

FxMasterz:
Please my brother , go and study the scriptures I quoted and let the Holy Spirit speak to you. All these things are still fundamentals of the christian faith. You might also need to find the difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven as used in scripture. These are two different things.

You're mixing things up by thinking that having the Spirit of God dwelling in you is the same as being born of the Spirit.

You also think that people can have the Spirit of God in measurements. The Spirit of God is a Being. He's not liquid or air. You can't have the Spirit of God in measures. You can only be closer and more intimate with Him. The illustration you gave regarding Moses and the 70 elders does not imply that the Spirit of God was measured like some Cup measurement on people. It only means that the Holy Ghost distributed gifts to those elders to enable them function in the same 'judge' office that Moses functioned in. Read 1Cor. 12:1-11 for details regarding this. It is One and same Holy Spirit manifesting in Moses that manifested in all 70. He wasn't upon them in different measurements but different levels of manifestations.

Now Jesus clearly said "Of all those BORN OF WOMEN..." All saints (old and new testament) are born of women but not all saints are born of the Spirit.

What Jesus told Nicodemus is a New Testament truth. Nicodemus could not understand because 'Being born again' or 'Being born of the Spirit' is a new Testament phenomenon. Infact John proclaimed Jesus as the One whose shoe latches he was unworthy to untie, "He is He that baptizes with the Holy Ghost."

I think you should go on a study to research what is means to be born of the Spirit. It isn't the same as being filled with the Spirit. You were born of the Spirit on the day you gave your life to Christ. You were filled with the Spirit on the day you were baptized in the Holy Ghost. These are two different events. The disciples were born of the Spirit while they were with Christ. They were filled with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Before the day of Pentecost, Jesus breathed on them and said "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." John 20:22. In Acts 19:2, Paul asked some Believers "He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." Note that they were believers. Infact they were John's disciples but they had no Holy Ghost. Paul had to lay hands on them to receive the Holy Ghost.

I believe that should be clear as I wouldn't want to bore you down with lengthy explanations. You can bear me witness that all my explanations are with scripture references. There are no assumptions as you claimed. Perhaps you aren't reading them. I've never made any blanket statement as you alleged. Now, let me give you these points to meditate on:

1. The New Testament saints are the Bride of Christ. The Old Testament saints are not the Bride of Christ. Only the Church is the Bride of Christ. Now, the bride of the King is the King's Queen. Let this tell you the place that God has put new testament Saints.

2. New Testament saints are the Body of the Christ. The Head and the Body sit on the same throne. The Old Testament saints are not the Body of Christ.

3. New Testament saints approach God freely. Old Testament saints must make sacrifices to do that. Consider why we don't kills animals to approach to God. That should tell you that Jesus did something to put us in some special place with God.

4. John called Old Testament saints the friends of Christ while he referred to New Testament saints as the bride of Christ. The king's friends don't sit on the throne of his kingdom but his bride does.

John 3:26-29
"And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.

27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

28 Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.

29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the FRIEND of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice THIS MY JOY IS THEREFORE FULFILLED ".

Even John referred to himself as the friend of the bridegroom while the new testament saints who believe in Jesus are the Bride.

The. Find out what Jesus meant by the following:

"[,b]Yet a time is coming and has now come[/b] when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, [b[and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth[/b].”

In summary, the Father seeks some kinds of worshippers. A time is coming (New Testament Time) when you won't have to get to a temple or look for one mountain (Horeb, Sinai or Zion) before you can worship God as did the people of the Old Testament. You'll stay where you are and worship God in Spirit facing any direction. The old testament believers faced the Temple. God is seeking such types of worshippers. The New testament saints are not in the same class as the old. I still have so many scriptures flowing through my spirit as I type. Please ask the Holy Ghost for more insights.

Let's face among those born of women squarely.

Now, if your understanding of - among those born of women there hath not risen a greater than John implies two births

Those born of women on earth and those born of the spirit then you are very wrong because the latter part (notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he) talks of those born of the spirit in Heaven.

But those born of the spirit in Heaven are essentially spirit beings as I pointed in my first rebuttal. It would not hold. If Jesus meant that he that is born of the spirit or he that is born again least in Heaven is greater than John then this fails in the comparison test because this is no longer about Heaven and earth but about earth and glorified saints in Heaven. It makes no sense. This begs the question: Would John fail to make Heaven or would he live continue to live as a human in Heaven.

FxMasterz:
Now, let's discuss the scripture itself in isolation.. Using the standard principle of Biblical Interpretation, we'll dissect the scripture to dispel any insinuation of fallacies through assumptions.


Mathew 11:11-13

"Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. 13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John..."

1. Our key-word in the verse is "Among those born of women ".

The opening statement itself is the basis of the interpretation of that scripture. You'll expect the statement to go like this: "Among those born of women, there's none greater than John the Baptist but among those born of ? , he is the least." This is because the statement is a comparative statement. Hence, we can only compare 'Born' with 'Born'.

Now, to further drive home some spiritual truths and give us a better understanding of the times we live in, instead of saying those born of the Spirit or born of some other entity as a direct comparison to those both of women, Jesus decided to use another keyword: "in the kingdom of heaven "

Now 'those Born of women' Vs 'those in the kingdom of heaven.' This forms the line of comparison.

To interpret this scripture, you need to find out what those in the kingdom of heaven are born of because the statement is a comparative statement between'Born' and 'Born'. The correct interpretation would rest on 'Born' Vs 'Born'. 'Born' is the most important word in the statement.

So, what are the people in the kingdom of heaven born of? They're born of the Spirit. Old testament people were not born or the spirit, including John. The concept of being born of the Spirit is a new testament concept that came after the resurrection of Christ. No old testament saint can tell you he was born again. To be born again is to be born of the Spirit. Nicodemus was one of those old testament saints who had the privilege to live at the period of the dispensational transition from Old to New Testament. Jesus told him "You must be Born Again." Yet, he did not understand.

Now, the rest of the discourse from verse 12 tells us even more especially verse 13: "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John."

John was the termination of the dispensation of the Law and Prophets (Old Testament). He was also the Transition to New Testament which is based on life in the Spirit rather than life in the law and the prophets.

See? The scripture itself is self explanatory. There's no theological disputation among believers regarding this verse. What I have explained above is pure Biblical Hermeneutics. The disciples didn't have to ask Jesus any question about the statement because it was simple and clear. Right from the time of John the Baptist, people started pressing into the Kingdom. Before then, there was no kingdom to press into. John was a bridge between the none-kingdom and Kingdom era. Now, I'm breaking things down because you're thinking I was assuming. I didn't see any need to break it down previously because I thought it was already obvious.

The new testament saints are Kingdom saints born of the Spirit of God by the incorruptible Word of God. The old testament saints have no such claim. They're born of women and can only approach God who is a Spirit by sacrifices. We approach God as spirit beings without needing any animal sacrifice because we're born of the Spirit and could relate directly with the Father as spirit to Spirit.


Daniel 7:21-22

"I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints (New Testament Saints), and prevailed against them;

22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints (The Ones who warred against the horn) of the most High; and the time came that the saints (The New Testament Saints) possessed the kingdom."

This is Christ's promise to the apostles who were the foundation of the New Testament era:

Mathew 19:28

"Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Ask yourself, if the apostles are sitting on thrones to rule Israel, where would John the Baptist be since he is an Israelite?. Would the apostles not rule over him? The Church is the Queen where Christ is King. As I pointed out previously in another of my mentions to you, John himself testified that he is a friend of the Bridegroom. Friends don't sit on thrones with kings. Only Queens do.

John wasn't born again. He wasn't born of the Spirit. He wasn't even a Christian. He was a follower of Moses. He was the last of the Old Testament Prophets: "The law and the prophets were until John..."

On whether John is born again, I might have to backtrack as it pertains to that. I was taken down a hole that I didn't envision. The contention is whether among those born of women excludes certain people.

Let's read the chapter contextually. I would start from verse 7. In the preceding verse, John had sent disciples to ask if Jesus was the One.

7 And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?

Question: Who was Jesus talking to? The multitudes. Now, the multitudes are the Jews who might be familiar with water baptism, but know almost nothing about being born of the spirit. Jesus was talking to a group of people whose level of comprehension he knows; he was talking to a bunch of people who needed to be spoken to in the language they understand.

8 But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.

9 But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.

Question: What did Jesus mean by more than a prophet? It isn't just that Jesus approved of John's very ascetic lifestyle as verse 18 shows, but it is more than that. It gives pointers as to why Jesus said what he said. If John was sent to clear path for the messenger of the New covenant, this tells us a lot about the calibre of person he is.

You have to understand that throughout human history, man has had prophets sent from God. Man will always be guided by God; very, very devout men who see visions, vision of events that have not taken place and even visions of God. We have had prophets who were opportune by virtue of divine mercy to commune with God in the physical plane, but none of these prophets were prophesied to come at the time they came. Moses. Daniel. Ezekiel, etc, etc, they all came, but were not prophesied, but John is a big and singular difference. He is not just a prophet, but a forerunner of the covenant. You have to tell me what you understand by "more than a prophet" and why it is preposterous to believe that a man who is described as more than a prophet should be regarded according to God as the greatest man who ever lived.

10 For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Question: What is meant by among them that are born of women? I have answered this question several times. This is talking about the human race with no exceptions. Being born of the spirit is second-level plane as far as reason is concerned. Your humanity is first-level plane. You cannot be more spiritual than you are human. Can a person be born of women and be born of the spirit? Yes, of course, but does that make him a spirit being like those in Heaven are? No, of course not. Those in heaven are essentially spirit beings and if we say they are born of God, that would not be far-fetched. Those on earth are essentially human beings and if we say they are born of women, that would not be far-fetched too. There is a very big and marked difference between being born again and being a spirit being. Light and day difference Even if the claim is made that humans can be born of the spirit which is true, that does not do justice to the comparison because those born of the spirit in Heaven (heaven dwellers) are essentially spirit beings while those born of the spirit on earth are essentially humans, at least for now.

Jesus said, notwithstanding he that is least in the Kingdom of Heaven... But he that is least in the Kingdom of Heaven is a spirit being. All of heaven's inhabitants are spirit beings. God himself is the head and the commander of all spirits. Isn't this very clear?

Again, it is interesting to know that even among those born of women was spoken from a lay man's point of view by Jesus seeing that he was speaking to the multitudes. What they understood every of Jesus statement to mean is very important. If Jesus had said, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is born of the spirit or born again least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he is, then that might be debatable. But that is not the case.


12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

Question: Did Jesus call John the seal of the prophets? Yes and clearly. Is it any wonder that Jesus sees him in high esteem seeing from ver 12 that the Kingdom of heaven suffered violence within the short time he lived.

14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

16 But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows,

17 And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.

18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.

19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

FxMasterz:
There's no problem here at all. John was a bridge between the Old Testament and New Testament. John had the Spirit upon and within him. He was the only Old Testament saint who had the spirit within. His baptism happened when pregnant Mary visited his mother Elizabeth while she was in John's pregnancy. That made him have the Spirit Upon and Within him. The Spirit being within him gave him a taste of the new testament dispensation. He was not born of the Spirit. No one was ever born of the Spirit until Christ died and resurrected. However, John was different from the Old Testament saints because unlike them, He had the Spirit of God abiding within him. It happened even while he was in the womb.

I agree with this submission.

We all agree that John has God's spirit upon and within him, how is he less than any spirit-filled Christian as your interpret Jesus statement? If a man has God's spirit right from birth, how can it be said that he is not born of the spirit? I was surprised by your submission so I had to take you to Jesus dialogue with Nicodemus. It's almost as if Jesus is saying, you should know better; one of God's mode of operation should be like a fact at the palm of your hand. How can you call yourself a teacher of the law and you don't know that having spiritual life is absolutely important to entrance into the kingdom of God.

Secondly, all I see you doing is explaining and trying to differentiate how a man can be filled with the spirit of God from birth and not be born again. It is not possible. Jesus said the wind blows wherever it goes... but you cannot explain how people are born of the spirit. I can't believe you have dragged me down the hole of who a person born of a woman is and now we are discussing who are the exceptions from that statement.

Sir, of all those born of women is quite clear. It's not as if some are not born of women and exceptions can be made. If that had been the case, a blanket statement like this would not have been necessary. If Christ wanted to refer to the human race without exceptions, how else do you expect him to say it? Do you realize that Jesus has had personal encounters with John before he uttered those statement.

FxMasterz:
There's nothing like how much of God's Spirit one has. So, that cannot be a measure for climbing the ranks. But we're not talking ranks actually. God knows how He does His ranking. We're taking about The Old and New Testament saints and the positions they hold with God.

No one is saying John was the most Spirit filled. Please read my submissions again. John was a class that combined a bit of the Old and New Testament dispensations of God with man.

We are talking about ranks. Jesus was talking about ranks. Oh common, don't be naive. There is something like - how much of God's Spirit one has. God took his spirit from Moses and gave some portions to 70 Israelite elders and he still had more than each of them.

Yes, God knows how he does his ranking and that is why we must not make exceptions for Christ statement. If Christ had said of all those who are married or unmarried, none is greater than John, then that would be granted and taken and even then, no exceptions should be made from those group. We should never say, for instance, that Christ meant all unmarried men or all unmarried people who are not born again if the statement had read: among those who had been married, none is greater than John and yet even the least in the kingdom is greater than he is.

The biggest punch to your argument is what I would call the error of assumption. Assuming what Christ didn't say. Even the least in the Kingdom of heaven in the latter part of that verse is not a reference to born again Christians, or born again Christians in heaven, so stop assuming. They are not the least in Heaven that Jesus is talking about because he said in another verse of John's gospel that no one has gone to Heaven and come back, but the Son came down from Heaven. Take that verse literally. Even the crowd did not fully understand the concept of being born again.

FxMasterz:
Paxonel. This is what Christ was saying:

1. John the Baptist is greater than all that are born of women, but he is least in comparison to those who are born of the Spirit.

2. John the Baptist is greater than all Old Testament saints but he is least in comparison to New Testament saints.

According to scriptures, New Testament saints are co-heirs with Christ who shall reign with Him forever and ever. Infact the apostles were promised 12 thrones on which they'll sit while judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Remember that even John was an Israelite.

Still on this contradictions.

When you make exceptions that Jesus didn't intend, you create problems, not solution.

Let me ask you, what makes John greater than the Old Testament saints since according to you - among those born of women - means those who lived before him? Do you honestly think a man Jesus calls more than a prophet is not spirit-filled? Even the prophets and anointed kings who lived long before him had God's spirit, so how can he be least among those who have God's spirit (after his demise) when he himself has God's spirit? If John didn't have God's spirit and was spiritually dead, I would still have to ask you, among those who have God's spirit, who is the greatest? We are not told is a clever coup-out. You see the problem; I hope you see it. Is Jesus saying John the Baptist is less than any spirit-filled Christian?

God himself decides who is the greatest regardless of what measure of his spirit he bestows. Climbing the ranks in God is not a matter of how much of God's spirit you have alone because even his spirit is bestowed. God chose Moses not because he was the greatest among men or the most spirit-filled or whatever. Part of what makes a good Christian is an acceptance of the divine will and choice. If Christ says John is the greatest (and rightly so) who are we to make exceptions.

It was never a subject of the most spirit-filled is the greatest, or John is less than any spirit-filled Christians.

FxMasterz:
Paxonel. This is what Christ was saying:

1. John the Baptist is greater than all that are born of women, but he is least in comparison to those who are born of the Spirit.

2. John the Baptist is greater than all Old Testament saints but he is least in comparison to New Testament saints.

According to scriptures, New Testament saints are co-heirs with Christ who shall reign with Him forever and ever. Infact the apostles were promised 12 thrones on which they'll sit while judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Remember that even John was an Israelite.

If I get you correctly, he is least in comparison to those who are born again.

Question: Were the Old Testament saints spiritually dead?

Answer: NO! I honestly do not think so, and I hope you don't think so too. Moses, Ezekiel, Daniel, Isaiah, Elijah, Elisha. I am choosing to list out spirit-filled Old Testament saints for you. Are any of these I have listed spiritually dead?

Another question: Were the Old Testament saints born again or born of the Spirit as you choose to call it?

Answer: I would not say they weren't born again because whatever salvation was wrought in Old Testament times by God was wrought by the Holy Spirit. In Christ discussion with Nicodemus, he assumed that as a respected teacher of the law that he is, he should know this, but sadly he didn't. God still saved some by his Spirit even in Old Testament times even when the sacrifices was fully in place.

It is very unreasonable to call John a prophet and more than a prophet and then make conjectures from his statement that makes exemptions for those born of women. Very unreasonable if you ask me. If Christ wanted to make exceptions, he would not have used that phrase. It was a given in old Palestine that whenever anyone says among those born of women, there are making no exceptions. If they wanted to make exceptions, there are other ways they'd say it.

The comparison is between a man who is the subject of ancient prophecies, a man sent from above, to, as Malachi puts it - prepare the way before me, and Heaven dwellers. The crowd understood the comparison. The disciples understood the comparison, but 21st century man doesn't.

By virtue of being the one whose preaching would, as Malachi puts it again, turn the hearts of fathers to their children, and the hearts of children to their fathers, this is actually a weighty duty that comes with a very heavy reward. Oga, John is it. The most righteous man who would ever live. Men would have to join the queue when they get to Heaven.

paxonel:
So, you can understand why i said that John the Baptist did not stand a chance of being in God's kingdom.
As a matter of fact he was killed before Christianity was established.
That we that are Christians today, the least of us is greater than John the Baptist and every other prophets of the old covenant according to what Jesus said.
Just reason it from how Adam and Eve sinned to how Daniel prophesied the coming of the kingdom to how Christ eventually died and resurrected to bring the kingdom which is the new covenant, you will understand that the kingdom of God is simply the Christian Faith and nothing more.
Incase you are still doubting that kingdom of God is right inside you and you can personify it as a Christian(some scripture put it as EMMANUEL which means God with us), we will read and interprete some Jesus parables in the new testament concerning the kingdom of God and relate them with what i have just said about The fall of Adam and Eve and Daniel's prophesies for confirmation

For clarity, the Kingdom of God is Heaven.

Heaven is an abode where God has his throne, the resting place of angels, and where God's presence and glory particularly manifest. This cannot be inside anyone.

Believers might be filled with the Holy Spirit; enjoy the divine Spirit in great measure, but God's spirit, the Holy Spirit, is not Heaven. I don't know how to explain this to you. . The enjoyment of the presence and Spirit of God is not a geographical location. Heaven is. or do you think wherever God's Spirit dwells is Heaven?

On John the Baptist, you're quite ignorant. John was sent from Heaven to clear paths for the Messiah. In fact, at one point, Jesus said John is Elijah; the prophet prophesied in the old covenant for the assignment before him. It not only seem funny but ludicrous that you would address a blameless man - who died because he had been telling Herod that it is against the law to marry your brother's wife. It not only sound crazy, but this is just so fucking mehn.

You said:

> That we that are Christians today, the least of us is greater than John the Baptist and every other prophets of the old covenant according to what Jesus said.

What did Jesus say?

paxonel:
Ok, do you agree that Jesus is the founder of Christianity, that he founded Christianity the very day he resurrected after he was crucified.
Meaning that there was nothing like Christianity on earth until he died and resurrected?

We are still coming to the issue of John the Baptist

Yes. This is not up for contention.

paxonel:
Please follow these bible facts carefully.
I am going to number the facts from 1 to 5 to it simplicity. where ever I'm wrong please let me know

many facts in the bible were written figuratively which they required literal understanding, so be careful

please think or meditate on these facts before responding

1. The book Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve sinned that's why people die today. But Christ came and restore back that eternal life. This is the whole summary of the bible

You're doing good. Yes, people die because God tested humankind in Adam, but Christ came to restore back that relationship we had with God in Adam, not eternal life. Just think about this: man was not created immortal from the start; if he was, there would not be a need for God to create another tree with a fruit called the Tree of life or immortality. This is something I realized later in life. It seems to me that Adam was on probation until God was satisfied with his piety and then God would take him on a journey of self-discovery.

paxonel:
Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Yes, I agree. Yes!

paxonel:
4. And that there were consistent battle among kingdoms. Since these kingdoms had their individual Faiths, these battles were seen by God as battle of Faiths(Spiritual battle)

Daniel 2:39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

4. That an everlasting Faith will be set up by God as prophesied by Daniel

Daniel 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

5. That the everlasting faith set up by God which was prophesied by Daniel is Christianity (the new covenant) which is the Christian faith and which is the faith that restore the eternal life that Adam and Eve lost out of disobedience from the beginning. Meaning, the everlasting kingdom implies everlasting life

Luke 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob(the Jewish tribe) for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

The Jewish tribe is found on this earth right?

Please think

If you have anything contrary to any of these facts, please back it up with scriptures

I agree to a very large extent with what you wrote. In fact, Daniel 7 even makes it clear that Christ would rule forever, but I don't see any connection between an everlasting kingdom promised by God to Christ and how this kingdom implies everlasting life.

Brenbentondiaz:
What Jesus was actually saying there is not your interpretation of it. What He meant was that of all men born of women (ie, of all men before Jesus came, such as prophets of old etc), John was the greatest. Now the least in the kingdom of Heaven is greater than John. Who are these? They are those that are not born of women, but those that are "born of the Spirit". He was saying there that the lowest Christian is greater than even any of the old time prophets, because whereas the Holy Spirit used to come upon them for specific duties, the Holy Spirit is always in us as children of God.

This is nice, but your interpretation is incorrect. First off, let's take a look again, so we understand Jesus opinion of John. Maybe I should quote the preceding verses. For context, John sent disciples to ask if Jesus was the messiah. When the disciples left, Jesus began talking about John to the crowd. This quotation is from the NLT.

7 “What kind of man did you go into the wilderness to see? Was he a weak reed, swayed by every breath of wind? 8 Or were you expecting to see a man dressed in expensive clothes? No, people with expensive clothes live in palaces. 9 Were you looking for a prophet? Yes, and he is more than a prophet. 10 John is the man to whom the Scriptures refer when they say,

‘Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you,
and he will prepare your way before you.’

11 “I tell you the truth, of all who have ever lived, none is greater than John the Baptist. Yet even the least person in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he is! 12 And from the time John the Baptist began preaching until now, the Kingdom of Heaven has been forcefully advancing

There would never be another human saddled with John's responsibility. John is a prophecy of Jesus. A forerunner of Jesus. He had the Spirit of God in him. When Jesus talked of - all men born of women - he is talking of the human race; he meant all men whether rich or poor, wise or foolish, godly or ungodly, and most importantly born of flesh or born of the Spirit. All men should be understood as all who ever lived. You are the one making distinctions, not Jesus.