₦airaland Forum

Blessings TV01. Sometimes there's just no need for long explanations - using the Word makes it simpler.

Alexos:
Look, If a man steals a sweet and another commits adultery, When Judgment come, they will all face the same consiquencies.

Under the Mosaic Law -

Exo. 20:14 >> Thou shalt not commit adultery. Exo 20:15 >> Thou shalt not steal.

Stealing
Exo. 22:1, 4 >> If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. . . If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double.

Committing Adultery
Lev. 20:10 >> And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.


In the NT.

1 John 5:16-17 >>
^[a]If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death.

^[b]There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

hrvesthrt:
When you go to the grocery store to buy food, you pay for it. The store can not give you the food without you paying for it or it would go out of business. The church is the same way, if you are getting fed from the word, you should contribute to pay the expenses of what it costs to run a church.

I'm not one who's usually in the business of pointing out things, but as a Christian it becomes necessary to make inputs where I feel persuaded otherwise on issues like this. The church is not the same as any business outfit, and God's Word makes that clear. Sample -

". . . men who are corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth, who imagine that godliness or righteousness is a source of profit [a moneymaking business, a means of livelihood]. From such withdraw." (I Tim. 6:5 - Amp.).

hrvesthrt:
Our church runs about 300 people a week and it is not cheap. The electric, water, mortage, repairs, music equipment, and don't let me get started on insurance, they are not donated to the church for free. Lots of people want to come to church and enjoy the service, listen to the music, and enjoy the air conditioning while sitting in their cushioned seats but they turn their noses up to tithing. I have seen these same people demand hours on end of the pastorial staff but when there is a bbq or something being given away for free, they are first in line.

2 Cor. 11:7 - Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely?

hrvesthrt:
Tithing is paying for what you are being fed right now. If you don't go to church you are not obligated to pay tithes, but you are starving yourself of the word. If you listen to the word on tv or the radio that is where you are being fed and you should tithe toward those ministries.

Matt. 10:8 - Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

1 Cor. 9:18 - What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

Tithing was never meant in any way to be payment for services rendered.

I Timothy 6:5

(BBE) - Bitter talk of men who, being evil in mind and dead to what is true, take the faith to be a way of making profit.

(CEV) - and nasty quarrels. They have wicked minds and have missed out on the truth. These people think religion is supposed to make you rich.

(GNB) - and constant arguments from people whose minds do not function and who no longer have the truth. They think that religion is a way to become rich.

(HCSB) - and constant disagreement among men whose minds are depraved and deprived of the truth, who imagine that godliness is a way to material gain.

(MSG) - Eventually there's an epidemic of backstabbing, and truth is but a distant memory. They think religion is a way to make a fast buck.

(Amp) - And protracted wrangling and wearing discussion and perpetual friction among men who are corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth, who imagine that godliness or righteousness is a source of profit [a moneymaking business, a means of livelihood]. From such withdraw.

Let me be the first to applaud that, and my unreserved apologies to you and everyone else where I might have spun off.

God be praised.

Mystique:
There is no where in the bible where sins are graded,

"And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven." (Luke 12:10).

"Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." (John 19:11).

"If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death." (1 John 5:16-17).

(a) There is a sin unto death (b) and there is a sin not unto death.

"And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree" (Deut. 21:22).

"Wherefore the sin of the young men was very great before the LORD: for men abhorred the offering of the LORD" (1 Sam 2:17).

"If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him?" (1 Sam. 2:25).

"For he rent Israel from the house of David; and they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king: and Jeroboam drave Israel from following the LORD, and made them sin a great sin." (2 Kings 17:21).

And truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ - 1 John.1:3

Well, I wouldn't know how to address your enquiry other than to point out that God's Word in very fact indicates the difference and magnitude in sins. The ultimate consequence may be the same in terms of eternal separation from God - if the sin is unrepented of before the death of the person involved.

There again, you may be persuaded that every sin is forgiveable under God's eyes; but does that include the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? I don't think one can argue round the words of the Lord Jesus. There are clearly sins that are forgiveable as long as the person involved repents and seeks God's mercy. However, that should not make anyone disregard the warning and distinction God makes in His Word about "forgiveable" and "unforgiveable" sins.

When you begin to address the issue from the perspective of how sins are dealt with in both the OT and NT, you see there are differences in earthly and eternal consequences. I would rather offer that we take time to look more closely in what the Scriptures directly stipulate than be carried along by our personal reasonings. Blessings.

Well, that's because the Lord Jesus clearly made a distinction between sins, when in John19:11 we read: "Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin."

It was bad enough that Pilate pressumed to exercise judicial power over the divine Son of God for no sin in Him; but it was even worse that someone should deliver Him to be condemned to death without a conviction of sin.

Besides, as we have seen, there are some sins which could be forgiven; and others which have no forgiveness. It's not really up to us to form arbitrary rules for codifying them - rather, God's Word has demonstrated this distinction between the types of sins anyone could commit and their consequences.

Lol, Softee. . . I'd rather the question was rephrased as kamsy has it. You don't want to know how to sin against the holy Spirit; rather, it would be better to know what it is to sin against Him. Let's quote the text that underscores what the Lord Jesus meant by this -

Mark 3:28-30
Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit. (compare the other passages in Matt. 12:24-32 and Luke 12:10).

The religious leaders of the day accused Jesus of casting out demons by the prince of demons - Beelzebub (see Mark 3:22). In the text above, we learn that the Lord spoke those words to them about the terrible sin of blasphemy against the holy Ghost for one reason - "Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit." Thus, to refer to God's holy Spirit as an unclean spirit is a terrible sin and constitutes blasphemy against Him.

May God Himself keep our hearts and minds from this terrible sin.

@ISAHO,

Malik has not claimed on Nairaland that he knew everything while he was a muslim, has he? And his mentioning it at all only helps strengthen his persuasions about what he states. Does it matter at all? Well, maybe it doesn't - just as it wouldn't really matter for you to state that you were not born a Muslim - why mention it at all then?

However, I don't know much about Islam, nor do I know everything about Christianity even though I am a Christian (does it matter that I say so?). The point is, what really has m4malik said that is not fact? Negative words, we don't encourage - but stating the obvious, it seems most likely that's what he's been doing.

@Bobbyaf,

This could easily have been settled with one sentence - "I'm sorry that's not what I meant" or something like that. All I read in your comeback is an attempt to justify your wrong, and you remind me of just one line in Scripture - "For he addeth rebellion unto his sin, he clappeth his hands among us, and multiplieth his words against God" (Job 34:37). There is no provocation too great as to push you to directly say what you said about God, because there was absolutely nothing in 4get_me's post to have suggested that at all. I was gobsmacked when I read it at first, but kept my cool until others saw it. It was not too much for others to apologise where they've been misread (m4malik and 4get_me have done that previously on the Forum), but you obviously are too big to humble yourself simply because you can't see eye to eye with nobody.

And I don't see any "untruth" in 4get_me's post for you to perennially write off all he said. You may not like him, that's okay. Your attitude should not go so far as to direct irreverence at God because you want to make a point. He did not make God look stupid - you did. I don't need to ask your explanations for any sarcasm as long as you feel it's your forté; and if you complain about an alarm, then understand that you created it in the first place. You talk of Christ-like approach, but how have you demonstrated it with your sarcasm under the claim that someone was making God look stupid in your own misunderstanding?

Like I said before, debating an issue is one thing; being careless in thought and speech is quite a different matter - especially when such speech is irreverent. If you want to keep on being sarcastic, you certainly don't need to tell us about it - just please yourself.

Just so that we don't misunderstand Paul's blasphemy in I Tim. 1:13, let's look at what the Lord Jesus said -

"Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." (Matt. 12:31).

"And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven." (Luke 12:10).

Question: which 'blasphemy' was Paul refering to in I Tim. 1:13? It is clear that he did not blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, but as we read in Acts, he was blasphemous against Christ. With contempt and reproaches, He had reviled the name of Christ in opposing Him, His Church and His cause, not previously believing that He was the Messiah. This is indeed clear in Acts 26:9-11 where he gave his testimony to the fact -

I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.

So, in context, Paul was not blaspheming against the Holy Ghost, but against the name of Jesus Christ - and he did it in ignorance as in 1 Tim. 1:13.

Not every sin brings eternal damnation, and that is clear in God's Word. Thieves, prostitutes and liars have been forgiven after repenting; but no repentance secures forgiveness when one commits the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost.

Paul was a blasphemer and was forgiven (I Tim. 1:13); most of the Corinthian Christians were fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners - but God forgave, washed, sanctified and justified them after they had repented and believed in Jesus Christ (I Cor. 6:9-11).

A small sin is as heinous as a big one, and as 4get_me said, we should not excuse any sin on the notion that it is 'forgiveable'. If I stole as much as a fiver and another stole as small as a 5p, if we don't repent of that sin and excuse it away, judgement is sure. May God help us to pursue after righteousness and shun the idea of petty thefts.

Bobbyaf:
Are you saying that God is stupid? It must be since it was He who instituted the day for our good.

I can't believe what I'm reading. In trying to prove a point one has to call God "stupid", and even emphatically state that 'It must be'? This is a very serious matter, and God Himself will deal with the one who calls Him stupid.

My dear 4get_me, you've done a very good job in both laying out the mind of God about this matter and offering that people be careful what they say. Leave the rest to God.

@lordimpaq, the scriptures are clear enough and you don't have to worry about the sabbath days - it was given to the Jews, and if you read carefully again the clear outline in 4get_me's posts, you can't miss the point. God bless.

@syrup & TayoD, you've both tried as well; but if someone would not be humble enough to see what God says, no point trying to keep up the argument. God bless for your entries.

@GL and babyosisi, keep up the good work.

@Bhola, you surprise me, but I've had to humble myself and join hands with you in that prayer. May God bless you for that, because I was wondering what to think ever since I read that serious mishap.

People, debating an issue is one thing; being careless in thought and speech is quite a different matter. May God help us all to revere His name. Amen.

Since it's not your message, perhaps you may not be in a position to answer some of the questions I may have about the message. All the same, happy Easter.

Seun, could you help me? I'm not able to access the "Christianity for Christians" child board. I keep clicking on it but it juts virtually keeps returning to the Religion Forum .TY.

Could someone please tell me how to access the "Christianity for Christians" child board? I'm not getting thru. TY

Easter Greetings.

There's no need for you to get acrid and call the Bible ambiguous or accuse anyone of double standards. It is true believers are as guilty as charged - we love the Bible, and if you don't, no qualms. 

That Jesus said "I am not of this world" in John 8:23 does not make Him an alien, madam. How is this so? Well, look carefully at Reverend's description of an alien:

Reverend:
Let's say that the creator of our universe ( the metaphoric god) is a planet or a first universe. After the creation of man on the earth he decides man needs some direction and sends over a human projection of himself at the speed of light to artificially inseminate a women of good morals(Mary). The son is born does a world of good and then sacrafices himself. He disappears after the body is put in the cave by coverting into light and traveling back to the creation part of the universe (heaven).

Could Jesus be an alien?

- he calls the creator of the universe a planet or a first universe.

  - he next calls his own version of 'Jesus' a human projection of this planet-creator; that is, his own jesus is also a planet!

  - next, Reverend's 'jesus' converts into light after he was put into the cave and disappears.

And then he asks: "Could Jesus be an alien?"

As far as the Bible is concerned, Reverend is preaching "another Jesus" and a "different gospel" by "another spirit" (II Cor. 11:4). So, it is very possible that Reverend's own 'jesus' is an alien. Afterall, he has written so well about how that 'Jesus' of his own creation had his/its private parts rubbed by one kinky mary magdaline, and whose 'holy jism' flowed unto her according to his 'gospel' in kmab 34:1 (not the Bible).

It may look like John 8:23 gives you the idea of an alien. Slow down. If that is true, then you're making Christian believers 'aliens' by some verses in the same John that you probably overlooked -

       "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." (John 17:16) 

       "As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world." (John 17:18)

       "I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world,
        even as I am not of the world." (John 17:14).

You can see here that the Biblical Jesus refers to believers as 'not of the world' even as He was not of the world. Does that make us aliens by Reverend's definition? Perhaps, out of spite and prejudice a lot of people would just want to chorus "yes". If that is so, then I guess by the same standard, everyone is an alien according to the same John that you quoted -

      "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1:9) 

'Every man' is a generic term used for both men and women - everybody. So, since everybody "comes into the world" at one point or the other, should that not make them aliens as well by the same rule? We should be conscientious enough to see where Reverend was going with his lollygag philosophy: he wanted to make everyone - including you - aliens! He may come up and deny this, but that would just be begging the question.

There you have it - Reverend's 'Jesus' (maybe I'll call him/it "R_Js" may be an alien; and like I said before, he has as much right as anyone else on Nairaland to preach whatever version of his own 'Jesus' he feels like - that doesn't change the message of the Biblical Jesus Christ, the Son of God:

                     This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners;
                     of whom I am chief. - I Tim. 1:15.

With love and Easter greetings, Bari_kade. 

larger_20:
NO he is not. U cannot classify him for he is divine. Dont get too scientific here

My dear larger_20, please calm down. . .lol.

They have a right to preach about their own version of "Jesus" even if he/she/it is an alien and hugely different from the Biblical Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Reverend's "Jesus" is a cannabis Jesus, . . . a kinky Jesus, and now an alien on this page. Reverend even suggested that his 'Jesus' was a sinner that allowed Mary Magdaline to rub his private parts as discussed here! Who knows what next he would tell us about this "Jesus" of the kinkychurch? Scroll up again and you'll notice that his own "God" is a metaphoric god as well as a planet. So, you shouldn't blow hot or cold about anything here - Reverend has the right to say anything he wants about his own version of his kinky Jesus - which is nothing in resemblance to the Biblical Jesus Christ.

Oh, BTW, just incase you're wondering, here is what the Bible says about the type of "Jesus" he is preaching about here:

"For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you
receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel
from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. [II Cor. 11:4]

"And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise
if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will
correspond to their deeds. [II Cor. 11:14-15]

Let him ride on: he has as much right here as anyone else to preach his 'alien Jesus', . . .'cannabis Jesus', . . .'kinky Jesus' whose private parts mary magdaline rubbed according to his sacred book - kmab.34:1. This is not the same authentic Jesus that saved me, the One who is God's holy Son, Who loved me and gave Himself for me - Gal. 2:20. "Their end will correspond to their deeds."

9ijaMan:
I beg your pardon. There is nothing like a secular Muslim. It's either you are a muslim or not. I'd appreciate it if you stop referreing to me as being secular.

9ijaMan,

Call it whatever else you like - there is such a thing as a secular Muslim and they number into the millions in the same 'West' that the 'Middle East' Muslims are trying to 'beleaguer' and kill for Allah's cause [Sura 9:5]. "It's either you are a muslim or not." Just listen to yourself. It's just a matter of nomenclature, if you like, and the ideology of secular Islamism is well carried by facts on the ground just as well the idea of 'conservative Muslims'. Just a sampler: you'll find that such terms as "Euro-Islam" have been coined by Muslim scholars themselves to describe this paradigm shift that you seem to be largely ignorant of. Let me quote you a few lines from a non-partisan website (Council on Foreign Relations) as an example:

Do Muslims in Europe practice the same kind of faith as Muslims in their home countries?

"Home-grown imams, shipped to Europe, have tried to guarantee that they do, experts say. But leading thinkers like Bassam Tibi of Germany's University of Gottingen, and Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss-born intellectual and grandson of the founder of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, argue that Muslims in Europe must create a specific form of Islam that can coexist with European values. Tibi coined the term "Euro-Islam" to describe a type of Islam that embraces Western political values, such as pluralism, tolerance, and the separation of church and state."

[Scroll down the page and get the gist here http://www.cfr.org/publication/8252/europe.html?breadcrumb=default ]

I'll respect your wish not to be called a secular Muslim; but your wish does not change the facts on ground - there are many Muslims pushing for a reform and relaxing of certain ideas expressed in the Qur'an because they don't promote the fundamentals of the ideals of peaceful and neighbourly co-existence between people of diverse cultures and outlook. I could reference a few more websites that are not connected to CNN if you so require of me; however, you might as well take a peek at some ideas of secular Islam in this link: http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/3976 .

Even when you make analogies, you often forget that the scales are tipped for Islam more than for Christianity. Christians have never openly attacked or harrassed Muslims for carrying their Qur'an in Christian dominated regions or countries (again, the West and Europe), but what happens to Christians who might be sighted with their Bibles in Muslim dominated regions or countries like Saudi Arabia? You might not be aware of the real world beyond your immediate geographic space, and that is forgiveable. If there were enough of your type who don't wink at the cruelty displayed by those 'Muslims' commonly referred to as 'extreme', the northern Nigerian madness started by Muslims themselves upon non-Muslims would not have occured in the first place. Perhaps you ought to ask those fellows if they were secular or conservative 'Euro-Islamic' Muslims.

teju oso:
could people stop looking for some evidence to judge jesus,

The sad fact is that there is no evidence for most of what they postulate - unless they fabricate the 'evidence', which is what they often do.

Jer. 29:11 "For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end."

Father, You know all things and nothing takes you by surprise. Thank you for today, we give you praise.
We ask that your thoughts may abide with us as a nation - that we may enjoy the peace we long for from you alone, and that the evil we have seen the past month have no bearing in our future history. In Jesus' Name.

Amen.

Reverend,

Your threads call for my dogged responses for several reasons: (a) some people who might not have answers would wonder if there's any substance in the case you make for sex, drugs and violence; (b) the image of Jesus Christ that you are projecting is neither biblical nor historical; (c) the ideas you ensconce are clearly neither Biblical nor Christian even though you dress them up in biblical language and terminology; and (d) non-Christians and other seekers who have not read the Bible face the danger of taking your word for it and running away with the ideas you promote.

First it was the push for masturbation and sex; now it is making a case for cannabis and drugs; heaven knows what next you would be pushing for - violence and social turbulence? The one thing that is obvious in your projects is that you fastidously appeal to sources outside the Bible while pretending your ideas are based on Scripture authority. For one thing, you have shown in other threads that you don't take the Bible seriously; and in the same way, no one ought to take anything you advance seriously - because they are not based on the one Book you repudiate.

Professor Carl Ruck's thinking is awash in untenable ideologies. Let's ask a common sense question: If "Christ was anointed with chrism, a cannabis-based oil, that caused his spiritual visions", why then hasn't the Professor produced the same results as Christ Himself as recorded in the Bible? Why hasn't the Professor raised the dead, walked on water, healed the sick, fed multiplied thousands with a few loaves - by using the same cannabis and oil that he supposed Christ must have been anointed with? Besides, if it was true that cannabis was the ingredient for Jesus' visions, anyone would be able to replicate His works - and so could you. Where are your works of healing, raising the dead, and greater visions - in just the same way as Christ did? The so-called authorities (like Prof. Ruck) you appeal to in your writeups have no established evidence or credence for their postulations; they merely dream up the psychotic fictions that sound so appealing to you that often you forget this fact.

The whole system you're advertising falls flat on its face when tested in the light of Scripture. More than anything, it sounds like you're looking for just any excuse to indulge - in sex, cannabis, and __(heaven help you)__ violence, when you can find the excuse for that. As you often say, "it is the modern prejudice against drugs (or masturbation, illicit sex, _and some day_[i]violence[/i] would be on your list) that has stopped us looking for it." May I suggest to you that you're looking for real life and joy in the wrong places. Prof. Ruck and others like him have no evidence for their fancied ideas, and it's unfortunate that you're building your convictions on that sham.

A casual reader of the New Testament will not fail to notice this one indispensable fact about Jesus' ministry: He was anointed with the Holy Spirit (not with cannabis-enriched oil). This is the testimony that runs through the pages of God's word and if Prof. Carl Ruck missed that, he is sure to miss everything.

Act 10:38 - "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him."

The historical and Biblical Jesus is neither a sex pervert nor a cannabis hippie. And before you go about trying to advocate the third recommendation in Prof. Ruck's lollygag philosophy, please understand that you will not find Jesus represented as an icon of extreme liberalism in sociopolitical attitudes and lifestyles. If otherwise, you'd need more than a professor's psychotic fancies or postulations that have no clear historical antecedents.

nferyn,

Sometimes, I wonder that those who deny the existence of God would make recourse to statements by atheists of yester-years without first checking out what they're quoting. "From Hebrew it's translated into Arabic, from Arabic to Latin, from Latin to Greek, from Greek to Russian _ _" is an example of how bogus some of these ideas are, and whoever said that obviously knew nothing of the facts on ground before letting his mouth shoot in a thousand directions. The original languages in which the Bible was written are Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. And if atheists are convinced that God does not exist, could they kindly advance tangible evidence for that idea - not mere complaints against religion and faith.

That's why I offered that if the first caller intended to discuss atheism, he should plainly say so, then we can pick it up from there.