Joagbaje:

What else do you expect of these guys? Lets ask few questions

Do they go to church,
Do they have a local assembly of worship
Do they have a pastor
Do they walk in the love of God
Do they know the peron of the holy spirit
Are they filled with the spirit

The answer is No. What else can one expect from such. Thats why they can make a sport of attacking churches. [\quote]

I really think these are important questions these folks need to answer to, then we can know what to make out of their posts and the angle from which they are looking at issues. Because this is very important in the light of scriptures.
The Bible talks about  fellowship in Hebrews 10:25.

In Acts 4:23 we see the disciples going to their own company- brethren with whom they had fellowship with. If you study your Bible very well you will see different gatherings and fellowships, the Bible talks about their meeting from house to house.

The Bible talks about order as well. See 1 Cor 12:28- And God hath set some in the church, first, , secondarily, , thirdly,  God is not the author of confusion. The Bible says He gave some, apostle; and some prophets; and some, evangelists; and some pastors and teachers; for,  Eph 4:11

nlMediator:

What I'm beginning to notice in christians is a curious habit of choosing what to believe, finding scriptures that support it, and explaining away anything to the contrary - using any convenient excuse. The good thing, though, is that many of such people are well-intentioned.

1. On salvation, has it occurred to you that multitudes were saved even before Paul received his own salvation, much less the revelation about Rom. 10: 9-10?

2. When Jesus spoke to Peter about building His Church and the gates of hell would not prevail, what Church was that? Where was Paul then? Is the revelation on which the Church would be built unique to Paul, so much that everybody had to wait till Paul got saved, got revelation and shared with us?

3. Was Paul the only person that taught on righteousness for believers?

4. Was it Paul that told us that we hare a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a unique people , . .

The funny thing is that many of you are quick to quote Peter and James when it suits you but discard them when you can hide under Paul to achieve whatever purpose you're looking at at that moment.

Interesting that God chose to reveal baby food to the rest of the NT writers and strong meat exclusively to Paul, but He didn't bother to tell us that, so that new believers would know to focus on those foods and as they mature move on to Paul. God had to wait for you guys to catch that revelation and reveal to the rest of us.

And to what purpose? To divide His Word?

Enigma:

^^^ AH, are you the one waiting or we are the ones waiting for you?

In the first place, would you be able to get the church out of the charge of receiving --- considering they should have had suspicions at the time of receiving the stuff?

I was only helping your legal skills by showing you that even apart from receiving ----- e.g. say you insist the church did not know of Agada's crimes at the time it received the money/properties ----- what about when they were then notified that Agada had stolen them[/i/}

Further refusal to return the money/property [i]even at that "later" stage means they could be prosecuted as accessories after the fact.

They did not teach you that much in University/law school?

Enigma:

^^^Look, go and sit down one side for now.

First I want your lawyer to decide whether he wants to pursue this on law (because I actually still have things in reserve for him) or whether he wants to pursue the "spiritual/reasonableness" angle.


@ Barr Rich the lawyer, have you also heard of "accessory after the fact"?

Enigma:

Alright, if that is your case, counsellor.

If you were a good and well trained lawyer, you should have spotted that there are actually stronger defences that could be made legally/technically for Oyakhilome/the "church" but I reckon you couldn't spot them because you are a rookie. I would have actually made a concession if you had spotted one of them ----- in that if I was defending the "church"/Oyakhilome in an actual criminal trial I would most probably secure a "not guilty" verdict i.e. an acquittal on technical grounds.


YES!!!!! I am saying if a person who apparently cannot afford it "sows" a seed worth 4.4 into a "church", the "church" should ask questions!

Enigma:

^^
OK

At the time Agada donated a generator worth 4.4m to the headquarters of Christ Embassy, the church (including Oyakhilome who was aware and wrote a letter of thanks to Agada and his wife) ought to have known that Agada, an ordinary cashier, could not by his own means afford to "sow" such a "seed".

Remember he also made other donations to the headquarters including chairs or money for chairs. Reasonable people would or should have raised eyebrows and ask where and how he could afford all of these. Remember further that Agada made several (and was even asked for) other large donations about the same time.

Use your sense for a minute: if your young brother who is just a company cashier says he wants to "dash" you 2m naira, you will not ask how he can afford it?[\quote]

Enigma,

You have to understand that christianity does not appeal to reason. If you believe in miracle, then you will know it doesn't appeal to reason. Christ Embassy is a church with a very large followership as a result of which Pastor Chris will not be expected to know everybody physically.

Now, somebody made a giving which got to his knowledge and the church did him a letter. What I believe you are trying to say is that, Pastor Chris should have investigated the person that did the giving to know the kind of job he does and how he came across such an amount. Haba Enigma, if you are a Christian I expect you to be more spiritual and less reasonable, because Christianity is a spiritual life and not a reasonable one. Thank you.

Enigma:

^^
OK

At the time Agada donated a generator worth 4.4m to the headquarters of Christ Embassy, the church (including Oyakhilome who was aware and wrote a letter of thanks to Agada and his wife) ought to have known that Agada, an ordinary cashier, could not by his own means afford to "sow" such a "seed".

Remember he also made other donations to the headquarters including chairs or money for chairs. Reasonable people would or should have raised eyebrows and ask where and how he could afford all of these. Remember further that Agada made several (and was even asked for) other large donations about the same time.[\quote]


Ok, let's look at it this way:
the issue of reasonableness does not arise in things that have to do with God. A miracle is not reasonable, is it?
Christ Embassy is not a small church wherein Pastor Chris should know everybody and what they do. Somebody made a giving to church, and the church wrote him a letter, what's the big deal about this fact. Or are you saying immediately he did the giving, Pastor Chris should have called for him and find out how he got the money? Where he worked?
Haba Enigma, at least, let's be a little bit spiritual even if we are reasonable. Christianity is not a reasonable life but a spiritual one, sir.

The important elements here are that, you must have ‘received’ the property in question and also have ‘knowledge’ of the fact that the property so received was stolen. To constitute ‘receiving’, it is sufficient if you are in actual (physical) possession of the stolen property or if it can be deemed that you are in possession (by virtue of the fact that the stolen property is in possession of someone over whom you have control or authority), either alone or in conjunction with others, or if you have aided the disposal or concealment of such property. See R v. Osakwe [1963] All N.L.R. 362.

In the same vein, knowledge that the property is stolen is required before you can be guilty of the offence. You will however be deemed to have such knowledge if judging from circumstances of the case, a reasonable man ought to have suspected the property in question to have been stolen, for example where the property in question is sold at a ridiculously low price. See R. v. Braimah (1943) W.A.C.A. 197.[quote/]



I think I have responded to this line of argument of yours, but for the sake of clarification I will just add this.
In proving an offence of receiving stolen goods or property as the case may be, two basic elements need to be established and those were the elements you quoted in your post.
One, the property in question was stolen.
Two, which is very important, is the knowledge of the fact that the money was stolen on the part of the person receiving the stolen money AT THE TIME of receiving the money.
I have stated before, that the letter you earlier quoted purportedly written by Mr. Agada, upon which you are infering knowledge on the part of the church, was written after he was caught, NOT AT THE TIME he was donating the money to the church.
To prove that the recipient had knowledge, you must show that at the time when the said donations were being made, there was knowledge on the part of the recipient that the money was stolen.
A wholistic view of everything you said lend credence to this assertion. Thanks.

Enigma:

^^^

OK, set out what you would like clarification upon and I'll see how i can help you.

Section 427 of the Criminal Code thus makes receiving anything which has been obtained through the commission of crime also a crime. It is immaterial that the property was not obtained through such a crime in Nigeria. This offence is itself geared towards discouraging stealing and protection of property. Under the Penal Code receiving stolen property is covered by section 316.

According to you:
The claims that he did not know that the goods in question were stolen falls flat, because it is clearly established that this was brought to his attention:

how?
You quoted this:

In Agada’s letter to Oyakhilome made available to Newswatch, he informed the pastor formally that he removed funds belonging to Sheraton Hotel to the tune of N39 million. He said he used the money for “various projects and seeding and blessing of brethren in the church without due authorisation from my organisation.
 
As a reasonable man that you claim to be, you should know that whatever letter the said Mr. Agada had written to Pastor Chris couldn't have come at the same time as when he was giving the said money to the Church, from which a reasonable man can safely infer that the church had knowledge of the fact that the money was stolen. 
You should know that the said letter was written after he had given the money and maybe subsequently arrested by the police. 
So your argument that Pastor Chris is deemed to have had knowledge that the money was stolen flies over the face of every reasonable person.



In the same vein, knowledge that the property is stolen is required before you can be guilty of the offence. You will however be deemed to have such knowledge if judging from circumstances of the case, a reasonable man ought to have suspected the property in question to have been stolen, for example where the property in question is sold at a ridiculously low price. See R. v. Braimah (1943) W.A.C.A. 197.




According to you:


Moreover Chris Oyakhilome can. . .be deemed to have such knowledge if judging from circumstances of the case, a reasonable man ought to have suspected the property in question to have been stolen. Certainly common sense not to talk of the Holy Spirit would have told Chris that as a cashier with no visible other source of income, Agada certainly could not be in a position to afford such "sowing". A genuine pastor will ask questions but the greedy and rapacious lupine that is Chris deliberately and willfully ignored this.

I have told you before that according to the Bible our riches are not supplied by the job we do, but by Christ Jesus.
What do you mean by a genuine pastor?
I can tell you that a genuine pastor is the Pastor that believes in miracles for his members not the one that will tell his members during offering time to line up with their offerings and begin to question the source of their income. Thank you.

aletheia:

I doubt if you are indeed a lawyer. I find it suspicious that all your posts to date are on threads relating to the Chist Embassy cult.
A receiver of stolen goods who knowingly takes possession of such goods is equally liable. . .such a one can not lay claim to being a man of God. Scripture disqualifies him.Your argument skips over the part of the law that defines a receiver of stolen property as equally guilty as the actual thief to quibble about procedure. . .pathetic. You keep such for when you appear before the Judge. As it is the story of Agada did not happen in a corner. Christ Embassy did not deny that they receiveswd stolen money and property. . .and by the laws of the land and basic morality (even a politician like Obama returned tainted money) your man Chris Oyakhilome is a thief.

Earlier, Enigma referred you to the relevant portions of the penal code. Do you think it was not noticed how you disappeared only to surface now. Here are the relevant portions you "piss-poor" example of a lawyer:

Here is what Lawrence Agada did:Here is how Chris Oyakhilome broke the law and became a thief and a felon:

aletheia:

The prophets of Mammon and disciples of Balaam are at it again. . .trying to pull the wool over our eyes. [size=14pt]Chris Oyakhilome is a thief according to the Laws of Nigeria[/size]:

How do I know that Chris Oyakhilome is a thief;
1) The goods in question were stolen and he took possession of them:

2) The claims that he did not know that the goods in question were stolen falls flat, because it is clearly established that this was brought to his attention:

Moreover Chris Oyakhilome can. . .be deemed to have such knowledge if judging from circumstances of the case, a reasonable man ought to have suspected the property in question to have been stolen. Certainly common sense not to talk of the Holy Spirit would have told Chris that as a cashier with no visible other source of income, Agada certainly could not be in a position to afford such "sowing". A genuine pastor will ask questions but the greedy and rapacious lupine that is Chris deliberately and willfully ignored this.

3) Even the pastor of the Ifako branch was willing to do the right thing but for. . .

So I maintain that not only is Chris Oyakhilome a thief but he is a modern Pharisee who so loves money:

---

aletheia:

Let me break it down for you nepios;
If someone steals money and gives it to you, and you refuse to return it after it is shown to you that it is stolen then you are also a thief.

(1 Tim 5:22) Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.
By receiving stolen money and refusing to return it, Oyakhilome has taken part in Agada's stealing. . .so he's a thief. Come to think of it: you lot claim he's the next best thing to Jesus, how come he lacked the discernment to know the goods were stolen. . .certainly we can compare him to Peter in the case of Ananias and Sapphira. The difference is clear. You may also wish to ponder the words of Jesus concerning so-called "gifts to God".

Chris Oyakhilome is a thief.

frosbel:

[size=13pt]This what happens, when you preach ONLY about MONEY , WEALTH and FAME.]

I understand what you are saying, that is, that you have not been listening to the messages. Also it also shows a tenacity in you to always display your dislike for success. I would advise that you go and listen to the messages and I believe very strongly that your will reach a right conclusion. Thanks

frosbel:

[size=13pt]This what happens, when you preach ONLY about MONEY , WEALTH and FAME.

This shows that you have not listened to the messages, and it also show your unbridled tenacity to always display your dislike for success. I would advise that you make proper research before drawing conclusions and posting same here. Thanks.