₦airaland Forum

1. When did Paul say healing shall ceased?

since paul testifies that 'all these gifts' are of the same Spirit and 'for the profit of all' below, gifts of healings by the same Spirit


1 Corinthians 12:4-10


4 There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: 8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, [/b]10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.

he further affirm somethingthat will never fail;'only love'

1 cor 138-9;
8 [b]Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away

every other gifts except love will fail.

more comments coming!

@ christemmbassey

pls be very clear, do es God still heal in today's chvrch tro a believer who has the gift of healing or beƙieves in healing?thanks for trowing more lights on Mark16:17-18. God bless.

thank you for seeking my comment or opinion on that;

but let me tell you something now, i dont base my faith on Mark16:17-18, why? you would ask me, because, im convinced with a bigger picture of a better miracles, but the miracles earlier performed by jesus and disciples/apostles where are those people now? dead!

but rather im expecting a parmanent solution to all mankinds problem, which will not further expose them to exploits, see what im saying here;

Isaiah 33:24

24 [size=14pt]And the inhabitant will not say, “I am sick”;
The people who dwell in it will be forgiven their iniquity[/size].

Thats why jesus says that 'we should pray for Gods kingdom' where his will be done'

Matthew 6:9-11

9 “This, then, is how you should pray:

“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10 your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.

the world itself is passing away........but those doing Gods will, will have the benefit of the kingdom.

physical Healing today HAS CEASED now! as predicted by paul and denied by jesus as a requrement. i stand to be corrected.

Now,so far we have gone, before we are back to the topic,

The topic was diverted to the issue of contradiction by one 'omonuan,' and later he abandoned contradictions to 'the elusive truth' thereby leading the tread nowhere, after evading my last post which directly answers his question starting with mathew and lukes camparative reports on jesus temptation, i realised that he lacks patience to defend one by one some of his stated allegations. i intend to treat further on that if he is ready too if posible to create another tread so as not to mess up the tread for others.

back to the topic,

Mark 16:17:18;

17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;

18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

There is no record that early Christians either drank poison or handled serpents to prove [/b]they were believers.

jesus says that miracles/signs and wonders were NOT THE REQUIREMENT for gaining Gods favor or entering Gods kingdom;


Mathew 7:21-22;

21 [b]“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

so, jesus himself had played down the focus on signs and wonders in mathew 7:21 above! while paul 'filled the gap' of why 'in jesus name' miracles and signs performed later will be denied by jesus himself.

paul (inspired) was explaining something that had not already been covered by “the Lord” (Jesus) while He was on earth.
lets see that;

1 Corinthians 13:8,9.


8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.

9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part.


Mathew 7:15-16;
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits.

compare (Mathew 7:15,21-22above) with 2 Corinthians 11:13-14 below

13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light


so, 1 Corinthians 13:8..... Love never fails

The only thing that works miracle today is 'love' among brethren,

mathew 7:13-14
13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

but unfortunately, few christians are practicing it, while the majority practice what can attract crown to their churches today, causing divisions and class distinctions among such members to have a material gain, material prosperity was substituted for spiritual prosperity!

but the earlier apostles practice real 'love' the rich among them will sell lands and bring the money to the apostles, and they will distribute to the needy ones in the church according to their need 'untill there is no more need'(acts 2:45) thats the love that if true church does not practice but rather engage in dubious miracles,only to attract 'high turnover' they are workers of lawlessness (mat 7:22)

This real love will keep true christians intact till the promise of jesus about the 'kingdom of God' is fufilled, the topic of the kingdom is the most umpopular because everyone is interested in what 'this life' has got to offer, and 'not' the life after ressurection, but thats the reality, Gods kingdom will truly solve all our problem 'while we patiently wait in love'

Isaiah 35:4-6

4 Say to those who are fearful-hearted,
“Be strong, do not fear!
Behold, your God will come with vengeance,
With the recompense of God;
He will come and save you.”
5[b] Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened,
And the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.
6 Then the lame shall leap like a deer,
And the tongue of the dumb sing.[/b]
For waters shall burst forth in the wilderness,
And streams in the desert.

shdemidemi:


John 10:30

New International Version (NIV)


30 I and the Father are one.”

Christ is 100% man and 100% God.

if Jesus says that i the and father are one in john 10:30, in the same book of john open further to john 17:21, while speaking to the same people jesus provides the kind of 'oneness' he is talking about, and this should be understood when he says;

john 17:21
King James Bible
"That they all may be one; as thou,[size=14pt] Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us"[/size]:

and to clear any doubt that he 'jesus is Gods servant' he went further to add this comment; ''that the world may believe that thou hast sent me"


the bible interpretes itself, the problem was from the translators who have to translate the /hebrews/greek/aramaic of bibles original manuscripts into our own language, some of these words appears only in consonants, and even the hebrew words does not have upercase and lowercase, thats why a christian tries to consider various verses and reconcile in sincerity,

thanks

@omonuan

Oh well, you spent a long space writing without really saying much regarding the issue.

Omonuan, can you see yourself now that you cant defend what you copy from other sites as a perceived 'contradiction,' it is easier to copy loads of others work and make them look like yours but i have a way of handling that;let us treat them one by one,of which i did in my last post,
The ever first querry you raised was a comparison of mathews report and luke's, and i did justice to that in a a counter reply breaking the 2 verses into ;a,b,c and d, hence Mathew=a,b and luke=c, and d. (below)

i was expecting you to be sincere and provide a counter to my reply on the same verses you started your querry with (in mathew and luke) but you simply shy away, see again, its popping up here below;

(1)

in mathew

Matthew 4:5-8:

a, Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple.

b, Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

the bolded above 'then' starting the sentence [in (a)], and also 'Again' starting the sentence [in (b)] clearly gives no holes in accomodating what preceeds the other, which means this particular account of mathew can be relied upon regarding where jesus went and proceed to another, hence 'then,' 'again' shows a continous relationship as the story unfolds.

but not the same with luke;

in luke;

you alledge that Satan took Jesus to the mountain first, then the temple.(there is nothing to suggest where comes first before the other, other than mere mentioning of the places they(jesus and the Devil) went

lets see;


c, Luke 4:5-9: The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.

d, The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple.

there is no relationship or words whatsoever that suggest a conclusion of where comes first in c and d above, rather you forcefully attach or tag 'first' to c above before d, while the sentence was with holes that could be rearranged otherwise like a and b above without problem.

i think it is better for you to leave the sentence as it was without tagging 'first' or 'second' or rather stay glued to your opinion! and allow others to have their own opinion on that

i have used the bible itself to prove even further(using luke 1:1-4) how luke(who was not an eye witness) receive his own information by relying on 'information of a trusted eye witness' which is the reason why he chose to leave his own report open(c and d)above, and not tag where jesus went first or second, but capture both events not as a 'FIR'(first information report). what else do you want? but had it been luke tagged the temple as first and mountain second, i will not argue with you, but as it stands YOU FORCED a 'first' and ''second' on the account of luke concrning the devils temptation, and thus it is misleading, so having expose you on your very first querry involving the comparism of mathew and luke above,

[b](2)[/b]Again you raise this querry below;

Paul says:
1 Corinthians 7:25
"Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful."

2 Corinthians 11:17
"That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting."

1 Corinthians 7:12
"To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her."

and see my reply below;

So why did Paul use the phrase “I, not the Lord?” Simply because he was explaining something that had not already been covered by “the Lord” (Jesus) while He was on earth. In this section of scripture Paul provides us with a beautiful example of how important it was for the Apostles to preserve and not to alter the words of Jesus.
Paul states clearly in other places, including the same letter in which this phrase is found, that the words he is writing are inspired by God.

Later in the same book(1 corinthians 14), he states very clearly: “If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s

Paul also told his disciple, Timothy that “All Scripture is God-breathed (1 tim 3:16)” This would include Paul’s words.

Even Peter alludes to Paul’s writings and refers to them as God inspired scripture.(2 Peter 3:15-16)

in all the bible doesnt contradict itself, but only honest ones will search and embrace the truth in it
but lazy ones dont, note that few will be chosen by God, so it is not by force that the bible appeals to you, ok?


Again you have failed to counter these above,maybe you think im going to give a 'blanket statement' which you may have prepared for, but no, i choose to tackle them one by one, so as it is, like in the court of law, you have to supply a counter statements with facts on my replies,while the onus is on me to supply further and further counter replies 'on a particular querry' lets pick them one by one.

dont sit 'on the fence'now, you have refer to my earlier reply as a 'spin' instead of you to counter same above with further scriptures, i understand that you are running out of gas which is laughable now. you know that i told you that you dont need to agree with me, you have already made up your mind to treat the holy scriptures older than your whole generation with disrespect maybe sitting on a sofa and reading different versions of the bible on your computer device but could not aknowledge that many had died in the course of putting these 66 books of the holy scriptures together,but despite the strong persecussion to those translators they could not stop its circulation. i have ask you to name just one book as popular and most circulated in most languges other than the bible.


one thing that im able to achieve is to get you out of your shell, and reveal your hypocrisy! you once said that you are a bible scholar, but could only copy and paste others work without beign able to defend 'each' of those allegations,and the worse yet you dont believe in the bible, why are you a so called bible scholar(maybe you just feel that anybody who can rationalise verses without getting a meaning out of it is qualified to be a scholar anyway thats your buz)

after your counter replies, i will pick the next verse ant treat it, you can also invite your co-atheists to join you or click on 'like' to encourage you, i want to engage you guys, but waiting for your couter replies on 1 and 2 above before we proceed.

@omonuan

You can call me names if you like but you cannot change the truth as it stands.

what is the truth? your opinion on this issue cannot be reffered to as the truth! because indecisive people like you sit on the fence and spend the whole lifetime in indecisiveness because they refuse to search for the truth contained in the bible but to spend the whole lifetime finding fault, maybe you can point to another inpired book other than bible that is without few things that can be easily reconciled when motivated by the appreciation of Gods word;the bible.

You may bring side issues to obfuscate the facts. However, you have failed to discredit the discrepancy of the chronology with any concrete evidence other than to alleged that the authors of Luke and Mathew were "unschooled."

thank you for admitting 'an alledge evidence' "unschooled." of which you earlier jump over in my first post, i have started to discrediting the 'alledged' discrepancy (according to you) and will still continue here

I am flabagasted that you would say this because you find it difficult to explain the contradiction.

Difficult? you feel so important because many dont give you their time to go in details, if you are the type that recycle questions after suplying answers then i think that makes you feel that you are winning, a self styled complacency.

according to your analysis of a supposed 'first event followed by the next,' can we really conclude that there were contradictions?

now lets see;


Satan took Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple, then to the mountain top.

in Mathew

Matthew 4:5-8:

a, [size=14pt]Then[/size] the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple.

b, [size=14pt]Again[/size], the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

the bolded above 'then' starting the sentence [in (a)], and also 'Again' starting the sentence [in (b)] clearly gives no holes in accomodating what preceeds the other, which means this particular account of mathew can be relied upon regarding where jesus went and proceed to another, hence 'then,' 'again' shows a continous relationship as the story unfolds.

but not the same with luke;

in luke;

you alledge that Satan took Jesus to the mountain first, then the temple.(there is nothing to suggest where comes first before the other, other than mere mentioning of the places they(jesus and the Devil) went

lets see;


c, Luke 4:5-9: The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.

d, The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple.

there is no relationship or words whatsoever that suggest a conclusion of where comes first in c and d above, rather you forcefully attach or tag 'first' to c above before d, while the sentence was with holes that could be rearranged otherwise like a and b above without problem.

i think it is better for you to leave the sentence as it was without tagging 'first' or 'second' or rather stay glued to your opinion! and allow others to have their own opinion on that

And pls remain flabagasted because i have observed that you enjoy sitting on a fence indecisively not as a measure of caution but just because you enjoy living indecisively all day

How come these people are schooled when it involves teachings you like?

this is where you are getting in wrong, i personally compare what these writers wrote and accept them as Gods inspiration to us, so that 'the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work'.(2tim 3:17)

we revered the word of God in the bible without neccesarily hanging for all our lifetime sticking to what appears a seeming error while we have other verses in the bible that explain or shed more light on an issue,instead of personalising it, for example paul explain more details about an issue under inspiration and 'not his own opinion' (i will expanciate a bit)

Paul states clearly in other places, including the same letter in which this phrase is found, that the words he is writing are inspired by God.

Later in the same book(1 corinthians 14), he states very clearly: “If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s

Paul also told his disciple, Timothy that “All Scripture is God-breathed (1 tim 3:16)” This would include Paul’s words.

Even Peter alludes to Paul’s writings and refers to them as God inspired scripture3.(2 Peter 3:15-16)

Show me any where in the Bible where it had been shown that Biblical authors of Gospel according to Mathew and Luke are "unschooled." And that unschooled authors are excused from or are incapable of telling consistent stories. While you are at it , show me where it was said that the Bible is a cipher that only zealots like you can decipher.

i only gave 'one' of the many reasons, that bible writers are not all educated, and i have showed you peter's case confirm, reasons why mathew and luke's report are not detailed the same way is the fact that they receive the gospel differently, for example, luke was not an eye witness to the event, but also have to rely on those he reffered to as 'eyewitnesses and servants of the word' in Luke 1:2-3, and still remain inspired word of God

I did not know that the Bible was written in secret codes for those who are schooled to interprete because the authors were unschooled 2500 years ago.

diversionary, who is making case for codes here? you see why it is difficult for you to reason well on poits but rather you divert, or tag another meaning to it, anyway you dont need to agree pls.

Moreover, you don't have to be schooled to tell a consistent story. If two illiterates see someone go to the pinnacle of the temple, they should report the same thing in a consistent fashion.

you are ignorant of how the events were related to them, but then there is no inconsistencies i maintain.

Now if one of them says that the person went to the mountain instead of the pinnacle of the temple, that person would be lying

none of the writers ever denied that jesus went to both the mountain and the pinnacle of the temple, but rather the one lying here is one Omonuan who chose to present a case of 'instead of' whereas both mountain and temple were all contained in both reports of mathew and luke.

you see now that you have tried changed the whole issue in that verse, have an agenda? yes you have an agenda, and thats misleading!

(2 Timothy 3:16) and here you are alleging that God inspired "unschooled" men. I guess you have a different teaching on whether God inspired the authors.

even plain scriptures cannot be understood in its context again by you? what a virus infection!

Illiterates like some okada riders, market women and even beggars in Nigeria witness crimes every day and they tell consistent stories. The biblical authors in my book are supposed to be inspired by God and therefore held to a higher standard.

see yourself, do you know how God inspire them?

Bible itself demands that we ask questions:

Proverbs 14:15
The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

Proverbs 26:25
When he speaketh fair, believe him not: for there are seven abominations in his heart.
1 Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1 John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

the bible does not say that you remain indecisive all your life, but as a measure to confirm the truth and make a good decision and not sit on the fence
unreasonable dogma.

I am Biblical scholar unlike some that have just been indoctrinated and brainwashed with facts that the pastors want to use to manipulate flocks. You are the lazy one because you allow others to provide you with a salad bar of information in the Bible they want you to buy hook, line and sinker.

it is sad that you are a Biblical scholar, yet you doubt it as Gods word, pls kindly show me a better book of bibles age and i will rest my case, im waiting pls!

Speaking of Paul here is what he said about his teachings:

Paul says:
1 Corinthians 7:25
"Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful."

2 Corinthians 11:17
"That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting."

1 Corinthians 7:12
"To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her."

So why did Paul use the phrase “I, not the Lord?” Simply because he was explaining something that had not already been covered by “the Lord” (Jesus) while He was on earth. In this section of scripture Paul provides us with a beautiful example of how important it was for the Apostles to preserve and not to alter the words of Jesus.
in all the bible doesnt contradict itself, but only honest ones will search and embrace the truth in it
but lazy ones dont, note that few will be chosen by God, so it is not by force that the bible appeals to you, ok?

@omonuan

If there are are inconsistencies found in the Bible, now how do we iignore them when we were told that God's words are pure?

because lazy people like you who breeze through points like the ones that i have discused above before will still come out with same question even when answered they cant see,but recycle questions, but for the sake of clarity, and for those who are following the tread, letme give the answer to that again;

Acts 4:13
(NIV)
13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that [size=14pt]they were unschooled, ordinary men,[/size] they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.


maybe if some of these writters are educated or schooled, they might have satisfied your request!

but then,God used them to write, God choose not to use educated ones only like paul but he choose unschooled ones to diseminate his words,

The problem that many Christians who are zealots have is that they deny the obvious making them lose credibility.

lose credibility before who? sorry, i cant even see the significance of those you are reffering to! what is the percentage of atheists? infinitestimal i think!

This is why atheist always defeat christians in an open debate because of this credibility gap.

now you are coming out to show who you really are! an atheist! but then, for you to say that atheist defeat christians in argument is a big lie, maybe a half baked christians, im unaware of,but i have handle many atheists, i have handled one 'ifeness' on this tread squarely, but in order not to derail this tread open another tread and let me engage you, or any of your atheist co-disciples,

The Bible contains lot of good teachings but it also contains some things that will make you say hmmm. We must take care not to lose sight of this fact.

bolded above is due to your inpatience! you know what? apostle paul under inspiration expose the virus that is affecting your knowledge, no wonder you and your co atheist hate gospels by paul, but sorry, lets see that virus that affects you guys,

colosians 2:8;

See to it that no one takes you captive [/b]through hollow and [b]deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition [/b]and the elemental spiritual forces of this world[b] rather than on Christ.

There is no gainsaying that Mark and Luke gave different chronology of the temptation of Christ.

according to your own opinion,and dont force it on others, chronology is not the issue here and irrelevant!reports written some 2,500 yrs ago, because if it is relevant God will not use some unschooled men to write at all! you need to see beyond that, and if you dont, you remain like those described as 'those who seek wisdom but do not know God through their wisdom' i dont expect you to understand, but to just aknowledge that your point is of no relevance!

@ omonuan

permit me to shed more light here, i left the tread some days ago,

And speaking of Jesus temptation by the satan, the Bible had contradicting stories:

it seems that you are interested in what seems like error in the bible, but you need to take enough measures into consideration;

1, you are making a case of

satan took Jesus to the mountain first, then the temple. Both stories are inconsistent

.
the issue of where is reported to be 'first' here is uncalled for, the fact that areas captured in that event of jesus and satan is just enough for someone who is a true christian and not someone with prejudice or faultfinder.

if i may ask, a book completed some 2,500 yrs ago, where were you then? how many book has survived centuries like that, and even available in your own mother tongue and the most circulated, where were the modern sophistication we have now in report writing that you are faulting the bible writters with?

now you went on to analyse below

The chronology of events lends credence to the inconsistencies.


Thus we see the progression of events in these two passages. But most intriguing is the differences between the two! In Luke, Christ is said to be in the fortieth day of temptation when the devil begins the temptations given there. In Matthew, the tempter comes to Him, with no mention of how long this temptation has been proceeding. In Luke, we have the devil tempting him to turn one stone (singular) into bread (again singular,) whereas in Matthew the devil accelerates the temptation by urging Him to turn these stones (plural) into bread (again plural.)

before you jump exegical holes to conclude above, do you think that the bible writers need to follow a perceived and popular report writing to satisfy some educated individuals to have a so called credible report? NO!

see what you need to aknowledge first about some of the bible writters, an example is apostle peter, who is also one of jesus disciple, lets see his qualification;

Acts 4:13
(NIV)
13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that [size=14pt]they were unschooled, ordinary men[/size], they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.


maybe if some of these writters are educated or schooled, they might have satisfied your request!

but then,God used them to write, God choose not to use educated ones only like paul but he choose unschooled ones to diseminate his words,

see this below too;

Acts 4:13
For since, in God's wisdom,[size=14pt] the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of the message preached.[/size]

you may not be pleased with how these writters did not meet your requirement in report writting, but someone is pleased with what seems foolish to you;

God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of the message preached

i will discuss point (2) after your response, but note that all 40 writters of the bible never wrote 'their own mind' but the are 'God breath' or inspired, and they have to use their respective lingua-franca to the best usage or limit of their ability, while true-motivated persons are satisfied with the minimum report that testifies to the truth rather than typographical errors.

@ christembbassy

Some people are saying that there is nothing like healing and the gift of healing in the church today. But the bible says- "and these rigns shall follow them that believe[size=18pt]......18.......,[/size] they will lay hands on the sick and they will recover" (Mark 16:17-18.

why do you edit the bolded portion? you quoted mark 16:17-18, but erase/edit the bolded in the same verse that you quoted,which are also part of signs that will follow them,

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18[size=18pt] They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them[/size]; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.


lets see an open manifestation of this to apostle paul;

Acts 28:4-7
Good News Translation

4 The natives saw the snake hanging on Paul's hand and said to one another, “This man must be a murderer, but Fate will not let him live, even though he escaped from the sea.” 5 But Paul shook the snake off into the fire without being harmed at all. 6 They were waiting for him to swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But after waiting for a long time and not seeing anything unusual happening to him, they changed their minds and said, “He is a god!”

we hear stories of healings today,we also see stagemanaged ones too, but in all these, we never saw a situation like the serpent foretold 'to follow them', why? lets leave maybe one believe miracle or not,im a christian but we need explanations to these above.

Who ask you?

[size=28pt]Gbam!!![/size]

@alameenLM

Now lets take it one by one to test maybe you are right or maybe bible is wrong,
and may i ask that have you personally read the two verses in (1) below, and establish the facts?

lets go;

1. Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?
*. God did *. Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)(2 Samuel 24: 1)

lets read;
2 Samuel 24:1(King James Bible)
And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number [size=14pt]Israel and Judah[/size].

God incites David to number [size=14pt]'Israel and Judah'[/size]

but in 1 Chronicles 21:1-3 Satan provoked David to number [size=14pt]'only Israel'[/size] but instead of mentioning isreal and judah, like 2 samuel 24

1 Chronicles 21:1
1And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

the issue of inciting David reported in both bible verses are NOT reffering to the same event,

why?

since isreal and judah are divided when the account of samuel was written, it will be noted that;

According to the First Book of Kings, Israel and Judah became divided when Rehoboam succeeded Solomon as king of the United Kingdom of Israel.

The northern kingdom, known as Israel, broke away under Jeroboam, thereby having separate kings, while Rehoboam continued as king of the southern kingdom of Judah.


your claim could not be established as both bible verses of (I Chronicles 2 1:1)(2 Samuel 24: 1)does not agree on both isreal and judah !

your response pls! im waiting.

i wish chelsea goodluck from this man who has soiled his reputation as a coach

@ Nieflhelm

\

1.Mourinho lost 5-0 in Spain 2.Mourinho lost home games in Spain. 3.Mourinho lost in a final in Spain.....................the myth has been shattered,the curtain in the temple of the gods has fallen to reveal a mere mortal!!!

ah! chelsea fans hates those 1-3 facts above......they can eat you 'raw' while reading it, im afraid!

Biased supporters who praise Arsene Wenger for making champions league spot ( 4th) and sack Mancini for losing the league.

of the track, who mentioned wenger mancini? are you high on something?

You can't know more than UEFA. Madrid is the highest UCL winners, 9 times.

[size=18pt]okay how many did mourinho added in 3yrs?

answer! pls[/size]

can anybody read this quote below, it sounds like recitation songs being sang by pupils;

he came and broke their dominance planting confidence in the players and making them look more fierce. I believe the players are very ungrateful and their pride and ego cost them winning a trophy this season.

did mourinho break barca's dominace?

maybe we can analyse,

(1) barca did won the greatest europe cup champions league plus league during mourinhos 3 yrs reign, one would have though it imposible with the arrival of mourinho

(2) the press are busy predicting a power shift to benebeu which mourinho failed to achieve but barca on the other hand are crowned spainsh champions even when mourinho is having 2 games to go.

(3) The irony of the whole thing is that while barca regained the champions of spain, mourinho caused more pain by losing at home to a noisy-neighbor atletico whose confidence now had been boosted and a rise of atletico further gave madrid more headaches as r-madrid/atletico madrid derby will give us more mouthwatering classicos and it will be recalled that real m did not only loss spanish champions to barca during mourinhos tenure but also lost the 14 battle to archrivals atletico.

How could you describe a coach who was given the ultimate power, an exclusive power that was never confered to any coach throughout the 110yrs history of real madrid,but was handed for the ever firt time to jose Mourinho,(check this link next on evidence of highest power ever in real by mourinho)

http://espnfc.com/feature/_/id/1433917/real-madrid-struggle-jose-mourinho-legacy

This means that;

(1) Of all coaches that have ever won trophies for real madrid, none of them had to their advantage the superior power like mourinho but yet, under an inferior power, coaches like Vincente del bosque won 2 champions league and five other cups in 3 and half yrs,

(2) The function of Directors of football interfering with ANY of mourinho's decision had been cut down and reduced completely and subject 'only' to mourinho's approval at all time!
Director of football and other subordinate coach their role is reduced for the first time to be like 'a rubber stamp' no impact, no decision to be contributed by them but to always accept anything from the direction of the chief coach, which is even against the statutes of the office of football directors oversights.

RESULT;

(2a) Sporting director Jorge Valdano(who also won la liga for real madrid earlier) was fired after a bitter, year-long internal power-struggle during season one.

(2b) Zinedine Zidane, who was being groomed to take a more active role at the club, was sidelined a year later, when he was rendered like a dummy without impact that was promised by the club.

Florentino perez (the president) stuck his neck to mourinho at all time and atand by any decision or even terminate anybody who mourinho complained about, will see the exit door perez vowed!

for example;

(2c)when mourinho feels that he cannot move on with cassillas, perez jump the hierachy of footbal directors to ask mourinho what he wants, perez did not waste time to sign a new keeper Diego he preffered, Cassilass was benched and its final. mourinho's habit of not admitting mistake was manifested when he says that they should have 'signed diego earlier' then one would ask whose fault is it? with all the ultimate power with mourinho, perez was disappointed at mourinho trying to held anyone responsible, it was mourinho who failed to point out in time a keeper to replace cassilas. it is another debate maybe diego is better or not, but mourinho should know better.

Mourinho was totally unfair to florentino perez who risk his veto power to twist the age long tradition of real madrid club by bestowing the greatest power to suit mourinho but mourinho paid the president back how?

when the team lost to BvB less than 5 mins after the final whistle Jose was already talking about not being loved to the press, how do you describe a salt added to a fresh wound from such a coach with such powers?

NOW LETS ANALYSE,

[size=14pt]Mourinho says he is not beign loved in spain,[/size]

how true? and let see if he is very sincere and that if there is anyody or club that can satisfy him

(3a) when he poked tito vilanova in the eye, picture evidences shows it glarringly, mourinho should have had a lenthy ban,cases like that in italy ranges from 5 match ban and huge monetry fine, but was given 2 match ban.
but surprisingly the spanish FA later declared that mourinho had been forgiven! even his compatriot pepe who matched messi's hand was also forgiven while same offence attract 3 match ban in EPL.


(3b) can anyone check real madrids scores, then you see that they have highest penalties awarded every season all in mourinhos tenure.

it will be noted that no coach has ever enjoyed amnesty in spain, iwould have list few ones but i dont want to make my post lenghty

ANOTHER LIE THAT MOURINHO HAD ALWAYS GOT AWAY WITH WAS THAT;

he will say that he always leave his teams very strong, but it is another HUGE LIE that his stay in Madrid laid bare had it been that he won the champions lg last season(no wonder mourinho knelt down to pray before the penalty kick agaist Bayrn munich last season),

A worn out REAL MADRID team (After exhaution) that could not win a trophy this season,siting at a time 16 points behind Tito's barca all these would have been blamed on another coach in an unfair manner, even mourinho himself will be the one to stir intability for the new coach and his disciples(who are singing 'the man don try now') will shamefully follow suit without thinking like a mumu.i have seen his disciples defending endlessly on a hot seat and humiliated with jeers lately!

The Portuguese might say that his direct replacements - Luigi Delneri(PORTO) (two months), Avram Grant(CHELSEA) (nine months) and Benitez (INTER ML)(six months) - are not in his 'Special' class,

but there is a definite pattern there.

Those struggles to deal with Mourinho's legacy were caused by more than just sadness at the loss. Short-term thinking during his reigns has seen squads exhausted and youth development neglected. He has then returned to sign players (for instance, Ricardo Carvalho and Paulo Ferreira following from Porto to Chelsea) and often, even more damagingly, appeared to unsettle players who have stayed by remaining in close contact (for example, Frank Lampard almost joining Inter, and Maicon being linked continuously to Madrid for two years). Such tight relationships - text messages and all - rarely benefit the team Mourinho has left.

A similar situation seems to be descending on Madrid. There have already been apparently well-sourced hints that Xabi Alonso, Angel Di Maria, Pepe and Sami Khedira could all be with Mourinho at Stamford Bridge next season. Meanwhile, transfer policy at the Bernabeu looks in a state of disarray.

[size=18pt]Mourinho did not only fail, but an UNGRATEFUL LIAR![/size]

How could you describe a coach who was given the ultimate power, an exclusive power that was never confered to any coach throughout the 110yrs history of real madrid,but was handed for the ever firt time to jose Mourinho,(check this link next on evidence of highest power ever in real by mourinho)

http://espnfc.com/feature/_/id/1433917/real-madrid-struggle-jose-mourinho-legacy

This means that;

(1) Of all coaches that have ever won trophies for real madrid, none of them had to their advantage the superior power like mourinho but yet, under an inferior power, coaches like Vincente del bosque won 2 champions league and five other cups in 3 and half yrs,

(2) The function of Directors of football interfering with ANY of mourinho's decision had been cut down and reduced completely and subject 'only' to mourinho's approval at all time!
Director of football and other subordinate coach their role is reduced for the first time to be like 'a rubber stamp' no impact, no decision to be contributed by them but to always accept anything from the direction of the chief coach, which is even against the statutes of the office of football directors oversights.

RESULT;

(2a) Sporting director Jorge Valdano(who also won la liga for real madrid earlier) was fired after a bitter, year-long internal power-struggle during season one.

(2b) Zinedine Zidane, who was being groomed to take a more active role at the club, was sidelined a year later, when he was rendered like a dummy without impact that was promised by the club.

Florentino perez (the president) stuck his neck to mourinho at all time and atand by any decision or even terminate anybody who mourinho complained about, will see the exit door perez vowed!

for example;

(2c)when mourinho feels that he cannot move on with cassillas, perez jump the hierachy of footbal directors to ask mourinho what he wants, perez did not waste time to sign a new keeper Diego he preffered, Cassilass was benched and its final. mourinho's habit of not admitting mistake was manifested when he says that they should have 'signed diego earlier' then one would ask whose fault is it? with all the ultimate power with mourinho, perez was disappointed at mourinho trying to held anyone responsible, it was mourinho who failed to point out in time a keeper to replace cassilas. it is another debate maybe diego is better or not, but mourinho should know better.

Mourinho was totally unfair to florentino perez who risk his veto power to twist the age long tradition of real madrid club by bestowing the greatest power to suit mourinho but mourinho paid the president back how?

when the team lost to BvB less than 5 mins after the final whistle Jose was already talking about not being loved to the press, how do you describe a salt added to a fresh wound from such a coach with such powers?

NOW LETS ANALYSE,

[size=14pt]Mourinho says he is not beign loved in spain,[/size]

how true? and let see if he is very sincere and that if there is anyody or club that can satisfy him

(3a) when he poked tito vilanova in the eye, picture evidences shows it glarringly, mourinho should have had a lenthy ban,cases like that in italy ranges from 5 match ban and huge monetry fine, but was given 2 match ban.
but surprisingly the spanish FA later declared that mourinho had been forgiven! even his compatriot pepe who matched messi's hand was also forgiven while same offence attract 3 match ban in EPL.


(3b) can anyone check real madrids scores, then you see that they have highest penalties awarded every season all in mourinhos tenure.

it will be noted that no coach has ever enjoyed amnesty in spain, iwould have list few ones but i dont want to make my post lenghty

ANOTHER LIE THAT MOURINHO HAD ALWAYS GOT AWAY WITH WAS THAT;

he will say that he always leave his teams very strong, but it is another HUGE LIE that his stay in Madrid laid bare had it been that he won the champions lg last season(no wonder mourinho knelt down to pray before the penalty kick agaist Bayrn munich last season),

A worn out REAL MADRID team (After exhaution) that could not win a trophy this season,siting at a time 16 points behind Tito's barca all these would have been blamed on another coach in an unfair manner, even mourinho himself will be the one to stir intability for the new coach and his disciples(who are singing 'the man don try now') will shamefully follow suit without thinking like a mumu.i have seen his disciples defending endlessly on a hot seat and humiliated with jeers lately!

The Portuguese might say that his direct replacements - Luigi Delneri(PORTO) (two months), Avram Grant(CHELSEA) (nine months) and Benitez (INTER ML)(six months) - are not in his 'Special' class,

but there is a definite pattern there.

Those struggles to deal with Mourinho's legacy were caused by more than just sadness at the loss. Short-term thinking during his reigns has seen squads exhausted and youth development neglected. He has then returned to sign players (for instance, Ricardo Carvalho and Paulo Ferreira following from Porto to Chelsea) and often, even more damagingly, appeared to unsettle players who have stayed by remaining in close contact (for example, Frank Lampard almost joining Inter, and Maicon being linked continuously to Madrid for two years). Such tight relationships - text messages and all - rarely benefit the team Mourinho has left.

A similar situation seems to be descending on Madrid. There have already been apparently well-sourced hints that Xabi Alonso, Angel Di Maria, Pepe and Sami Khedira could all be with Mourinho at Stamford Bridge next season. Meanwhile, transfer policy at the Bernabeu looks in a state of disarray.

And for those who blindly follow mourinho,

see the pics below, mourinho humiliating another coach in the techical area on the pitchstand, is this good for football, does this makes him 'so called special or childish' see it yourself;

[size=18pt]Are these real madrid side GALATICOS?[/size]

LETS SEE,

REAL GALACTICOS WON 2 CHAMPIONS LG AND 5 OTHER CUPS BTW 1999-2003.(Vincente Del Bosque)

FAKE MOURINHOS FAKE-LACTICOS NO CHAMPIONS LG, 2 CUPS AND I CEREMONIAL CUP 2O10-2013.(Jose dos santos Mourinho)

[size=14pt]Barca and real madrid had 4 champions league each! [/size]

how?

Before 1992 what we have is European winners cup of which the competition is not been very tidious(no not neccesarily top 4 participates, and no uefa supercup, club world cup, etc) unlike champions league which started in 1992,

The name 'champions league' was officially unvieled in 1992.it takes some interpretations to admit european winners cup as equivalent to champions league, it is a debate and debatable in the law court.
Madrid had failed to win champions lg back to back but won ewc back to back.

so as it stands Madrid = 5 european winners cup, 4 champions league!

that is why they hired Mourinho to make it 5 EWC, 5CHleague (project LA-DECIMA) but mourinho failed to deliver it in 3 seasons.

Even at that, mourinho failed to add to the european silverware in richest club the same way he failed to win it for chelsea, something that benitez just did! anyway sit back on your sofa and watch the NEW CHAMPIONS OF SPAIN CELEBRATING THE TITLE IN STYLE 'while mourinho was right there in spain' what a shame!

i heard that somebody says mourinho no dey lose finals, wetin happen with atleti club?

@ wahala90

pls dispute the facts below, we are waiting, pls; i hope you are not reading [i]complete sports [/i]at news stands;

2003- Madrid won La Liga

2004 Valencia won


2005- Barcelona

2006 Barcelona

2007 - Madrid won with Capello

2008 - Madrid won with Schuster


That was before Mourinho joined in 2010 and won a single La Liga in 3 seasons

So what were you saying

@Boron 10

Moreover, the game between Barca and Athletico was just a mere formality. You wouldn't expect athletico players to risk getting themselves injured for such game while they have a crucial final ahead of them

you admitted that barca/atleti game was just a mere formalty,and you dont expect athletico players to risk getting themselves injured for such game while they have a crucial final ahead of them

now, does that also apply to real madrid?

the truth is that Mourinho wants to postpone barcas celebration by continually pushing them by playing a dead game with such intensity by streaching his team to the limits, so as to wim the copadel rey and resigned before barca won the league then,
he will now tell the press that he is not with real madrid when barca won the liga, but his scheme backfired when Verane (the annoited and appointed defender) was badly injured against espanyol, and to worsen the case pepe, a portuguese like himself was droped to the bench, and cassilas too on bench as the whole benebeu suffered humiliation from a bitter rivals

mourinho is just a sore loser, and even with a sound team like real madrid, his pride worked against him and he is the architect of his failure!

@9jadelta

he is not trophy-less
he won super cup

I can confirm to you that YES, he is trophiless! in 2012/2013 season, supercup is a continuation and a completion of a duel in 'a previous season' and that is why the supercup is credited to 2011/2012 season!
okay?

But then, that reminds me,that Mourinho is regarded as a failure for 3 seasons he only won 2 major cups and a ceremonial cup, while with 3 and half yrs,with a mega club, spending huge amounts but nothing to show, but Guardiola won 14 cups, 4 cups per average in A SINGLE season,Guardiola won 16 cups as a player in 4 different leagues while mourinho is not even a succesful player.

@logica

can you comment on the bolded below, part of mourinhos comment;

"This was the worst season of my career. [size=14pt]For many coaches it would be a good season[/size], but for me it is the worst," Mourinho told reporters.

because i cannot see what concerns other coaches here in his failure with the richest club,

is mourinho still the special one?

The Portuguese did not hesitate to write off the campaign as the least successful of his life to date but insisted Atletico Madrid were "lucky" to have triumphed

Real Madrid coach Jose Mourinho has described the 2012-13 campaign as the "worst season of his career" following a 2-1 defeat to Atletico Madrid in the Copa del Rey final.

Joao Miranda's extra-time header sent the Portuguese's side to defeat at Santiago Bernabeu on Friday and signalled Mourinho's first campaign without a major trophy in over a decade - excepting the Supercopa success over Barcelona back in August.

Speaking after the game, the 50-year-old admitted the last year has been a blot on his CV when placed in the context of his own high standards.

"This was the worst season of my career. For many coaches it would be a good season but for me it is the worst," Mourinho told reporters.

"I always showed up in the press room every time we drew or we lost. This year's campaign was a failure but my first two seasons were successful."

The coach, who was sent to the stands midway through the second half, claimed in his post-match assessment that Atletico were "lucky" to lift the trophy after his side hit the woodwork three times and were foiled by a number of stunning saves from Thibaut Courtois.

"I don't think Atletico deserve to be champions but they won the title," he said. "We had two clear chances on goal, we hit the post three times. This is why I think it is unfair.

"Atletico's keeper was fantastic but he was also lucky tonight."

Mourinho's future has been shrouded in speculation for some weeks as rumours of a return to the Premier League with Chelsea gather pace, but he was tight-lipped with regards any potential move.

"I have a contract that is valid for three more years," he said. "I still haven't talked to the [Real Madrid] president [Florentino Perez] about my future."

Since the topic is about two individuals Guardiola and jose's (Achievements) (3);

then, im allowed to extend my findings to include the these individuals as a player

FIRST;
Pep Guardiola is a complete epitome of football a tactician than jose Mourinho, how?
in 4 different leagues outside of spain as a player, guardiola won 16 cups including a champions league and a captain. so he was also succesfull playing for other leagus other than spain.

JOSE was a complete failure as a player, no cups to show, and never nominated as a captain.

SECONDLY

As a coach, Guardiola won 14 cups in 3 seasons, including 2 champions lg while mourinho won 20 cups within 10 yrs,

guardiola as a player and coach= 30 cups, mourinho as a player and coach 20 cups,

Guardiola is seen as a gentle but efficient philosopher, morinho is seen as arrogant.

guardiola is the only coach to have beaten mourinhos team more. recording a 5-0 defeat which mou never returned

can anyone kindly tell when the AAU post graduate form 2012/2013 will be out? im very interested pls, anyone with useful imformation?