₦airaland Forum

You're absolutely right Kobo. Scriptures must be researched properly and thoroughly before topics of this nature can be understood.

Then it means that might is right.

That is what is in your head. Yes God is omnipotent and everything else isn't, but that is not the reason why He had to destroy the wicked.

The bible god does EVIL for GOOD.

In your eyes you see His acts as evil because you fail to understand the conflict between good and evil. As I have said until you humble yourself and ask Him to guide you into truth, you'll remain as blind as a bat, or worse yet those who refuse to see.

He destroys the innocents for "their own good"?

He usually warns them before destroying them in case you didn't know. All of God's judgements in OT times were preceded by warnings. Innocent you say? Are you innocent? Well, put it this way. If the righjteous or innocent as you call them, gets destroyed among the wicked, then in the resurrection morning they will be given life everlasting.

This is the kind of BULLSHIT they teach you from the pulpit?An infinitely loving god that is omnipotent,omniscient,cannot find any other solutions to rectify situations he considered as sinful except by total destruction?And he is supposed to be all knowing?Don't you think that that is defficient?don't you think that that is juvenile?

Incorrect!. The destruction that they experience is not total as yet. Death is not total in itself regardless of how it happened. The same wicked will be resurrected to experience the final death in the flames of fire after the 1000 years have expired. As I have said whenever God allows a nation, or people to be destroyed, it is done for their own good and for the good of those who were not yet tainted by their evil. While sin operates in this life it cannot be allowed to go unchecked under all circumstances. So although sin rules by virtue of man's choice, God cannot allow sin to have full control. There are times He must intervene to preserve the righteous. That is why you happen to be here on this forum so that you can learn.

You should be ashamed of even mouthing a teaching like this,and being associated with such a god.

Ashamed?

And you christians have the nerve to bash other religions as evil?WOW!

Well, put it this way. There is religion and there is religion. There is truth and there is falsity. There is the genuine and there is counterfeit. Enough said!

@ Zeta

I agree with the stuff some of you guys have sent. I was just contemplating between whether Jesus got rid of the body while in the sky ond his spirir entered an interdimensional gateway to the realm where heaven exists[because man has entered deep space and has not seen heaven and whether He just appeared in heaven in His bodily form.Thanks guys,i really appreciate.
I am really a christian and i do believe in its teachings and i am really trying to live a good life without causing hurt to anyone purposefully.I guess am a little short in my knowledge of the Bible because i rarely read it.
Any help in that area?

In fact we are not sure what happened while Jesus was on His way to heaven. The apostle Paul has commented on the matter and this is what he had to say.

Philipians 3:, 20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.

Do we have to be in spirit form to live in the presence of God? That is really the burning question isn't it? The answer to that is no. Look at it logically, if not only scripturally. Was Adam a spirit, or was he flesh while he was in the presence of God in the garden of Eden? God used to talk with Adam in the garden, but seeing there was no sin manifested as yet, they were able to have direct communication with their Creator.

I am of the understanding that heaven will be a temporary location for the redeemed. In reality the redeemed will live on the earth, for that is where God's throne will be transferred. This earth will become the new capital of the universe where God and His people will live together. John describes in Rev. 21 that God's new Jerusalem containing His temple and throne will eventually descend to the earth.

https://www.bibleuniversity.com/images/CourseID1//lesson08-03.jpg

Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven.

Revelation 21:10, 12 The holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, ,  had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates.

Revelation 21:18 And the building of the wall of it was of jasper.

Revelation 21:21 The street of the city was pure gold.

The same state will be restored. When Christ returns for the redeemded our bodies will be changed to incurruptible ones. We will exist with literal but glorified bodies, just as how Jesus now possesses a glorified body according to Paul.

As you're aware man lost that ability because of sin. Our bodies are subject to decay and death. But when Jesus restores all things, including the animals, we along with them will possess bodies. According to the prophet Isaiah we will build houses and inhabit them on the new earth (Isaiah 65:17) Talk about amazing! God has prepared for His people new heavens, a new earth, and a new holy city. The righteous will inherit a glorious mansion in the city built by Jesus (John 14:2), plus a fabulous country home on the new earth that they will build themselves (Isaiah 65:21).

In heaven, or when we eventually live on the earth, we will be able to touch one another and recognize one another.

We will drink from this river,    https://www.bibleuniversity.com/images/CourseID1//lesson08-04.jpg

The prophet describes what the future earth's activities will be like:

Isaiah 35:6 Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing.

Isaiah 65:25 They [the beasts] shall not hurt nor destroy.

Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, ,  and a little child shall lead them.

Isaiah 33:24 The inhabitant shall not say, I am sick.

I mean think about it. Why would God be preparing such a physical kingdom and restoring a literal earth if He had no intentions of restoring our bodies to enjoy them?

@ TomX

From the tone of your post you are likely not a Christian, but to indulge you I will like you to know that from the christian perspective, the bible tells us that our incorruptible bodies will be raised up to heaven.

The following qoutes might help clarify this:

Quote
Job 19:26
And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
KJV
. . . that is even after death and decay, He will still, in his flesh, see God. How? well here is how:


Quote
Daniel 12:2
2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
KJV
Quote
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
KJV
yes God will raise the dead and make them incorruptible and they shall ascend bodily into heaven. Those who are alive and are of right standing with God shall also be caught up bodily with them.
The last qoute from 1 Thessalonians 4:17 explicitly stated that those who are alive . . . to be alive means body and spirit are present together. Thus if the living will be caught up then their spirit was not to be separated from their bodies.
Did you think God was to raise all the dead up on the last day so that an army of zombies will walk the Earth? Surely he had a plan for our bodies as well as our soul. Why else would he send his Angels to contend for the corpse of Moses (Jude 9:9).

Christ's body was never allowed to see curroption (it did not decay nor was it defiled) and the body raised into heaven. Yep our devine "Flying Christ" sits (body+Spirit) at the right hand of God.

Well said Tom.

@ jagunlabi

@bobbyaf
Would i meet god's "very high" standards if i commit genocide like he did on the pages of the OT bible?Would i?
Afterall,god will be my role model.

The One who creates life has the right to take it. That is why He is God, and you are human. Yes God allowed the deaths of people back then, but that was in the context of good versus evil, a topic you'd never fully understand until you start viewing the bigger picture.

When any nation reaches the stage of no turning back, as far as practising evil is concerned, then in order to prevent further spreading of evil, such a nation has to be destroyed. God destroys them for their own good. Rather than leave them to suffer and self destruct, and bring others in their train, in their own state of depravity, God in His love and wisdom puts them out of their misery.

Although sin must run its course until that change comes, there are things that will manifest that will not always be fully grasped by those who have not surrendered to Jesus Christ.

To put it simply. To know the mark you must first know the beast. Secondly, the mark is not a number. Its a seperate entity from the number. Its not 666 nor will ever be. The number the bible says is that of a man, and it has described the characteristics that will help you in seeing who exactly that beast power is. So that would mean that you'd have to go through the relevant chapters of Revelation that pertain to the beast power, and put all the pieces together.

Listen to how the bible puts it, He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, 17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18 Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666.

So right away the verses mention three seperate entities:

a) the mark of the beast

b) the name of the beast

c) the number of the beast

Here are a few characteristics about the beast that will help anyone to get a better picture of what we are dealing with.

1) 1 Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a [b]blasphemous name.

It rose from the sea.

It has 7 heads and 10 horns and every horn had 1 crown each.

2 Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion.

Here the beast is further described has having the very same animal characteristics that were used as symbols to represent the past kingdoms Babylon, Persia, and Greece as mentioned in Daniel 7.

The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority., Who is this dragon? Prinmarily it represents Satan, and secondarily it represents Pagan Rome. In chapter 12 we see the dragon representing Rome, attempting on the life of Jesus. In other words Satan used Rome to try and prevent God's will from manifesting, but it failed. After Rome collapsed in AD 476, the power was transferred to the Catholic Church that is referred to as papal Rome. The Roman pontif assumed state power while the barbarian tribes took on state characteristics.

5 And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue[c] for forty-two months. 6 Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. ,

Daniel 7:25 says likewise, 25 He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, Shall persecute the saints of the Most High, And shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand For a time and times and half a time.

I want you to notice something about the two verses. Revelation uses a time period of 42 months while Daniel uses 3 1/2 times or years. Both symbolic time periods mean the exact same thing.

3 1/2 years = 3 1/2 x 360 days = 1260 symbolic days = 1260 literal years

42 symbolic months = 42 x 30 days = 1260 symbolic days = 1260 literal years.

Both John and Daniel described the same power. In Daniel 7 its called the little horn while in Revelation 13 its called the beast. The Roman catholic church was established as the papacy by decree of Justinian, in Ad 538. It ruled until 1798 when the French authorities placed the pope in exile. If you subtract 538 from 1798 you get 1260 years.

The scripture says that its wound was healed and in AD 1929 Moussilini re-instated the RCC and gave it a state from which to operate which is called the Vitican State.

It is this apostate power called the RCC that is described in Revelation 13. It is this power that God is calling His people from who are scattered throughout her congregations. It is this power that has currupted christendome with her false doctrines. She is called the w.h.o.r.e (see Revelation 17) that has daughters, and these daughters are the denominations that have followed her teachings in one way or the other.

Now that her wound has been healed she has risen to ascendancy once again. She has formed an alliance with the evangelicals and others, in the name of unity.

For further details see http://teachinghearts.org/dre17hdan08b.html

@ tayod

But there was no Ten Commandments in the Garden of Eden and yet Adam was convicted of sin. So you see, this your definition does not cut it at all.

I john 3:4 says "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."

Plain and simple! Adam and Eve transgressed the law. They disobeyed God's direct commandment not to eat or touch the forbidden fruit. So even though a single act was required to have sinned then, the fact is, the principle of the law was violated as James put it,

James 2: 10-11 "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder."

Sin is simply missing the mark, - God's mark. Remember Romans 3:23 - For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; We sin each time our words, thoughts and/or deeds fall short of God's righteous standards.

And what is that mark might I ask? It is God's divine and unchangable law.

This is why I pity those who intend to get to heaven based on their 'good" works because no matter how good your work is, it still cannot meet God's standard. That is why God told us in Isaiah 64:6 that all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; becuase they still fall short of His glory.

Very well said! Our righteousness is as filthy rags, but when we allow Christ to live within us He empowers us to obedience. When we experience His grace it empowers us to do what He instructs.

@ Aleksys

It goes without saying that money is the wheel of good news. JW like every other religious group need money to spread the gospel. You may not agree with their method or their "doctrine" but you cannot fault their devotion. However, all religious group have their peculiar method. RCCG organize revivals and is arguably the fastest growing church in the world. The same goes for Abundant Life and so on and so forth. Safe for the jet set churches in the US where the pastors or founders cruise around in private jets and live in stupendously luxurious mansions at the expense of their donors, I think the evangelical churches are doing great jobs. Judgement the Bible say is of the Lord.

I saw a God Tube video recently featuring the wanton and reckless lifestye of Benni Hinn. And this is what they call a ministry that allows a man to dip into the treasury at his will. I have always wondered about their prosperity gospel, which is nothing short of living it up on the poor's hard-earned cash.

what is 'live simply'? what measure would you use to describe simply? is owning a car a waste of money? Is polishing nails waste of money? Is owning a cell phone waste of money? Is eating too much food waste of money?

For example! Instead of buying a Benz buy a Corolla. Instead of buying an expensive phone buy a Nokia 3500 series phone; Instead of eating foods that will clog your arteries, use foods in their natural state. So instead of buying expensive clothing and jewelry in order to impress, dress moderately but tastefully. There are in-expensive clothing that still look great.

Look I can go on with questions but the truth is you have no appropriate scale to measure simplicity and extravagance. Hence, rather than make everyone abide by your own rules, leave it to the maker of the rules to decide who is over the limit of simplicity!

Is the bible's scale good enough for you? Read:

1 John 2:15-17 say, 15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world. 17 And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.

In all fairness Jesus was neither African, nor Caucacian. He was of Hebrew descent.

@ Aleksys

Xmas celebration purely as Jesus birthday is nothing short of deliberate mixture of the scripture with popular atheistic beliefs. This idea was introduced by the early roman empire as a ploy to present itself as a Christian State without renouncing its atheistic beliefs and traditions. Hosea 4:6 says: "people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I Myself will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I also will forget thy children". 2Timothy 4:3-4 also says: "For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables". We do not need a rocket scientist to know that Jesus was not born in the winter. All we need do is simply read the scripture.

Good to have a conscious person on board.

@ ajadrage

I share your concerns. The catholic church is largely responsible for the gradual transition of paganism into christendome. Most christians of course have closed their eyes to that reality, and have allowed the sentiments of such pagan practises to obscure their vision of what constitutes true worship. Christmas, Easter, and Sunday celebrations are part and parcel of the whole thing. Its not just christmas alone.

Wide is the road that leads to destruction and many there be that find it. The RCC has used all its craft to unite denominations under its teachings in one way or the other. While they are not totally united under all her doctrines, she has gotten them to at least accept some. In Revelation she is called the Harlot with many daughters.

God has called His people to become aware of her "wine of fornication" In the 14th chapter of Revelation using angels to symbolise the end time messages for the last days, God is calling His people to the true worship of the Creator of heaven and earth. The third angel has given a warning against those who would recieve the mark of the RCC or anti-Christ system.

He bids us to come out of babylon before the 7 laste plagues begin to fall on all those who participate in false worship. Today if you hear His voice come out. Leave before its too late.

@ Tayod

You have missed Paul's gist to the Corinthians altogether. He was by no means de-emphasising the use of tongues in the local assembly, else why would he say in 1 Corinthians 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation.

Coming with a tongue is not the issue Tayod. I am not debating whether or not there is a gift of tongue. The expression "hath a tongue" means hath a language, but as to whether that language is some ecstatic or heavenly language is what I challenge. The tongue that Paul addresses in this chapter is certainly not such a language.

Let all things be done unto edifying. 27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. If anything he is encouraging its use. That is why he mentioned that he wishes everyone could speak in tongues.

Paul wished for a lot of things. Notice the human control mechanisms involved when this tongue was in play. The operative word is "if". This was never a regular experience, but if and when somone spoke with tongues, he had to ensure that what he said was interpreted for the benefit of the congegration.

The fact is the kind of tongues that manifest in modern churches today are not the same ones that manifested back then. Today congregants are instructed to aspire to speak in tongues. Paul said strive for those gifts that edify the body which was quite the opposite.

The gist of 1 Corinthians 14 is order and not self-aggrandisement as you have said. 1 Cor. 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints Don't take the liberty to add to what is not expressed or even implied in the passage.

Well 1 Corinthians 13 was meant for the very same congregation wasn't it Tayod? Chapter 14 is merely an extension of 13. Using the gifts without love is a sure sign of self-aggrandisement. Any gift used outside of love is used for self interest. Paul saw the potential evil and saught to nip it in the bud.

Your conclusion isn't scriptural at all. Tongues do not necessarily imply divers kind of tongues. Divers kind of tongues means it is a language that man understands.

I am afraid they are the very same thing with varying circumstances.

That is diametrically opposed to Paul's statement that: 1 Cor.14: 2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; Men understood the Disciples on Pentecost and they required no interpretation of the tongue. These are two different things altogether.

The circumstances were different and had to be handled as such. Pentecost had bigger implications and became a launchpad for the last opportunity that was afforded Israel as a nation. Based on prophetic understanding the time for the ending of probation, that is, the 490 years or 70 symbolic weeks in Daniel 9 was fast coming to an end. The two great symbols of wind and fire were once again being used by God to make one final attempt to convince Israel that indeed Christ was His Son who died for Israel and was resurrected. So in essence the need to have understood the gift of tongues then by His own people the jews had far greater reasons, than they were having in Corinth.

My question is if Cornelius and the early Church needed the gift then, why should God deny us to whom He has promised the former and the latter rain together? Is their missionary work different than ours or we no longer have a language barrier as they did?

The urgency of evangelism and the infancy of the church called for a greater purpose of the gift then. As time progressed and congregations were established in asia minor, and on other continents by Paul and others the need and manner of use for the gift experienced a change. While the gift didn't die as such, it still lingered among those who had it, but unfortunately, some used it for self interest.

First I do not know where you came up with 16 nations, and secondly if we go by your logic that tongues are just to break down a language barrier, then Paul must have been mistaken saying that He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself! So who do we believe, you or Paul?

See my explanation above. A congregation is way different than a 3000 or more mass gathering.

Further more, how do you reconcile that in one place Paul teaches that tongues are meant as a sign to unbelievers and in another case he says that tongues are for personal edification?

See my response immediately above your question.

Please explain that to us in clear terms. The answer is actually very simple. He was talking about two different kinds of tongues as I mentioned before.

As far as the word is concerned the word tongue means one thing and that is language. You and I differ on how one sees the use of the word, and how it should be applied in any congregation of worship.

The gift was nothing more than a sign. Pray tell, if the tongues was just to break down a language barrier, then why would Peter need to stand up and address the whole congregation in one language? The people who were at Pentecost understood Hebrew and so you cannot claim there was a language barrier. They all understood Peter when he spoke.

They might have understood Hebrew no doubt, but when Peter spoke they heard their native language other than Hebrew. That was indeed what made them marvel. These were jewish people who lived outside of Jerusalem, and the bible says they came from 16 nations. In fact it named the region they came from.

There are more scriptures that refer to the prayer tongue than 1 Cor 14. And again, Paul is not de-emphasising it at all. He said he will pray both in the spirit and in the understanding, and he said he wishes everyone could speak in tongues.

As I said Paul wished for many things. Obviously christians today only desire to pray in the spirit but without understanding, , Ask anyone who speaks in tongues today if he or she understands what they are praying about, and majority of them will tell you no. So Paul if anything is agreeing with me,

How can you interprete that to mean he was deemphasizing it? Like I said, the issue is a prayer tongue should not be used to address the congregation except an interpretation follows, else you will be a Babarian to others. And this should be done in decency and in order.

Tell that to those congregations who make it look as if something is wrong with those who haven't yet spoken in tongues. Why keep telling people that the gift is a sign of being Holy-Spirit filled. What do you expect newly converts to do if they are constantly pressured into speaking in tongues?

You are so diametrically opposed to Paul its scary. Paul said he will pray in both understanding and the spirit (refering to tongues). He said a person praying in tongues speaks not to men but to God. What are you teaching here Bobbyaf?

Paul didn't say pray in tongues. He uses the word speak in verse 2. In verses 13-15 Paul said:, 13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.

In other words don't speak or pray in tongues since in all cases when someone speaks or prays in tongues no one but the person praying understands. This is further proof that the tongues that a person speaks is not the same as the ones spoken today. Those who speak today don't even understand what they're saying which all the more qualifies what Paul was saying all along that it is better to prophesy than to speak with tongues.

It is not used negatively, but rather that you cannot address a congregation in tongues. If you are praying in private or in church when everybody lift up their voice in prayer, you can use tongues because you are talking to God. When you are talking to men, then it is more edifying to speak to them in a language they understand. That is the essence of Paul's teaching.

So does it make sense to pray to God in tongues when not even you can understand? Isn't it said in almost every circle where this is practised that it isn't necessary to understand because the Holy Spirit will do the connection for you? Then how come Paul stresses the need to pray with understanding?

I mean if everyone is praying in tongues at the same time wouldn't that lead to confusion in the congregation? The very same argument Paul is using to discourage this sort of mad behaviour, you're now recommending. in other words if someone were to walk in a congregation and were to see the church praying in tongues wouldn't that lead them to believe that the church is confused? Very much so!


Quote
Why would I speak in tongues in a congregation that doesn't understand me, and expect to now come and have to interpret what was said on my part, whether by me or someone else, when I could have said all of that in the common language from day one?

That you do not understand it does not make it less true. Paul said let one speak and another interprete. If there is no interpreter, then hold your tongue. Its very simple.

Wouldn't the same rule apply for praying in tongues too? Obvioulsy there shouldn't be a need for anyone to interpret someone's prayer in tongues, since that form of prayer, was meant to be a personal connection correct? The fact that one's tongue has to be interpreted, which is a different thing form prayer now, suggests that:

1. the language is earhtly ( if it were heavenly then there wouldn't be a need for anyone to interpret it since its between me and my God, correct? )

2. there was something in the message that the congregation had to hear by reason of its importance and for the mere reason of wanting to share. I mean if I went to a foreign land and God gave me a message to share with the worshippers in a church's congregation I would certainly desire to do what Peter did. Just speak and leave the onus on God to let the people hear.

I wish you'd listen to yourself. You are the one contravening Paul by saying we should quit speaking in tongues. Paul said EVERYONE hath a tongue when we come together. he said one should speak and another should interprete. He wishes we all speak in tongues. How clear can that be?

Wrong Tayod! Paul was never encouraging anyone to speak in tongues unless the situation required it. Speaking in tongues was more an exception than a rule. That is why he used the word "if" Your use of word "should" is a far cry from "if", and is more bordering on something else.

The operation of God is different from men. Following your argument, we can then say it wasn't necessary for the Disciples to speak in tongues on Pentecost. Afterall, Peter could have just stood up and spoke to them directly as he later did without the more difficult circumstances as you have implied.

As I have alluded to before the circumstances were far different.

Can you prove the statement in bold? I guess you will have to provide some extra-biblical proofs to prove yourself right in that case. The central theme of the passage was conducting the services in order and not self-aggrandisement. A tongue when interpreted as Paul says is just as important as Prophecy: 1 Cor. 14:5 would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Only if the circumstances were right. Its the circumstances that dictate the use of gifts like tongue. Paul once wished that we become like him vis a vis being celebate. Would you by virtue of Paul's ideals become celebate? I guess the catholics have a point heh!

Can you prove to us that Cornelius had love as his central gift at the time he and his family received the infilling of the Holy spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues? Don't add to scripture. It's a dangerous path, and I cannot wish you Godspeed when you do.

Go read Acts 10. The bible says he was a god-fearing man who led his household in like manner. Is that proof enough?

@ JeSoul

on the contrary you walk into some churches and its a speaking in tongues galore with no interpretation going on and that is unscriptural.

LOL, Imagine if Paul were here? He'd have his work cut out for him.

@ Tayod

Again you are right in the sense that the primary gift refered to is the Holy Spirit. Everyone born again has a deposit of the Spirit else, you cannot claim to be of God. However, the issue here is the infilling of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues.

I agree what the scriptures teach on the matter. However, if we look at the context then we can understand the central motif for such a gift. The infant church was commissioned to spread the gospel in certain places whose languages were different from that in Jerusalem. The jewish diaspora as you recall marvelled how Peter and the other disciples all spoke in their native language.

Please go through the book of Acts and you will realise that the evidence to the infilling of the Holy Spirit is that people begin to speak in tongues. From Cornelius' household to the Ephesian disciples, they all spoke in tongues. Infact, I challenge you to find any case of anyone filled with the Holy spirit in the Book of Acts who didn't speak in tongues.

I have done that quite a few times. I want you to notice how the expression "spoke in tongues" is used freely, and would still be understood as meaning "diverse kinds of tongues"

So Cornelius and other gentiles who became christians were subject to the same promise of recieving the gift of the Holy Spirit. They were also entitled to recieving the gift of tongues to facilitate their missionary efforts as well.

The real issue as we see it today is whether the tongues claimed by christians is what they say it is. Looking back at the early church's experience and comparing it with what occurs today smacks of something totally different.

----------------------------------------------------

Divers Kind of Tongues: The best example we find here is in Acts 2 during Pentecost. The main characteristic of divers kind of tongues is the fact that it is spoken in an ethnic language that can be understood by people who speak the language.

Understood by people who speak the language? Are you certain about that? Acts 2 says something totally different. In Acts 2 the diasporic jews who came from about 16 different nations, each having their unique tongue, marvelled when they heard the apostles speaking in their language. That was the initial purpose of the gift in breaking the language barrier so that the kingdom message could reach many with greater urgency.

That is why we find people of all nations understanding the disciples praise to God on Pentecost because it was done in their native language.

The gift being a miracle itself facilitated that process.

This gift is meant to be a sign mainly to unbelievers as Paul indicated in1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not:

Agreed! As was the case at Jerusalem.

Regular Prayer Tongues: Now this is meant for personal edification and is usually not understood by people around you.

I am not sure there is a thing called prayer tongue. The only scripture that alludes to it is that found in 1 Cor. 14, and this is how Paul puts it. Besides, if anything Paul is de-emphasising it.

13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. 16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? 17 For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified.

The purpose once again is for communication between a person and God, and also for personal spiritual development and edification.

Once again that concept isn't altogether true. One doesn't have to speak in tongues in order to communicate with God. Personal edification as used here by Paul is more negative than positive. The edifying here is seen as a selfish use of the gift in the light of it not being necessary in a congregational context. Paul prefers to see a corporate edification anytime over a personal one.

No one can understand this except such have the gift of interpretation or the person who spoke "keys" in and understand what he has said and provide the interpretation. This is why Paul siad this kind of tongues is not meant for congrgational worship because it is useless to others without interpretation.

It doesn't make sense at all. Why would I speak in tongues in a congregation that doesn't understand me, and expect to now come and have to interpret what was said on my part, whether by me or someone else, when I could have said all of that in the common language from day one? What is it that cannot be said in the common use of language as against what is deemed to be some special tongue? Paul made it clear that he would rather speak in easily-understood words than in an un-known tongue. Almost all of those congregations I have visited that believe in the free use of tongues have left me more baffled than blessed. I just can't seem to understand why is it that everyone desires to contravene what Paul clearly teaches. And you know whats funny, is that half of what is interpreted could have been expressed under easier circumstances.

So your statement: "From this its clear what the purpose of tongues was. It was a horizontal communication method of expression." is clearly negated by several scriptures such as: 1 Cor. 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries 28 - But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. ; So you see, tongues are for personal use and a vertical communication to God.

That text in no way supports the use of tongues for private communication with God. In fact the word unknown as used in the text is not even found in the original greek. In fact the text is saying what Paul has been saying throughtout the whole chapter 14. Note also that the word spirit is not describing the Holy Spirit, but rather the mental faculty of the listener who is not even able to understand what is being said, except the one who speaks. Paul wouldn't have to express a problem if everyone stayed by themselves in the first place praying to God. But the fact that Paul addressed it meant it was something being done in the congregation.

And this is the crux of the matter. Self-aggrandisment was the order of the day as against building the body with more practical gifts as teaching, prophesying, knowledge, etc. The Corinthian congregation was a problem one in more ways than one.

People are confused by this because they refuse to identify and separate the two different kinds of tongues indicated above. Now tell me, if tongues are mainly for horizontal communication alone, why would there be need to speak in the tongues of angels as Paul hinted?

Let me ask you a question. Was there ever a time when angels spoke to any human other than in their own language? Was there ever a time when a human spoke to an angel using their language other than human? Not that I can recall. One thing I will say is that for everyone who has ever heard an angel there can be no doubt it was one. So convincing are angels that Paul simply used that expression to bring home a crucial point, and that is "if I come with a convincing or persuasive speech like that of an angel, and have not love, then my speech is pure noise and means nothing"

I have to assume using your line of argument that all those people who have this special gift of being able to dialogue with God, must at least have love as the core of their spiritual gifts. Which begs the question. Is it possible for a person to have a gift without having love? Its possible based on Paul's letters. It could be that after awhile those who were once blessed to have recieved such gifts, started self-aggrandising with the same in order to build themselves up, rather than the entire body.

So if you read 1 Corinthians 13 in several languages you leave with the impression that Paul simply gave an analogy rather than reality. He created conditions for wanting to use such gifts.

I have always wondered what has become of those who profess a conversion. I didn't realize that becomng a christian meant still holding on to worldly things and customs.

So when Jesus said in order to follow Him one had to deny self, and take up the cross, what did he mean? There is no fooling oneself. Born again christians should free themselves of worldy things. Dress and live simply, and avoid waste. All that money spent on such stuff should be used to further God's cause, instead of self.

@ A K O

You see that? You are eligible to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit/speak in tongues after you get born again, I want to assume you know what that entails. If you read Acts 18:12-21, you'll see that the born-again and baptism experiences are two distinct and 'free-for-all-who-believe' things.

You're adding to the scriptures on this matter AKO. The gift that Peter spoke of was the Holy Spirit Himself and not tongues. If I say to you I will give you the gift of the house, isn't the house the same gift? The word gift in the sentence qualifies the object. Its not a possessive noun. Is not used to suggest that the Spirit has a gift in that context, but rather it is saying that the Spirit Himself is given to everyone who believes and is baptised.

The matter of accepting your version of understanding would then become contradictory if that were the case. It would mean, contrary to what Paul teaches, that everyone would naturally possess the gift of tongues, by merely believing and repenting, and being baptised.

Let me ask you a question. Did Jesus speak in tongues after He was baptised? Was He baptised by the same Holy Spirit? Why are you associating speaking in tongues with the recieving of the Holy Spirit? You have been taught that by your pastor, but that doesn't make it biblical.

In John 3 Jesus in His discourse with Nicademas never once introduced the topic of tongue speaking in association with the baptism of the Spirit. Why didn't He? Of all the persons with the authority to have done so didn't.

Your understanding completely contradicts Paul's letters to the Corinthian church as seen in 1 Cor. 12, 13, and 14.

@ Jesoul

Quote from: Tayo-D on December 20, 2007, 08:46 PM
@Jesoul,

The scripture you refer to in 1 Corinthians 12 refers to divers kind of tongues. It is in a special class like the offices of a Prophet and Apsostles as the list indicates. Do you ask to become an Apostle? No it is a calling, same with the ability to speak in divers kind of tongues.

I have to disagree with you here Tayo. By saying in the preceding verses that not all are prophets, not all have the gift of healing, and logically following, not all have the gift of speaking in tongues, whether "diverse tongues" (as KJV translates) or not.



Quote
As to the gift of the holy Spirit with divers kind of tongues it is meant for every believer. the whole church is meant to speak in tongues. 1 Corinthians 14:23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues,

"If" the whole church comes together and speaks in tongues. Not saying that the whole church should be speaking in tongues - two very different things.
Oh and I have no problem with the church speaking in tongues, I just don't translate or understand any applicable scripture to mean all christians should be speaking in tongues.

I agree with you on this. The gift of tongues like any other gift cannot be for everyone in the church. To speak of the gift of tongues as if it is special is going against what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14.

Each gift must be contextualised and understood for what purpose they serve. That is well done in Paul's letter to the Corinthian church as follows:

1 Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for[a] he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.

Like chapter 12 Paul prioritises the gifts though to a lesser extent. Obviously the most important gifts are those of love and prophesying.

Another point of note is the way Paul understood the gift to be back then as compared to how some christians seem to understand it today. Listen as he himself writes about it:

verse 6
But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching?

From this its clear what the purpose of tongues was. It was a horizontal communication method of expression. In other words my speaking in tongues (unless it was done to others), served no purpose. Worse yet it had to be understood by others, and if it couldn't then forget it. Think about it for awhile. If all of us use English to communicate what purpose would speaking with tongues serve?

If speaking in tongues was all about the individual and God then why would Paul be so concerned about it becoming a problem in the congregation? Why would he be putting some structure or organization to it, unless of course there was a reason for so doing? Listen as he puts things in perspective.

7 Even things without life, whether flute or harp, when they make a sound, unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played? 8 For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle? 9 So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. 11 Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me. 12 Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel.

Paul continues with an example that most have made into a rule,

13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding.

Paul says if you speak in a tongue within a congregation that don't understand pray that you can interpret. He uses praying in tongue as an example. The one praying will easily understand, but others won't. Same goes for those who sing in tongues.

Paul concludes,

18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

What did he mean by that? The fact that he kept using the phrase "in a tongue" or spoke with tongues" suggest something. It suggests that there was no special kind of tongue that somehow was designed to facilitate some mystical and rapturous bond between the individual and the Holy Spirit as some are making it out to be.

I can understand their wanting a donation in order to maintain the printing cost. I see nothing wrong with that at all. I have read one or two of their magazines before, and have given contributons for them.

As SDAs we use literature to share what we believe, and we usually charge. Surprisingly we don't usually get any resistance at all. In fact our literaature evangelism is so effective that more than 70% of those who have accepted our message did so because of having read some SDA literature.

I have to say, if nothing else, that JWs demonstrate dedication. I really admire their faithfulness. I might not agree doctrinally with them, but I really admire their dedication.

Well, put it this way. Secular music can be very appealing, but if secular music means worldly music, then avoid it as best you can. Satan is very deceptive and is skillful in using music to hold many a captive. Another way to look at it is that when we place singers at the level we usually do we run the risk of commiting idolatry. Sometimes if we are not careful we give more glory to these artists than we give to Christ.

One may argue that there is nothing wrong with the lyrics of the songs, as long as they are clean, but what about the lives of the artists? What sort of lives are they living? If you listen keenly to some of the words, and not get caught up in the other aspects, you'll notice the subtle messages they give. Usually there is some subtle message that is hidden in the composition, that goes un-noticed because one is caught up with the beat and sound effects of the song.

An example is with Whitney Houston. She is a beautiful singer but she encourages adulterous practises in most of her love songs. Same goes for Mariah Carey, and a host of others.

The other side of the coin is when christians use the pattern of the world to create what they call "christian rock" or "reggae gospel" or "carnival gospel"

These composers argue that we need to reach people at their level, and especially the youth. Nonsense if you ask me. No amount of sensationalism or emotionalism can substitute for a bible-based and holy-Spirit-directed life in Christ. If Christ through His Spirit isn't pulling then it will not work.

Often times these same young people leave the church after the reality of the christian life confronts them.

Interesting piece of news Seun. I've always felt that there was a cure for the deadly virus. Call it a hunch or what, but what is it about this virus that seems to be able to capture and hold at ransom one's immune system?

Interesting comments indeed. Pilgrim I agree with you in principle. There are some who decieve themselves into thinking that there can be unity and peace without coming to an understanding of what the issues really are.

The apostle asks "Can two walk together unless they agree?" I'd like for Infourmer to address that issue.

@ dreamnaira

I have had a lot of people saying it doesn't matter the day you keep holy or worship, but going through the scripture which we christians use as our standard, i discovered the seventh the to be on sarturday but the question should be; why are we worshiping on the first day of the week instead of seventh commanded by God?
On this question i haven't get any conviencing answer.

This topic has been one of hot debate, and its not new to the forum at all. A lot of people will say this and that, but the truth lies only in the scriptures. Its good to know you're searching the scriptures as Jesus recommended. I would like to say this however, that its not so much a question of worshipping on a day, since on all days we worship God, including all the other six days. Its a question of keeping His day holy by resting from one's work. Its a question of being obedient to God's command.

And second question is what is the significance of that seventh day we were commanded to worship?

The significance lies in the commandmet itself. It siginifes who God is, and that is Creator. The seventh-day sabbath was designed by God for humans to commemorate His creative works. On every seventh-day mankind would rest from his works, just as how God rested from His works.

Why did God in the fouth commandment used "REMEMBER" instead of "THOU SHALL'' He used on the other nine?

Because he didn't want anyone to forget.

I'm always afraid when i read {Mark7:7,8} i wonder whether one after strugle here to worship God could in return have such a rebulk ' in vain you worship me keeping the commandment of man'. I need a sound reponse whether Sunday abservance could not be regarded by God since it is the firet day of the week.

I have presented arguments indicating that Sunday observance is strictly man made. God had absolutely nothing to do with it as far as it being an accepted day of worship. God's law of 10 commandments is immutable and unchanging, and so logically speaking its futile even thinking that God would see the need to initiate a change.

Please any body that want to comment should consider these three things done by God on the seventh day; He rested on it, He blessed it and hallowed it.

I agree.

I recommend you study this site:

www.amazingfacts.org

Truth is a principle that lies outside the minds of men, and has to be learnt by men. Its a universal principle that is defined only by the One who is Himself the embodiment, or the sum total of truth. God is truth. He defines truth.

Truth can neither be situational, nor conviniently defined according to circumstances. It is steadfast as God Himself, and God has laid out truth in ways so that we are able to relate to it, in order for His absolute and un-changing values to make sense to us. For example the bible defines truth in these terms:

Psalms 119:142 Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, And Your law is truth.

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

John 17:17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth

There you have three biblical standards of truth via which we shall be judged.

@ ricadelide

obviously this post betrays 'issues'
no wonder you can only resort to argumentum ad hominem rather than offer logical arguments
(especially when the so-called logical arguments are (or have been) thrashed.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Jesus said of them "eyes they have but cannot see, and ears they have and cannot hear" Such a pity!

@ Kelorah

She was the earthly mother of Jesus. She's significant because, of all the women on earth, she was chosen. Don't you think she deserves the honour she gets?

No one is saying that Mary shouldn't be honoured for having become the chosen vessel for God's Holy Begotten, but there is a vast difference between what you interpret honour to be, as against, what it aught to be in the light of things. There is a limit to which honour should be bestowed on Mary. It should be confined to what she has accomplished as far as her earthly contribution is concerned. How dare anyone to carry on further when she is dead. You cannot hail a dead person, unless of course you can establish proof that she is alive and well in heavenly places. And when I say proof I don't mean for anyone to tell me about seeing any appatition of Mary, and what she has supposedly said. I mean proof as coming from scriptures that she would have merited the role catholics have placed on her being an intercessor in heaven next to Christ Himself. This is the real crux of the matter. Catholics are well aware that they don't have any proof of Mary being alive other than what their leaders have put up as teachings.

Bowing doesn't mean we're worshipping the images, etc.

Is this why catholic leaders have removed the 2nd commandment among the 10 that stipulates against the making of and bowing down to images, or anything that may be used even for representational purposes? God has forbade it and now you're encouraging it. God says don't and you're saying do, what a joke!

So, in the Yoruba tradition, yorubas shouldn't bow/prostrate because that would mean they're worshipping their elders?! Those images and rosaries are symbols representing God. The pictures are supposedly of Jesus because we don't know what he looks like. I know God won't send me to hell for my beliefs. And we pray to God through Jesus but we also pray through her and if that's a sin, then why don't you let God be the judge?

Since you and I can't possibly expect God to answer that issue why not let His word be the judge. His Holy Writ is just as good as He Himself, because they came from Him. Once again take a look at the 2nd commandment, and you will leave not having a single doubt about what God means. Let us view it:

Ex. 20:4, “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.[color=#990000][/color]

In other words God desires that we approach Him directly in worship. He doesn't need any representation of anything in the heavens, or on earth below. No pictures, no carved images, etc.

I figure this is a broader topic for discussion. Thanks Stimulus!

I'd like to know to what extent can a woman in church participate without contravening any scriptural rules? I have seen a lot of women in various denominations that are allowed to preach and evangelize freely. There have been hundreds of thousands of souls who have come to Christ as a result of their ministry.

How do you view such success? Did they do all that in vain?

@ Stimulus

Do you speak at all in your congregation? Are you silent in your congregation? Not even a sigh comes from you huh?  

Tayod I agree with you totally. Most of those passages that persons use to render support why women should not take up leadership roles, or having to preach in congregations, are taken out of context.

"I brought you up out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. I sent Moses to lead you, also Aaron and Miriam" (Micah 6:4).


"Then Miriam the prophetess, Aaron’s sister,, "(Exodus 15:20-21). The office of prophecy is no ordinary gift, and here we see a woman playing her role.

When Paul wrote a recommendation for Phoebe he referred to her as a "deacon" and not a deaconess. The greek word for deacon really connotes that of a preacher. In fact Paul used the same word as it related to His ministry. Paul refers to himself as the deacon of the New Covenant.

Note too that the word that is used for Phoebe is the greek equivalent for prostatic, or president or patron, and no doubt this woman was in charge of a christian community. Why else would Paul acknowledge her as such if she weren't playing the role?

I believe we have to make a disctinction between whether in Paul's time gender equality as an issue was societal, or Pauline. I for one don't believe Paul was the problem. I believe the problem stemmed from a societal one, which spilled over in the congregation.

The few instances when Paul had to lay down some principles as to how both men and women should conduct themselves within the congregation have been grossly taken out of context.

The expression "error of the lawless" seems to suggest people who operate without principles, or standards, and are prepared to go with anything as long as it suits them fine. What prevailed in Peter's time is also prevailing in our time where there are no boundaries for what is considered right or wrong anymore.

Peter warns us not to make the same mistake, or error of developing the same thought pattern which will result in the same set of lawlessness. He knew that there were weak christians who needed to be on their guard.

There is no worse a person than one who has turned his back on principle. Christians who once professed Christ and have turned back to worldy principles are usually worse than those who never made a profession.

My question is simply this. At what point did the Creator-God make known His name? Is it that we have to pronounce the name in the same manner in which it used to be sounded? How can anyone be sure as to what the true nature of the sound is?

In the light of what is being stressed about God's name how does one view this text?

Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Jesus backed up this thought by saying: Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Having a knowledge of how God's name should be pronounced or sounded is one thing, but making sure that God's will is carried out in keeping with His word is quite another. I recall debating two members of a sacred name organization that upheld some beliefs that I found astonishing. I am afraid to mention here what they believe, yet their constant cry is how we the mainstream christians have pulluted God's true name.

My question is this also. Why didn't the Son call His Father's name while on earth? Why did He teach His disciples to address God as Father? In addition to that why wasn't such an important matter addressed by the apostles after Christ ascended to heaven?

Food for thought?

@ Adadrage

True words in deed!