₦airaland Forum

SageTravels:
If they do, you will still question why they did not go to hospital.

maybe, but if the boy had gotten healing and lived, why would I still question ?

yomi531:
Winners Chapel don't do mumu things like that. When someone is sick, his/she is advised to go the hospital for proper care. Church members will visit u in church and pray for u for speedy recovery. They don't also do all those mumu vision thingy in winners. If u carry that kind mumu talk come, u will be walked out ASAP..

.

yomi531:
Winners Chapel don't do mumu things like that. When someone is sick, his/she is advised to go the hospital for proper care. Church members will visit u in church and pray for u for speedy recovery. They don't also do all those mumu vision thingy in winners. If u carry that kind mumu talk come, u will be walked out ASAP..

Having faith in God to heal the boy isn't mumu thing in Winners. It's one of their main tenets. Unless it's all talk and no 'do'

Harddiskng:
It is not too late.

They can still bring his body to your house, so you can lay your miracle working legs on him

I said Chapel, not my house.

Ishilove:
So the God who gave man medical knowledge doesn't know what He is doing, abi?

so the winners church doesn't know what it's doing by believing in Divine healing and Miracles?

Why wasn't he rushed to Chapel for healing?

Destroy all your properties, your clothes, shave every single hair in your body, and fumigate yourself. If you can afford it demolish your house and build a new one.

None of the animals got nothing on Rhino. Lion, even a pride, is a walk in the park for rhino. the gorilla won't dare to face a tank, too small. the polar bear will just scratch the rhino skin - rhino's thick are thicker than d elephant, just so you know- before the bear get stabbed by rhino horn.

Chienex24:
Funny enough aside the 6-day war which Israel thwarted a potential strike by a coalition of Arab nations to destroy them, Israel has been attacked ist by every nation and every terrorist group which they have to retaliate against. They have never instigated or initiated any war, either with Hamas or Hezbollah that you accuse them falsely of flaring up anyhow. They have never said they possess nuclear weapons and even with the accusation that they may secretly have, they have never made use of it with all the threats to their existence. Israel is more sane than all the Arab rogue nations combined, more especially Iran.


You claim Iran thinks Israel have nuclear weapons, then why did Iran attack Israel with over 400 ICBM missiles on two separate occasions if they know Israel can use nuclear weapons to wipe them out in retaliation??

The truth is Iran will be the one to quickly use it once they have it, no doubt. No grand standing here, the issue we are all having is Israel has the upper hand and we want to see Israel fall, same way many will love to see America fall.

You are a victim of western propaganda if you think Israel has never initiated any war.
Iran attacked Israel with ICBM? please when did that happen? I don't even think Iran possess ICBM. Also do you think anyone can just use nuclear weapons in war?
Israel has upper hand? well unless you mean the upper hand is the mighty US. Israel is nothing without the US.
Also I don't want Israel to fall. and I neither support Iran.

Exgee:
Is there any Drugs I can take to inhibit the activities of these stubborn semen?
Again, how do Reverend fathers cope without sex throughout their Lives?
I need answers.

start working like a madman. I mean hardwork you feel like dying.

Chienex24:
You basically lack understanding of world politics!! If every country has nuclear weapon just as the case of India and Pakistan where USA quickly moved to deflate the tension, then the world is in danger of imminent destruction. While it is not good for any country to possess nuclear weapons which includes USA, Russia and China, it is worse for potential rogue nations such as Iran who has openly declared that they seek to wipe Israel off the map. They sponsor Hamas, Hezbollah and houthis to attack Israel and have already struck Israel with over 400 ICBM missiles on two separate occasions, showing they are damn serious to annihilate Israel. Possession of such weapons is a declaration of imminent use which will be catastrophic.

All this also applies to Israel, one of the most notorious rogue nation in the world. Yet Israel has nuclear weapons. Israel that flares up at any touch, and don't mind burning down all the middle east should be the last country in possession of nuclear warheads. If Iran also possesses some nukes we can bank on MAD, so everybody will respect themselves. The only problem I have is Iran is crazy, too deeply entrenched with islamist militants across the world, nukes can fall into the hand of terrorists who don't care destroying the world.

QuinQ:
We are talking in terms of "10 lost tribes of Israel".
Levites were scattered in all the tribes, as stated below. So, yes, there were Levites in Judah, but their were also Levites in the lost tribes.
If you count Levi as a tribe then there were 13 tribes since Joseph's two sons each had a tribe.

You keep trying to redefine the meaning of tribe based on land allotment. This was not a criteria in the bible. The bible explicitly, clearly stated all the 12 tribes of Israel (the tribes are his son) and the bible includes Levi as part.

oh I think I get what you are saying now. Practically it was 13 tribes because of Joseph' son (Ephraim and Manasseh). But because the Levites were not given any land was what made them as the 'extra' tribe since you cannot point to their land.

sonmvayina:
Yes...but they were never given a landed inheritance...

they were never given a landed inheritance doesn't equate to they were not a part of the 12 tribes of Israel. Levi was a son of Israel, and as thus listed among them, according to Bible and Jewish history.

QuinQ:
I am slowly beginning to realize I'm NOT talking to a normal person and will have to soon stop.

1) In case you have forgotten, this discussion is about why JESUS would NOT consider Samaritans part of covenant Israel and therefore part of lost sheep of Israel. That's "why the f-ck" it matters!

2) Levites were NOT given a tribal land of their own like other tribes. There is no area called Levi.
But you can still include them as one of the tribes if you wish meaning there were 13 tribes NOT 12

I'm not against or in support of your argument but I want to quickly correct an error which is your point 2. Levi was part of the 12 tribes of Israel. He was a bonafide son, and listed as one of the twelve according to the bible. Genesis 49 listed Levi as one of them

9 years old.

Kobojunkie:
Judae, the nation of the Jews was captured by the Babylonians around 685 BCE by Nebuchadnezzar. Babylonian rule was toppled by the Persians, who also took over Judea around 620 BCE. This was followed by the Greek Empire in 330 BCE, and then eventually by the Romans in 63 BCE. Phillipi, the place where Paul and Silas were prosecuted and punished for disseminating unlawful information, was part of the Roman Province.

2. And I recall correcting you several times already, pointing out that Herod was the Jewish King of the Jews who ruled and persecuted the followers of Jesus Christ of Israel because of their beliefs, which were not seen as conforming to their Jewish religious laws.

3. Jesus Christ of Israel said His followers are of the Lost sheep of Israel - sheep. Jesus Christ of Israel is also the one who pointed out that non-Israelites were dogs and should not be handed the Gospel — Holy— citing their being incapable of handling it. The Romans—dogs— who turned themselves into a religion that plagiarized the movement started by Jesus Christ of Israel are the ones called Christians, and their religion is Christianity.

4. For the umpteenth time, Herod was a Jew, and he was the king of the jews whom Jesus Christ of Israel was accused of attempting to usurp by His claim that He was the Messiah.

5. What proof do you have that Herod was not born a Jew?

You addressed nothing of what I said. Yes Paul and Silas were arrested because of their religion in the roman province. This act is an act of persecution, according to the ICC.
You are asserting Christianity has been plagiarized. But I am not arguing that with you. (atleast not yet), I am arguing that Paul and other apostles were persecuted in the bible not only by Jews but also by Romans. The verse Qing quoted implied it, but you rejected it. And I gave you the verse where it was clearly stated that the apostles were persecuted by Herod , a roman guy.

why are you asking me proof? when you also are giving out histories of Israel and Judah and without any proof. Are you a historian? It's because you assume it's a general knowledge. I also assumed the Herod not being a Jewish a general knowledge that everyone knows. Herod was forced on the Jews as king by the Roman empire. He was there to subjugate them.

Kobojunkie:
1. The Oxford definition I used surfices. I keep insisting that there are two separate groups in contention here, and each group was persecuted by different people. But you keep ignoring that fact of the discussion to continue to assert your washed-up ideas instead. Why?

2. Definition has nothing to do with this. Rather, at the core of all of this is pointing out the difference between the persecutions of the followers of Jesus Christ vs the persecutions of the Roman Christians.

3. See what I mean! You twist what I say and then expect me to retort in agreement or disagreement. Does any of that make sense?

Again, my claim from the beginning until now has been that the Christians who are of the religion of Christianity— all of them non-Israelites, aka dogs — were never persecuted by the Jews. Their persecution came solely from the Romans. This much I continue to make clear in my posts.

4. Herod, like Paul, was a Jew born to a Jewish parent and was also a Roman citizen. Why can't I use Paul as an example in this case?

P.S. Please make sure to read through the response carefully before you respond! I am having to repeat myself over and over, and it is getting tiring!

Were the apostles roman christians here?

"The law was in place before Paul and Silas showed up in Philippi. There was no persecution"

This was what you said in answer to the verse that Qing quoted

"They brought them before the magistrates and said, “These men are Jews, and are throwing our city into an uproar 21 by advocating customs unlawful for us Romans to accept or practice.”

You assumed because their act was against the law already in place that it's not persecution, I said you are wrong that this is the act of persecution as we know it, according to ICC. You later gave me a definition.
per·se·cu·tion
hostility and ill-treatment, especially on the basis of ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation or political beliefs.

And I said since your definition excludes whether it's against the national law or not, it agrees with the definition of ICC, that is it is right to say that the roman reporting and harassing the apostles because of their religious belief is an act of persecution.

and you said the christians were not persecuted by the Romans. And I gave you example of a roman guy, Herod who persecuted the apostles and christians (act 12).
you are saying some christians are dogs and some are the real ones. Weren't the apostles "the followers of Christ, and not roman Christians" according to you, being persecuted by Herod, a roman guy here? Also how many times do I have to say that Herod was not born Jewish? then why gave example of Paul who was born Jewish?

Please just do some google search about Herod family. All historians and jews knows it for a fact that Herod was never Jewish by birth.

Kobojunkie:
Your modification does not warrant any change in my previous retort, which still stands as is.

1. I cannot agree with you since you continue to skirt the main issue to instead insist on your own dishonest interpretation.

2. Paul was also a Roman citizen and even asserted this against his Jewish oppressors, but we all know he was a Jew. Herod was a Jew who was a Roman citizen. So, what is the difference again?

3. Well, if this believing/brainwashing is the only way you think to convince me, then that basically closes up well as nothing but a delusion, doesn't it?

What do you mean by dishonest interpretation. I gave you the definition of persecution according to ICC. If it's wrong then tell me. and what's skirting? My issue was with your argument about definition of persecution and your wrong notion that it was only Jews that persecuted the christian, both which I have addressed.

And also I am not arguing about Paul, I don't know why you are giving Paul as example. I said Herod was a roman citizen, and not Jewish by birth.

Kobojunkie:
I cannot agree with you since you continue to skirt the main issue to instead continue to insist on your own dishonest interpretation.

2. Paul was also a Roman citizen and even asserted this against his Jewish oppressors, but we all know he was a Jew. Herod was a Jew who was a Roman citizen. So, what is the difference again?

3. Well, if this believing/brainwashing is the only way you think to convince me, then that basically closes up well as nothing but a delusion, doesn't it?

I have modified my initial answer for better clarification. I am not brainwashing anyone. I am stating my facts. Please check the histories of the family of Herods. They were not Jewish by birth.

Kobojunkie:
1. I posted the definition I applied earlier for all to note.


2. Wrong! Again, my stance remains that the actual followers of Jesus Christ of Israel — all of them Israelites — were persecuted by their fellow Jews. In contrast, the non-Israelite groups that plagiarized the original movement — those of the religion of Christianity —were instead persecuted by their fellow Romans for mostly political purposes. I have repeated this several times, but it seems you are dead set on ignoring this so you can continue arguing about other things instead.

3. The persecution suffered by the followers of Jesus Christ came only from the Jews against the followers of Jesus Christ of Israel, even until the destruction of Jerusalem and eventually Judah. There is no Scriptural evidence to say that the Romans attacked the followers of Jesus Christ of Israel for their beliefs.

4. The king of Judea had to be of Jewish descent— the tribe of Judah, Benjamin, and/or Levi—, and Herod was born a Jew.

5. I have read through Paul's letters, but yes, I am not a believer in Paul; I have nothing to gain from believing his words. Anyway, I know for a fact that Paul never said that Gentiles meant those who are not of Israelite roots.

Since your definition doesn't say anything about lawful or unlawful, we can agree that christians were persecuted.

No the Herods were not Jewish by birth. They were Jewish by religion, i.e they practiced Judaism but their allegiance is with Rome.

If you don't believe Paul letters, then I cannot convince you.

Kobojunkie:
This shows you have not been paying attention to the details of the conversation at all.

https://www.nairaland.com/8433825/jesus/5#135507100

Note here that there are two different groups:
➜ The Israelites-only movement created by Jesus Christ of Israel back in Jerusalem of Judah
➜ and then the non-Israelites led movement, which was a plagiarized(terribly flawed) copy of the original movement.

The original followers of Jesus Christ of Israel, all of them Israelites— beginning with Jesus Christ Himself— were persecuted, not by the Romans but by their fellow Jews. That is what is indicated in Scripture. There is no record that any of the members of this group survived beyond the Last Day of YHWH's Judgement against the nation of Israel(Judah) back in the 1st century AD.

However, after 70 AD and the eventual destruction of Judah around 130 AD, the plagiarized movement, led by non-Israelites mostly of Roman descent, gained ground and adopted for themselves the formerly derogatory term "Christian", and grew their numbers through the spreading of diverse doctrines and traditions in Rome. They were eventually persecuted by others within their movement and eventually by the Roman State.

What I addressed was your definition of persecution, not the overall discussion of the debate. But it seems you think Christians are persecuted, not just by the Romans but by the Jews. I think this is wrong. Yes the Jews started the persecution of christians but it became widespread by the Roman authorities. Let me give you an example.
‭Acts 12:1 NIV‬
[1] It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. ‭Acts 12:2 NIV‬
[2] He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword.
‭Acts 12:3 NIV‬
[3] When he saw that this met with approval among the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Festival of Unleavened Bread.


These verses show without doubt that Herod, a roman, appointed by the emperor as the king of Judea persecuted Christians.

Now you can go back and forth to argue the meaning of persecution. That's why addressed that first.

- I wanted to address more of your argument particularly your argument that the word gentiles only applies to the lost tribe of Israel and not outsider non-jews. I believe it's wrong. I can give you some versed from Paul letters but I
feel you are someone who don't believe Paul's letters as true, or not flawed?

I guess it all depends on whether you personally believe the fundamental human right should be superior to the national law. Or even if any human has any innate fundamental right to begin with.

I feel like you guys are just arguing semantics.
Two differing opinions:
Kobo junkie's is that it's already against the law so it's not persecution with the underlying assumption that persecution simply means people are doing their thing which is not against the law yet you're harassing/killing/jailing people for it.

another is the other guy that roman making practicing Christianity against the law so they can be punished is just persecution.

But who's right? According to ICC persecution simply means you because it goes against their fundamental human right of freedom of identity and religion. even if that go against the national law or not.

now back to the time of roman. Well roman actually don't really have strict rules on what religion the citizen practice. we know they even allowed Judaism to exist and didn't persecute them. Perhaps because Judaist were not going about looking for followers among roman citizens. I think they allowed Christianity to exist without making it unlawful for a while when it's just small sect but later make it unlawful to practice.
I don't know if it's already unlawful or not during that bible scene. But if we are to follow the meaning of persecution as we know it now, then the other guy is right. It's persecution because it goes against their fundamental right of identity and religion irrespective of whether it's against roman law or not.

Effaced

Man is everything that can go wrong with life.