₦airaland Forum

Rhymeyjohn: ^^^^Candor is fighting an emotional counter attack, please dont get angry at me sir, pleeeaaassssse. Bless you.

Really?? You could decipher anger in my reply?

Men, I troway salute for your psychoanalitic skills o.

I hope you're simply joking anyway otherwise, be bold enough to admit you have nothing else to say instead of this childish attempt to sidestep the issue.

Very correct write up indeed.

God will surely help us

DrummaBoy: Image123 please before you go consider the rules you put down.

1. How does it affect the discussion at hand?

2. Does is not bind the liberty of others? The rules I suggested you propose should pertain to these thread alone and not other threads.

In the light of this, I suggest that the rule you proposed be modified to:

Discussants are not permitted to quote an opposing discussants in other threads; nor are they permitted to refer to this thread in other threads in the duration in which the discourse ensues.

If this is fine with you and Candour/Miwerds, then we would make it law. If not, we may just as well shop for another tither to do the job.

OK DrummaBoy, I'll go a step further. I'll not participate on any tithe related thread for the entire duration of the discussion and until a week after. Though I still wonder why but no wahala sha.

See this as a concession so you don't accuse me of not cooperating.

Thanks

Image123: BTW, you should realise that the terms also affect me and my supposed ally.

OK image, if I may ask, how did you arrive at 2 months abstinence?

Why not 1 or 3 months? Why not just the duration of the discussion?

What is it about the 2 months?

Image123: Not offended oh, those are my little terms. Bye and take care.

wish you well with your terms.

Bye bye and take care too

Image123: The conditions are in line with the motive of this thread. i simply picked two months as a test point, its not a benchmark. If the primary discussants are not interested in just discuss but are hypocritically debating elsewhere, what is the point then? My terms are very clear. meanwhile, you can go shopping any other person who is interested in your discussion. Thanks.

My dear, you can see i'm not begging for a discussion. I was even just chosen as an ally, the same way Gombs chose Bidam so come down from your high horse.

Because i'm discussing with you, i should forget every other thing abi?

You gave conditions bordering on the ridiculous and i refused, why take offense?

Image123: From the definition of shirts provided by haibe, buba certainly fits that general category. i know you are not interested in understanding the point of view i'm giving, but simply up to that you might accuse him of. i'm used to that, no wahala.

Image, i'm not trying to trap you. Its just the way you and i talk when we discuss. I could accuse you of same you know?

Did you see the definition of Blouse? Don't you think buba fits more with blouse? My bro, i wish you'll drop this line of thought because it's simply ridiculous. How can you say all upper body garments are shirts? You wear a coat and you'll feel comfortable calling it a shirt? C'mon Image

The point still remains that shirts have always being unisex, i mentioned somewhere that that has being since like forever. Unlike trousers, which a few decades ago were strictly men's wear. Therefore, according to Deut 22v5, the woman should not wear what belongs to the man.

If i'm forced to make a choice on who started wearing shirts, i'll not hesitate to say a man. whom will you choose if told to make a choice? will you say they started at the same time? Shirts didn't become unisex immediately they appeared. You know this, which is why you're trying to stretch the definition to even include buba

By your views now, we can safely say that Deut 22v5 is meaningless but subject to what man says. Man can say tomorrow that there is male bra or male plaiting of hair, that is different and not fashionable for the female. That is the point. i'm not even yet into talking about if it is sin or not. My point from the start of the thread is that if we are talking about Deut 22v5 oh, trousers are men's.

I understand where you are going but i'm sure when shirts made their appearance, women were forbidden from touching it. But the situation is different now. It's not about my views. There are a lot of things in the Torah that will entrap you and i today if we have to be judged by Moses. I might not fully understand that verse, but it's better to keep quiet about it than stretch the truth about shirts just to enforce it like you're doing now. There's nothing about trouser in that verse. If trousers is an abomination for ladies because men started wearing it, then so are shirts.

what would you say about the following verses

Deuteronomy 22:11 KJV
Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

Deuteronomy 22:9 KJV
Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.

Do you obey them?

Mark Miwerds: Rules and Regulations I propose should be observed in this discussion at hand:

1. No name calling, but if Scripture shows one to be posting foolishness, then one should be allowed to post that it is foolishness, providing that one provides Scripture to prove that it is indeed foolishness;

2. Questions limited to one at a time. If necessary, a single question can be broken down into separate parts; e.g., "After the car hit the pedestrian, the driver sped off down the street, turning the corner, vanishing out of sight." Question: "If you saw the car, which way did it turn? b) left or c) right"

3. Because of my blindness, time must be considered in posts as being non-essential. My spelling skills are near exceptional, but sadly, my typing skills are not the best due to my blindness. At times I may use my DraganNaturallySpeaking to audibly post my answer. (the program automatically transcribes it into text as I speak) At other times, I may use my keyboard. (those times may be more noticeable, as my answer may take longer to post because of trying to remember exact position of keys)

4.As suggested by DrummaBoy, this is only a discussion. We should each enter the discussion with the sole purpose, not to prove one or the other is right, but rather to prove that the Word of God is our final authority.

Candour, if you have any suggested rules to add, I am open to suggestions.

And, providing the nature of the rules the tithers set forth, the agreement is yet to be determined.

My bro, i have no rules to add and any rule you or others draw up is ok by me as long as it's not a fatwa that clips my hands and prevents me from typing on my keyboard

See definition of a BLOUSE

1a : a long loose overgarment that resembles a shirt or smock and is worn especially by workmen, artists, and peasants b : the jacket of a uniform
2: a usually loose-fitting garment especially for women that covers the body from the neck to the waist

Hi Image, it says blouse resembles a shirt. I hope you wont say resemble means the same as?

who has yoruba dictionary to help us define buba

Image123: So, the qualification of a shirt is that it has buttons? All upper garments are basically or generally shirts. Like i said, it is fashion that now gives specific differential names. The point is that there are clothing that are unisex and there are some that are not. The shirt is unisex, the belt is unisex, the shoe is unisex. The bra is not, at least not yet. Plaiting of the hair is still not unisex generally. The trouser did not use to be, some few decades ago. i really wonder how difficult that is to comprehend.



Didin't skip the question. i already said that all upper garments are shirts, basically.

When i mentioned buttons, just wanted to paint the picture so even a toddler can get the difference between a shirt and a robe. I still wonder how you can imagine it in your mind, then write it down that all upper garments are shirts. So a suit is a shirt, a coat is a shirt, a jacket is a shirt, a blouse is a shirt, even a buba is a shirt?

Why do you like standing truth on its head like this? So fashion just recently classified them abi? how can you boldly twist things like this?

Have you been to a bank before? have you seen female bankers wearing shirts? Will those shirts they wear fit on you? So if you agree with shirts being demarcated between the sexes, why not trousers? or you think you can wear the same trousers those female bankers wear?

Hmmm...Image123.....you actually called a buba worn by women from ibadan and other places a shirt?

I must report you to your friends Joagbaje and Gombs today

Image123: Okay, okay, drumboy. You know what. i'll enter the DISCUSSION on one condition, that the discussants do not engage in any other tithe thread, or introduce tithe into other threads for the next two months apart from this thread. i no get time, i don tire for this tithe tithe talk all the time, but i go try sha. My brothers are simply tired, it is antitithers that are taking this thing as a do or die, like an addiction.
So, i await their agreement(Mark and Candour).
BTW, i do not think myself a theologian. Thanks.

The bolded is actually very funny and laughable

So you must curtail my freedom before you can discuss the bible with me? Will my discussing on other threads make you stumble in your Christian walk? because that will be strong reason enough. I won't allow you inhibit my freedom to dispel any new falsehood that might arise on another thread while i'm busy with you here simply because it pleases you.

Moreover how did you arrive at the 2 months benchmark? My bro, if you want to discuss, pls come and lets discuss. This kind of condition makes it obvious you are very scared of an open and honest discussion of this issue.

It's a talk for crying out loud, we're not betting our cars and houses so what are you afraid to lose?

Image123: Yes to all the questions.

You're very wrong image. The standard clothes a male wore at the time of Jesus was a robe. Ropes or belts were used to hold them in place, not buttons and they surely didn't have shirts. In fact your dictionary should have told you the word 'shirt' is of middle English of around the 12th century AD and even at that, KJV of 1611 has no record of an article called a shirt yet garment that entered English in 16th century is mentioned in KJV

When you checked your dictionary for shirt, did you remember to check for blouse? Jacket? Because its very obvious you went to Merriam webster dictionary for that definition. Even the punctuation marks there give you away

Image123: SHIRT 1 : a garment for the upper part of the body:

Also like haibe asked, is the Buba his mum wore also a shirt? I noticed you skipped this particular question

Rhymeyjohn: I personally believe the problem is knowing what a man's clothing is and a waoman's clothing is, and if it is dependent on culture or not. That would solve the whole issue.

So If its dependent on culture, The indian woman, the scottish man, the Arab woman to name a few do nothing wrong with their dressing right? why then blanket condemnation from almost all so called holiness churches? i'm sure you can name some of these ministries yourself right?

NO. you hardly see modern churches that preach againt it, and those who preach agaainst it do so on the premise of sincerly seeking grace and truth that leads to heaven, afterall, they don't preach against it to take anybody to hell.

Of course the modern churches in their gaiety would not preach it as it would affect their numbers. So some of them encourage women not to wear it when they are working in church but can wear it to school, work etc. If that is not hypocrisy, tell me what is

maybe you need to dig more into scrpitures, you may be sincerly wrong, may God enlighten us. Deut22:5 ends with, "for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." None of the other verses you quoted (9,11) makes an isrealite an abomination to his God like a man putting on that which pertaineth to a woman- AGREE?
Cross referencing scripture shows us how God sees abomination.
Prov 15:8
8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight. Obviously, a sinner is wicked, and the wicked is an abomination to God, this follows that- Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God -that is are wicked, sinners. check the opposite of it in prov15:8-the prayer of the upright - such people dont do abominable things.
prov15:9 explains better.
9 The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD: but (opposite of a wicked abominable person)he loveth him that followeth after righteousness.
Any one who wears that which pertaineth to the opposite sex according to Deut22:5 is ABOMINABLE AND WICKED, AND IS NOT UPRIGHT NEITHER IS HE/SHE FOLLOWING AFTER RIGHTEOUSNESS(according to prov15:8,9) AGREE?
Whats the end of the abominable? HELL FIRE/LAKE OF FIRE.
Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God
Rev 21:8
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Further, the bible didnt mince words and emphasises the issue of abomination and its end.
Rev 21:27
And there shall in no wise enter into it [i.e heaven] any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
KJV
I guess the Bible stand is clear for a sincere seeker.
Is wearing that which pertaineth to the opposite sex(deut 22:5) a sin? Doing abomination is obviously a sin, check that it is always mentioned in connection to other sins- Rev 21:8

8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, ......
Rev 21:27
And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie .....
Bible also mentions it with wickedness,pride, lieing, murder and many other atrocities.prov6:16-19, 8:7,16:5,12. Obviously, birds of the same feather flock together.
After Reading all these, whats your decision, to still keep living an abominable life, or to make a change. I may look dificcult, but ask for grace, and you will receive. Remenber, " And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. Matt 11:12
KJV. By God's grace, all sincere folks will not miss Heaven in Jesus name.

My dear brother, this is very selective and biased interpretation

see the verses again. pls pay attention to the bolded portions

Deuteronomy 22:11 KJV
Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

Deuteronomy 22:9 KJV
Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.

So you mean i should avoid anywhere God said abomination, but even if he said thou shalt not or calls a particular action defiled, i can ignore?

My bro, this your explanation does not hold up AT ALL.

Infact, see one of the verses you quoted

Rev 21:27
And there shall in no wise enter into it [i.e heaven] any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

can you see that God doesn't also like things that are defiled?

The only reason why i'm free from all these rules, regulations and ordinances of the Torah is the finished work on the cross of Calvary.

Rom 10:4
'For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth'

Not because abomination was not used to describe some of them

Rhymeyjohn: I personally believe the problem is knowing what a man's clothing is and a waoman's clothing is, and if it is dependent on culture or not. That would solve the whole issue.

So If its dependent on culture, The indian woman, the scottish man, the Arab woman to name a few do nothing wrong with their dressing right? why then blanket condemnation from almost all so called holiness churches? i'm sure you can name some of these ministries yourself right?

NO. you hardly see modern churches that preach againt it, and those who preach agaainst it do so on the premise of sincerly seeking grace and truth that leads to heaven, afterall, they don't preach against it to take anybody to hell.

Of course the modern churches in their gaiety would not preach it as it would affect their numbers. So some of them encourage women not to wear it when they are working in church but can wear it to school, work etc. If that is not hypocrisy, tell me what is

maybe you need to dig more into scrpitures, you may be sincerly wrong, may God enlighten us. Deut22:5 ends with, "for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." None of the other verses you quoted (9,11) makes an isrealite an abomination to his God like a man putting on that which pertaineth to a woman- AGREE?
Cross referencing scripture shows us how God sees abomination.
Prov 15:8
8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight. Obviously, a sinner is wicked, and the wicked is an abomination to God, this follows that- Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God -that is are wicked, sinners. check the opposite of it in prov15:8-the prayer of the upright - such people dont do abominable things.
prov15:9 explains better.
9 The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD: but (opposite of a wicked abominable person)he loveth him that followeth after righteousness.
Any one who wears that which pertaineth to the opposite sex according to Deut22:5 is ABOMINABLE AND WICKED, AND IS NOT UPRIGHT NEITHER IS HE/SHE FOLLOWING AFTER RIGHTEOUSNESS(according to prov15:8,9) AGREE?
Whats the end of the abominable? HELL FIRE/LAKE OF FIRE.
Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God
Rev 21:8
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Further, the bible didnt mince words and emphasises the issue of abomination and its end.
Rev 21:27
And there shall in no wise enter into it [i.e heaven] any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
KJV
I guess the Bible stand is clear for a sincere seeker.
Is wearing that which pertaineth to the opposite sex(deut 22:5) a sin? Doing abomination is obviously a sin, check that it is always mentioned in connection to other sins- Rev 21:8

8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, ......
Rev 21:27
And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie .....
Bible also mentions it with wickedness,pride, lieing, murder and many other atrocities.prov6:16-19, 8:7,16:5,12. Obviously, birds of the same feather flock together.
After Reading all these, whats your decision, to still keep living an abominable life, or to make a change. I may look dificcult, but ask for grace, and you will receive. Remenber, " And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. Matt 11:12
KJV. By God's grace, all sincere folks will not miss Heaven in Jesus name.

My dear brother, this is very selective and biased interpretation

see the verses again. pls pay attention to the bolded portions

Deuteronomy 22:11 KJV
Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

Deuteronomy 22:9 KJV
Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.

So you mean i should avoid anywhere God said abomination, but even if he said thou shalt not or calls a particular action defiled, i can ignore?

My bro, this your explanation does not hold up AT ALL.

Infact, see one of the verses you quoted

Rev 21:27
And there shall in no wise enter into it [i.e heaven] any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

can you see that God doesnt also like things that are defiled?

The only reason why i'm free from all these rules, regulations and ordinances of the Torah is the finished work on the cross of Calvary.

Rom 10:4
'For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth'

Not because abomination was not used to describe some of them

ckkris: Please tell the full experience of your life when you were tithing.

Now that you heard made2fit's story, i hope you'll be kind enough to let us hear how bountiful your harvest from tithes has been?

I doubt if there's anything a Nigerian pastor will do that will shock me. I've seen and heard enough that my shock absorbers have become 'unshockable'.

Greed and desperation will always push customers to these charlatans but the true body of Christ will remain unshakeable. That much i am assured of.

Those who wish to remain mugus for these criminals should continue

I can understand if the woman decides to shun the 250k from PDP. She wouldn't want to be seen as an opportunist and knowing that PDP wants to make political capital out of Oshio's blunder, she is not interested in giving them the assistance.

She already has 2m, guarantee of a Govt job. Why should she lose sleep over 250k that would not even work in her favour if she's actually dreaming of becoming first lady

I find the marriage part very laughable but then, when did it become a crime to dream? Dream on jare madam. We've seen such in Nollywood. Even Hollywood served us something similar in 'Maid in Manhattan'

Abeg politicians should leave the woman and her children to rest jare. When there's a political point to gain is when you see them becoming emergency good Samaritans

PDP, APC, APGA, LP.......all na the same wash

Alwaystrue: Neither was the whole book of Malachi talking about Tithes and Offerings, it also spoke of those who oppress the widows, employees, strangers, orphans, divorce and so many other sins. God said He does not change, it is more like a Revelation of what God hated that the people had been doing. T

So whatever I chose to believe and what you chose to believe should not be termed a lie. Hold your belief and stand by it and it is clear that tithes and offerings was the key focus of Mal.3:8.
Thanks.

Good you know it wasn't talking of only tithes and offerings but all ordinances of God.

If you and i hold different understanding of Malachi chapter 3:7, we wouldn't be doing anything different from our revered MOG like Kumuyi, Oyedepo and Oyakhilome. Each with vastly different doctrines from the other has been claiming correctness probably since before you and i were born.

So to copy your words, No Biggie

Bidam: "the handwriting of requirements" (cheirógrafon toís dógmasin) is a Greek legal expression that signifies the penalty which a lawbreaker had to pay--it does not signify the laws that are to be obeyed--only the penalty. It is only through the acceptance of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ that the penalty was wiped out ("the handwriting of requirements"wink. But only the penalty, not the law!
The law of God carries force since breaking it (committing sin) requires the death penalty. The law is that powerful, that important. It is holy. People aren’t saved from that which was against them (the death penalty) by doing away with the law. What saves people from death is the death of Christ in the place of those who repent of their sins. Jesus Christ’s life is that valuable.

Hmm...dear Bidam, Now you're using the Greek meanings like Goshen does with Strongs ehn? What happened to the definition of ordinances which you gave us earlier?

Anyway, let us assume i agree with what you wrote up there, Since the penalty for breaking the law has been done away with according to you, it means the threat of Devourer or hell fire on Christians from Malachi is, was and will forever remain a lie from the pit of hell right?

Don't you think so?

In fact, the phrasing Paul chose to use in Colossians 2:14 showed that the law of God continues to carry great force. By saying the penalty demanded under the law of God was nailed to the instrument that killed Christ, Paul was showing that the law of God was still in force, still requiring death for sin.

By contrast, if the law had been brought to an abrupt end by the death of Christ, from that point on, nothing would be “against the law.” Nothing could be called “sin.” Of course, we know that is not true. Sin exists, which means the law that calls it “sin” also exists!

I don't get you here. You said ordinance which Colossians 2:14 said was nailed to the cross is the penalty for breaking the law. So are you saying the law is still in effect but even if i break it, No penalty will be exacted on me because Christ sure nailed all penalties to the cross??

So many abound,but just one reference is enough: "But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is...covetous" (I Corinthians 5:11).

Covetousness is found in the 10th commandment of the mosaic law you claimed was nailed to the cross.

You call this a decree and strong ordinance from Paul? What about these ones below also from Paul? do they also qualify as strong decrees and ordinances?

1Tim 2:9
'In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety, not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

1Tim 2:12
'But i suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence'

Alwaystrue: How I know its unclear to so many of you is because you fail to see where Mal.3:7 starts and ended, why Mal.3:8 starts with a fresh question and how it talks about TITHES and OFFERINGS.
Suit yourself but I know you guys are still unsure, reason for the numerous threads even with the clarity given by Jesus and Paul. .

Who do you think divided Malachi into Chapters and verses? The prophet Malachi himself? Do you know the bible wasnt divided into Chapters and verses until 1227AD?

Please, you can choose to believe Malachi 3:7 stands alone, My own study tells me otherwise.

If Stephen Langton of Canterbury didn't try to help us arrange the bible better, we sure won't be arguing about this now.

The prophet Malachi penned a continuous discussion. If you wish to understand better, start from verse 1 of chapter 1. Malachi didn't have chapter and verse division in mind when he wrote that book. It will be helpful if you realize this truth.

I love this trouser or no trouser for ladies discussion because it exposes the underbelly of the hypocricy of the modern church and would help a sincere seeker of grace and salvation find the truth.

The anti female trouser brigade readily quote this verse

Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

But how faithful are they to this verse below?

Deuteronomy 22:11 KJV
Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

What about the farm owners who speak against females wearing trousers? Do they also take heed to this verse?

Deuteronomy 22:9 KJV
Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.

When I showed one of them who also insists on monetary tithes from all income this verse, he said the verse only mentioned vineyard and not all farms. When I told him all tithe verses in the old testament only mentioned farm and livestock products, he started the usual scriptural gymnastics of Abraham's tithe which was clearly of war spoils and nothing from his own farm or animal increase.

The modern charismatics would tell you they are not under the law hence all these rules in Deuteronomy 22 do not apply to them but they remember to go to Leviticus for first fruits and Malachi for tithes.

The confusion is easily resolved if we understand this verse

Galatians 3:24-25 KJV
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. [25] But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

We've been brought to Christ because we realise we can't keep the law. We are now led by the Spirit to do things that please God so a Christian woman will be modest and well covered in dressing so she doesn't become a stumbling block to others.

We don't live by a rule book as Christians but by the leading of the Holy Spirit. We can't keep the law because if you break one, you break all. Some collect tithes and first fruits while neglecting feast of weeks, tabernacles etc. Some females avoid trousers but wear blouse made from linen and cotton or wool. It amounts to sheer hypocricy my people.

Let the Spirit lead and you'll find yourself at peace with God

Galatians 5:16 KJV
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

Mark Miwerds: Hi Candour,

Just checked email. Said I could not receive it because we are not connected. Whatever that means. Is there a feature here on NL where I can befriend you to connect?

Received the same message when DrummaBoy tried to email me.

If you are on Facebook, you can send me a message there. Search for Mark Miwerds.

Just reply the mail and we are good to go

Mark Miwerds: DrummaBoy, thank you for your kindness. I am sorry that I had not answered before now. My wife drove me to the store for my month's supply of groceries.

I am OK with HBG being the Moderator. That is, if HBG is willing to Moderate. I am also not against an ally, and am willing to have Candour as an ally. Again, if Candour is willing to do so.

I have been working on some points I would like to present and probably should email whoever will be my ally with those points with an open mind for suggestions for the discussion. I am not sure how to get my email address to whoever is willing to partner with this blind old man, is putting the email on the forum wise? I can delete it after my ally acknowledges he has it. I will not post it until I know for sure I have an ally.

Hi Mark Miwerds, I just sent you a mail. Pls check and reply.

Cheers

Image123: You no wan laugh with me before? Laugh oh, its better.

Honestly my bro. I fully agree with you

Image123: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, this thread just dey increase the number wey dey my followed topics back. The rate it is going, it is turning hilarious oh.

See me laughing with you. Its already very hilarious indeed.

Gombs:

Tis just like APC choosing Punch Newspaper editors as moderators on a presidential candidate's debate.

Or PDP choosing NTA to moderate the presidential debate

But on a serious note, anybody can actually moderate. It changes nothing at all in my opinion.

Sal C: I don‘t really know if i should say i don‘t believethis or simply say am suprised, but find it difficult to believe a christian congregation can go 18 months without preaching Christ or heaven.

My bro, I don't know if you want to believe it or not.

I went at least 18 months without hearing about heaven, Christ second coming, Great white throne judgement and other associated topics.

All we were hearing was how Christ has come to erase poverty from our lives ( but you must engage in kingdom investment to benefit), heal all our diseases and other components of the health and wealth gospel. Even during easter, it was about how the cross broke the yoke of poverty but with playing your part of sowing seeds to reap financial benefits

anukulapo: It's quite simple. They just keep them ignorant, blinded from the light in the scripture or feed them false teachings.
If you can get to track all their teachings and preaching through a season,you'll see that they will not teach what christ would have termed "weightier matters" of his teachings

@the bolded. I did take stock of the messages i heard when i was in one mega faith ministry over the course of 18 months or so. I ensured i bought CD's of messages i couldn't attend, and never once did i hear any talk about heaven, Christ second coming or anything associated with end time study and prophecy.

Not once.

It was what finally convinced me that they had no interest in Christ and the coming kingdom but are only about the material things they could gather here and now, the influence and clout they could wield and how many people they could oppress.

Eternity had no place in their thinking and considerations AT ALL

Pastor Olu T: Yeah I know, bt what I am actually expecting from u with all sincerity is articles like the need for salvation n Christian growth. I[b] tell u I have been evangelizing for many years now n many people dont even know if they are saved or not, just observing tradition.[/b]

Dear Pastor Olu, what you said in the bolded portion is very very true. Tradition has replaced Christ in many church groups today

Dear Brethren of the NL Church, I wish to invite you to help settle this issue once and for all.

The quote below is from a thread currently trending.

Tithe has nothing to do with the messiah . Likewise prayers , worship , alms giving . They are eternal principles

In a lot of our discussions in this section, the phrases ETERNAL PRINCIPLES and KINGDOM PRINCIPLES always come up.

I'll really like to know the following


1. What are Eternal Principles and Kingdom Principles? are they different or do they mean the same thing?

2. What items fall under each?

3. What are their implications for us Christians?


I wish we can get brethren who can help out here

Thanks a lot for your time

Gombs: Some folks don't knw the diff btw the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant!

They think the Abrahamic Covenant is not Circumcision, they think in Gen 17, the word covenant and Circumcision are two different things ...but like @Always true said and I quote:

" It does not change anything anyway. You will not accept even the ones written bodly for you to see So no biggie. "

Oh well!...I rest my case

You so much like to swim in self inflicted confusion

see my first post you quoted

Candour: Same with Tithes, circumcision and other ordinances

Colossians 2:14 KJV
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Which was in response to this from Jo

Joagbaje: Blood sacrifice ended with christ.

Now is it so difficult for you to realize that acceptance into the the family of God is no longer dependent on circumcision like in the covenant with Abraham?

See my immediate response to your first post

Candour: So you mean a physically uncircumcised man has fallen short of the requirements of God?

So Abraham's blessings are not for a man not physically circumcised?

Which shows i was still talking about the New Birth and Salvation just like Jo who mentioned the cross of Christ as having abolished Blood sacrifice

What exactly is your confusion? You just want to satisfy yourself that you succeeded in tripping me up?

Once again, Hear it loud and clear

CIRCUMCISION HAS BEEN NAILED TO THE CROSS

because the cross is sufficient for salvation and access to the blessings and covenant of God with Abraham

Joagbaje: Christ is a result of the abrahamic covenant this is different from the covenant of Sinai called Old Testament through Moses and the law.

Very correct.

Kindly help educate Gombs, He seems not to be sure