₦airaland Forum

xaggar:
Deadlytruth... When u see or rather read the truth please acknowledge it.

Kpere!

And what is truth to you? Human laws?

CAPTIVATOR:
I mentioned Hebrew scripture because that is the only scripture available at the time of Jesus . !!! Learn for once



Tell us the scripture they read which tells them the messiah's name is Jesus before Jesus was born ?

Matthew was completed after Jesus has left the earth . So it couldn't be Matthew they read .

Just point out that scripture that said it that Messiahs name is Jesus . chikenah!

Was Isiah 7:14 not part of the scriptures?
And how do the meanings of Emmanuel and Jesus in Hebrew differ?

CAPTIVATOR:
Show us where the Hebrew scriptures said the name if the Messiah is Jesus ? Show us where " Jesus " was written in the Hebrew scripture ?

Rubbish, So Emmanuel is the same as Jesus ?

The name Jesus was not given until Gabriel told Mary . Go and sit down and learn , You have a long way to go Bro

JMAN05 is right . I see

Enjoy your day .

The crux of our argument here is whether or not anyone could be a believer in the true Messiah before getting to know him in person or by name as "Jesus".
You said it wasn't. I said it was, and I showed you where it is so recorded so as to prove it that people knew him as Jesus and believed in him as the Messiah even though he had not been born let alone having the opportunity to meet Him.
But rather than accept it or prove me wrong, you shifted the goalpost to Hebrew text. How does that change the fact that Angel Gabriel mentioned Jesus' name before his birth? How does that change the fact that John the Baptist believed in him and baptized in his name before he ever met him in person?
It is only when you declare that John the Baptist was an unbeliever that I will believe you are sincerely convinced that no one could have believed in Jesus without having being preached to about him.
Who preached to John the Baptist?
Who preached to the Pharisees and convinced them to abandon the warrior Messiah expectation for the peaceful one which was already known as Jesus at the time they got so converted?
Was John the Baptist an unbeliever despite he was preaching and baptizing on Jesus' behalf?
Unfortunately you didn't offer a single response to all these posers but shifted the goalpost to Hebrew text.
That was pure rubbish! Answer these questions first before any other thing.

JMAN05 is right for implicitly arguing that the recording of the announcement of Jesus birth in Matthew means that it happened in the new testament times?
That is the biggest illogicality I saw in recent times.
I can see that like calls onto like.
You can retain what some 8 men have brainwashed you to believe at the expense of your own logical thinking and self study. The day they adjust that doctrine you'll start singing another tune. We have seen a lot of doctrinal summersaults before now by you people.
You once claimed the world would end in 1914. When it failed, you shifted it to the mid 70s. When it failed again you moved it to the 2000s. The book of Deuteronomy says that anyone whose prophesy fails is not of God. But despite the failures of your organization's prophesies you still stick to it and yet claim to know the scriptures? What an irony!
Paul the Apostle warned that no one should believing in anyone who later adjusts his doctrine even if it is by himself. Yet you people keep adjusting your doctrines and you Ironically claim to know the scriptures? Who really takes you people seriously if not yourselves?

Question of the day:

Why is it that, despite its yoy and qoq inconsistency as per results, LIVESTOCK has not only remained liquid but even appreciates sometimes with percentages fair enough put a smile to the bank on jijoists' faces.

Our gurus here need to weigh in on this.
Cc: Wanajo1, Current Price, Emmanuelewunmi, Bullbear, Agbalowomeri, Ihedi, RabiDoracle, fxuser, Obagaddafi, Yayira, Investnow 2017, Parisfran, Onegentleguy, Coolcash, Locodemy, Godlyguy, Tritritri, etc.

JMAN05:
You will have difficulty discussing with this guy. Had he been consistent and had knowledge of the scriptures, it would have been easier. Stating that what was written in Matthew has been there even before Jesus birth is a gaffe that gives him away.

So the mere fact that the account of the announcement of Jesus' birth by Angel Gabriel is written in Mathew automatically means that it happened after Jesus was born? What is the need announcing a promise after it has been fulfilled?

Then by your logic, the ancestors of Jesus listed in the first chapter of Mathew also existed after Jesus was born, right? This your argument alone gives you away as confused.

CAPTIVATOR:
Show us where it is written that the Messiahs name is JESUS ?

Bro, there is no reason to take you serious anymore . its glaring already that you know not what you are saying ! so Matthew is part of the Hebrew Scriptures available at that time . In fact Matthew has written his gospel at the time such that everybody already know the Messiahs name is Jesus .



Seriously ?

Go and sit down and do a very core analysis on what it means to believe in Jesus as Messiah after that You will better understand why the Jews and others need to be Evangelized to that Jesus Is Messiah both from house to house and right there in the Temple -Act 5:42

It's you who shouldn't be taken seriously anymore as you keep shifting the goalpost. You don't really have an idea of what you are saying.
It is a pity you are not able to read between the lines in Matthew's account.
Even though it is written in The new testament, the scenario which Matthew was referring to in that account all happened before Jesus was born and not after Jesus started his ministry.
It is like arguing that those ancestors mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus all existed in the New Testament times just because the genealogy account itself was given in Mathew - a new testament book.
Isiah Chapter 7:14 makes it clear that the Messiah's earthly mother would name him "Emmanuel" which means "God with us". Prior to the Messiah's birth, Angel Gabriel told His earthly father to name Him "Jesus" meaning "God will save His people"
Yet before both of these instances happened all other prophets had prophesied that the Messiah would come and dwell among his people and save them. So who could have read the Hebrew text then and still not know that the Messiah was going to be called Jesus?
It is you who needs to sit down and do a core analysis and deep personal study of the promise of the Messiah while freeing your mind from a doctrine imposed on you by some 8 men who are just as human as yourself.

degamemaster:
I think that all these northern PDP members decamping to the APC now were actually APC members as moles in the PDP and worked indirectly towards PDP's downfall in the last election.

But most of them were members of PDP right from 1999 when no one had ever dreamt of forming anything like APC.

EternalTruths:
Ironsi and not Ojukwu that crushed Isaac Adaka's NigerDelta Republic.

Pls don't accuse Ojukwu wrongly

Ojukwu was the Eastern Region Governor whom Ironsi ordered to crush Isaac Boro's attempt at secession from Nigeria. Niger Delta Republic was geographically in the Eastern Region which was under Ojukwu's control within Nigeria.

Tflex01:
Is that why Igbos have been supporting Northerners over their fellow southerners since 1979

Na kids full Nairaland ö. .....

I share your feelings. Honestly! Nairaland is full of indomie generation. In fact Igbos have always supported not even the entire North but have always colluded specifically with the Hausa-Fulani Core North against the rest of Nigeria since 1959.

knowledgeable:
Igbos understood these truths 50yrs back starting with Ojukwu. Middle belt, starting with Benue state have just started to understand this reality(where's Gowan as he always comment on Biafra issues?).

It will take the Yorubas 50yrs or never to understand the true nature of this reality, because to them, Igbos present more of a threat to them than Hausa/fulani, and their warped strategy of shouting of one Nigeria the most at the same time the most tribalistic(all because of monopoly of two critical infrastructures.....deep sea port/international airport).

It is either you are not honest with yourself or you are ignorant of the facts of history.

How come Ojukwu and Igbos saw this 50 years ago yet: 1. Ojukwu crushed Isaac Adaka Boro's attempt to get the Niger Delta Republic out of Nigeria on 23rd Feb 1966?
2. The same Ojukwu in the name of still having hope of renegotiating a non-existent national unity, twice sent back to the North all the Igbos who successfully escaped the Igbo targeted massacres sparked off by the the 1966 coups?
3. The same Ojukwu returned from exile and Joined the NPN owned by those from whom he escaped by whiskers during the civil war?
How come Igbos knew all these 50 years back yet:

1. No single Igbo man anywhere rose publicly against Zik for inventing the "One-Nigeria" sloganeering shortly after Igbos had just been massacres in their thousands in Jos (1945 ) and in Kano (1953).
2. No Single Igbo man protested against Zik for taking the Igbos into an NCNC-NPC alliance which Igbos knew would give power to the Hausa-Fulani North over the south perpetually into the future?
3. No Igbo man took a stand against Zik for repeating in 1979 the same mistake he made at independence which led to the civil war that cost the Igbo nation 3 million lives?
4. All Igbos cheered Zik up when he severally argued against the inclusion of secession clause in our constitution and canvassed Britain to threaten all secession clause proponents into rescinding their position?
5. No Igbo man countered Zik for deciding to have independence delayed till the North was ready?
6. No Igbo man advised Aguyi Ironsi and Ojukwu to use their powers as military HOS and Eastern Region Governor, to take Igbos out of Nigeria while Igbos were being slaughtered right under Ironsi's nose in the North in revenge for the assassination of Balewa and Ahmadu Bello?
7. No Igbo man saw anything wrong when Aguiyi Ironsi promulgated his Anti-secession Decree while still in power as HoS?

In actual fact, Igbos did not see anything at the beginning. Every other tribe saw it clearly before Igbos that Nigeria was going to be a Shithole hence their demands for secession at different times. Biafra declaration came later than all other tribes' request for secession. All other tribes had woken up and left the house before Igbos realized it was daybreak. And that was why they fell the biggest victims of the Nigerian tragedy.

Tflex01:
When are you miserable lots ever going to stop blaming the Yorubas for what you started for God sake!!!

Check the voting pattern of each region in 1979, 1993, 1999 and 2007 see which tribe in the South is to blame.

Rubbish!

Thank you for the refresher. Those who murdered sleep are complaining of insomnia.

CAPTIVATOR:
There is nothing superior in the argument, Just confusion - someone interpreting believing in Messiah to be same as Believing in Jesus .



Best examples of believing in Jesus or Messiah?

John didn't know who exactly is the Messiah until he met Jesus , The Ethiopian Eunuch too didn't know Jesus is Messiah until Philip preached for him.

So you are still mistakening Beliving in Messiah as Same with believing Jesus is that messiah . that is your error







They all belived in the Messiah ... Yet that doesn't make them believers . Now we are getting there . your inability to separate the two is what causes the going up and down in circles .

Now did John belived in Jesus until he met him ?

Did the Eunuch believed in Jesus until he was shown the truth about Jesus ?

( and don't make the mistake of confusing beliving in the Messiah as same as believing in Jesus as that Messiah)

Since believing Jesus is that Messiah is an entirely different thing, its understandable why the apostles Preach the message of Jesus is Messiah in Act 5:42 to unbelievers ( people who Re yet to accept Jesus is that Messiah they have been waiting for )

Let me help you one more time.
Before the birth of Jesus, the scriptures had already made it known that the Messiah would be named Jesus - Mathew 1:22.
So whoever had read the scriptures already knew the Messiah as Jesus, thus whoever genuinely believed in the promised Messiah as described in the scriptures automatically also believed in Jesus as the Messiah prior to even His birth let alone the launching of His ministry. Only the Jews practising Judaistic fundamentalism deliberately refused to accept it like that not because they were sincerely ignorant of it but because it did not conform to their own carnal minded idea of who a savior should be.
If, we were to accept your position that no one could be a believer in Jesus before he revealed Himself through the beginning of His ministry, then one would be misled into assuming that John the Baptist was an unbeliever prophet preaching and baptizing on Jesus' behalf just because he had not known Jesus physically.
Does that make sense?
In fact John the Baptist believed in Jesus without anyone having preached to him at all. Same with the Eunuch.

All those who came to John to get baptized knew that John was preaching the Messiah they were specifically expecting. Also note that the Pharisees and Sadducees who came for the baptism had repented of believing in a warrior Messiah and accepted the Messiah as Jesus. John the Baptist himself made this known in his declaration when he saw them coming.

CAPTIVATOR:


With the above, thanks for your time . we can just safely conclude that Every Jew is a believer, including the pharisees , Sadducees and all who expects the messiah . They are all believers , they just don't know who the Christ is yet . - Even the Samaritan woman testifies that the whole nation Expects the Messiah who will show them the way forward - John 4:25 .

So from your standpoint even that woman is a believer Despite she having 5 husbands, The Pharisees too and all . they all believed in the Messiah .


With that, am not surprised you could say Act 5:42 was a message to belivers since the whole Jewish nation are believers the moment they expect the Messiah . Even when they kill Jesus , they are still very much believers, since they have faith in the coming of the Messiah though not recognizing him




Thanks Bro

You have deliberately misinterpreted the message to preserve your narrative in the face of superior argument.
The issue under contention is whether one back then could be a believer before ever knowing who exactly Jesus was, and the answer is a big Yes. John the Baptist and the Ethiopian Eunuch stand out as the best examples.
The Samaritan Woman and all the others you mentioned above came to believe in Jesus after getting to know him in person. The Judaist Jews were not believers because even though they were expecting a Messiah, the perception they had about the characteristics that Messiah would posses was contrary to that which was clearly spelt out in the scriptures they Ironically claimed was their guide.The scriptures described the Messiah as peaceful and compassionate, humane, loving, humble and self-effacing; but they ignored all that and created their own version of the attributes of the Messiah to include a physical warrior, a killer, a blood thirsty conqueror, etc. Such was a clear disbelief in the scriptures, hence they became unbelievers even though they were expecting a Messiah too.
On the other hand, both the Jews and non-Jews like John and the Eunuch, who chose not to create their own mental version of the messiah but believed the attributes of the Messiah as spelt out in the scriptures were believers hence did not need to have seen or known Him before believing in Him. That was a display of great faith which Christianity itself is all about. Thanks for your time too.

Jozzy4:
Worshipping God is same as accepting Christ as Messiah? Gosh lol

Every Jew claims to worship Jehovah God in Jerusalem Yet many of them reject Jesus as Messiah till today !!! Learn and reason .

A Jew belives Messiah is coming BUT its a different ball game to accept that Jesus the son of Mary is that Messiah . ( identity )

You yourself quoted this :


Acts chapter 1;

5 There were Jews living in Jerusalem, religious people who had come from every country in the world. 6 When they heard this noise, a large crowd gathered. They were all excited, because all of them [ Religious people and Jews who has come to Jerusalem ] heard the believers talking in their own languages. "
( Bracket Mine )

Why are those religious people in Jerusalem Clearly Separated from believers in this verse ?

The believers were part of the crowd which Peter spoke to that day. If you are still not satisfied with this, the
thehe illustration I have given above with the case of John the Baptist should be enough. Recall that even though John the Baptist was already preaching about Christ and baptizing people on His behalf, he did not know Him until the Holy Spirit explained to (i.e. taught) him just like the same Holy Spirit later sent Philip to go and teach the Eunuch despite also believing in Jesus prior to any teaching.
In fact John the Baptist's belief in the Messiah had to be further strengthened by the teaching Jesus later sent to him in prison. You know that John believed in and had come to know Jesus before he was imprisoned. However, Jesus still had to later send him a message to further convince him that his belief in Him was not mistaken. If we were to agree with your logic, then it would mean that Jesus' act of sending of a message to convince the imprisoned John that He was the Messiah meant that John the Baptist was never a believer before going to jail. But we know that is not true. So your argument fails again.

CAPTIVATOR:
Very funny, Now I could see why we keep going in circles .

I agree with you that almost all who went to Jerusalem accept that a Messiah is coming . If that's your definition of believer, I disagree .

A believer is someone who has accept Christ as the promised Messiah . its on record that many Jews despite worshipping God or performing the custom of going to Jerusalem don't accept Jesus is the Christ .

Yes, Someone can believe messiah is coming but disregard Christ as that Messiah thinking he is not the one as many do say during Christ Ministry .

The Eunuch is Not a believer because he hasn't come to know or believe in Jesus Christ as the promised messiah . A Believer will never have asked ' who Is it the prophet is talking about, - Act 8 : 34 Not until Philip preached the message of Jesus as Messiah to him in the next verse .

So yes, he believed a Messiah is coming , But yet to accept Christ Jesus as that Messiah . so which demand that gospel which Philip preached . Same Gospel preached in Act 5:42 proving those been evangelized to are yet to believe Jesus is the Messiah

As per the bolded; let me use another illustration since the Eunuch's one does not convince you.

John The Baptist was a believer spreading the message about Christ and asking people to repent. However, he had not known who Christ was despite Christ was standing right in front of him. It took the Holy Spirit telling him who Jesus was. This meant John the Baptist was a believer who however did not know the person he believed in until the Holy Spirit showed him. So he obviously kept on asking the Holy Spirit to reveal the identity of Jesus to him despite he had believed in Him and had been preaching and baptizing others who repented to follow Christ.
You can't be conducting baptisms on behalf of a person you are yet to believe in.

See the passage below:
John Chapter 1.

29. The next day John saw Jesus coming to him, and said, “There is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is the one I was talking about when I said, ‘A man is coming after me, but he is greater than I am, because he existed before I was born.’ 31 I did not know who he would be, but I came baptizing with water in order to make him known to the people of Israel.”

This shows clearly that he believed in and was preaching about a person he had not known.

32 And John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down like a dove from heaven and stay on him. 33 I still did not know that he was the one, but God, who sent me to baptize with water, had said to me, ‘You will see the Spirit come down and stay on a man; he is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 I have seen it,” said John, “and I tell you that he is the Son of God.”


Based on the above the Eunuch was a believer in Christ and went to worship the God who sent Him even though he was yet to know who exactly that Christ was.

Jozzy4:
Oh, since every Jew expects the Messiah and worship God as well , I guess every Jew is a believer ? U can imagine .

Your desperation will move you to accept anything , despite the fact that the underlined separated those people from believers.


Fact remains the Ethiopia Eunuch going to Jerusalem doesn't make him a believer , Hence needed the message preached/ Evangelized in Acts 5;42 , the message of Jesus is Christ . strictly a message for unbelievers .

A believer already accept Christ as Messiah hence doesn't need such basic concept , proving the audience of Act 5:42 are unbelievers .

Hmmm. Very disingenuous of you as per the bolded. Do you think there was any specific formal ceremony instituted to mark when a Jew or gentile practising Judaism accepted the message about Jesus messiahship?
John the Baptist baptized people into Christ before Christ ever revealed Himself as the promised Messiah by way of commencing his ministry in full public glare. So you believe those Jews and unbelievers baptized by John the Baptist were still unbelievers after the baptism just because they had not physically met Jesus and any of his disciples for any teaching as at that moment?
The Bible says it clearly that the Ethiopian Eunuch went to Jerusalem to worship.
Is it really possible for a person to go and worship a God he had not yet believed in? Was it an Idol he went to worship there?
How come he went there to worship a different god and yet the God of Jesus Christ sent Philip to him to explain a message about Jesus to him? Does that make sense?

wanaj0:
Actually one will be worse off by converting useless stocks into LONG TERM portfolio. It is like keeping a corpse in the house waiting for it to come alive! Once you realise the mistake (not out of emotions), just get out and put your money in fundamentally sound stocks.

A lot of people buy out of hype or sentiments. They don't even understand how the company they are buying their stocks create value. Emotional investing is nothing but gambling.

We are currently FAR from a market crash. Oil price is robust enough. The PE's of most stocks is still less than 10. The economy is recovering with growth expected in 2018. The election risk is overrated.

Flee the market if oil price drops below the budget benchmark and 'pipeline engineers' in the ND start to tamper with the oil pipelines.

Very correct on the bolded. Some of such fundamentally defective stocks might be so beyond salvage that they eventually get delisted and the long term philosophy fails in the end and leaves the long termer in final loss. Examples are Costain and others currently under delisting process like DEAP, Evans Medicals, etc., hence for me the uncertainty which defines the Nigerian investment environment is not worth the pain of excessive long terming and does not really guarantee eventual victory in the end.
Whenever I realize that I have fallen into a troubled company which may not survive the trouble, I just cut my losses and move on but may return to it if and when it begins to show signs of genuine and sustainable recovery in order to resume from where I stopped with it.

Jozzy4:
Smiles, you are the one who need to see things logically.

Remember Pentecost 33CE, and the various people that congregated together then. People going to Jerusalem has nothing to do with believing in Jesus .

As at when Jesus was 12 years old, when he wasn't even known yet ... Many already make the journey there .

So you can see its not a matter of been believers, All those who came to Pentecost in Jerusalem are not believers either .

Luke 2:41,42

41 Every year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the Festival of the Passover. 42 When he was twelve years old, they went up to the festival, according to the custom.

That nullifies the thought that the Eunuch was a beliver , How could he even belived in someone he doesn't know ?

He told Philip : who is it the prophet is talking about ?
The message is preached to those who are not yet believers , that is the point am trying to make here cos its d same message preached in Act 5:42 !



They are unbelievers as specified by the message Jesus is Christ . to preach means to EVANGELIZE .

Before Jesus was born at all a lot of people both in Israel and outside Israel (including the Eunuch) had, through reading the books of the prophets, known he was going to come some day, and had therefore believed in him in advance and were eagerly waiting for him to be born.

Even Mary herself knew from the scriptures that a Messiah was going to come hence she was very happy to discover that she was the one chosen by God as His earthly mother. So the customs you talk about here were a foreshadowing of the fact that the most Jews were already aware of the coming of Jesus only that they had a mistaken idea of what He would look like.
In fact the Eunuch's visit to Jerusalem was not in fulfilment of any Jewish custom since he was not a Jew. It was rather strictly for worship of the God of Israel whom he had come to believe in despite being a gentile. Look at the verse again and face reality:

"So Philip got ready and went. Now an "Ethiopian eunuch, who was an important official in charge of the treasury of the queen of Ethiopia, was on his way home. He had been to Jerusalem to worship God and was going back home in his carriage."
I hope you accept the truth now.

Here is the account of what happened on the day of Pentecost as reported in Acts chapter 1;

5 There were Jews living in Jerusalem, religious people who had come from every country in the world. 6 When they heard this noise, a large crowd gathered. They were all excited, because all of them heard the believers talking in their own languages. 7 In amazement and wonder they exclaimed, “These people who are talking like this are Galileans!8 How is it, then, that all of us hear them speaking in our own native languages? 9 We are from Parthia, Media, and Elam; from Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia; from Pontus and Asia, 10 from Phrygia and Pamphylia, from Egypt and the regions of Libya near Cyrene. Some of us are from Rome, 11 both Jews and Gentiles converted to Judaism, and some of us are from Crete and Arabia—yet all of us hear them speaking in our own languages about the great things that God has done! But some doubted......"

These people were obviously not Jews but were gentile believers who were either living in Jerusalem or had travelled there to worship.
Likewise, they had unbelievers among them who formed the remaining part that the next chapter reported as full of doubt and therefore accused the disciples of drunkeness. So the crowd there was a mixture of believers and unbelievers.

Eunuch already knew about and believed in the God of Israel and the promise of the Messiah hence his owning a copy of the scriptures and the studying of it together with his visit to Jerusalem to worship as a gentile. He did not need to have seen Jesus face to face before believing in him. Did you yourself see Jesus face to face before believing in him? Was it not from the Bible you read about him just as the Eunuch?

seunlayi:
soludo proposed this during the last tenure of OBJ, it was already announced but the whole senators and Reps kicked against it

I remember it was during Yaradua's time that Soludo came up with the proposal and Yaradua overruled it immediately.

Jozzy4:
Was the Eunuch a Disciple ? That's the question.



So funny, that was a Typo.. Should be Act 20:20,21 , the 0,21 went missing .



The verse said Teaching and preaching ( Evangelize ) , the word rendered preaching means To evangelize ... This is done to those who haven't received Christ .

Besides, Jesus in his instruction also said go, and make disciples from people of all nations, Teach them ... Teaching and preaching go hand in hand .

Again, to preach is to Evangelize

So only the disciples were believers? Are you serious at all?

Even verse 21 does not establish the point you are trying to make. There is no relationship whatsoever.

You love going round in circles. In Acts 20:20,21 Paul was speaking to Church elders specifically and in the process reminded them of how he visited them (i.e. Those Church Elders alone) at home. In fact from verse 17 of Acts 20:20 he purposely sent for only the church elders who were already elders before he ever arrived in Ephesus.
They were already church elders before he came to Ephesus, thus his visit to them from house to house in Ephesus could not have ever been for proselytization.

Go and study the whole of Acts chapter 19 from the first to the last verse.
According to it, On arrival in Ephesus Paul went to stay in the Jewish Synagogue and did all his preaching there for the first three months. Then he left there for the lecture Hall of Tyrannus where he had discussions DAILY for the remaining two years he spent in the city before riots broke out and festered till he left.
So when did he have time to go from house to house under all that circumstance?
How come he went from house to house to win converts yet not even a single instance was reported in the whole of the chapter?

Jozzy4:
Lolzzz, Oga People have been going to Jerusalem to worship before Jesus come . it has nothing to do with Jesus , its a required thing for Jews to meet together .

Remember Joseph and Mary travelled also to Jerusalem when Jesus was still young . ?

The guy is not yet a disciple , the message Philip preached to him was the same as that preached in Act 5;42 , the Gospel of Jesus Christ

The main point here is that message is preached to those who are not yet disciples .



You like holding up irrelevant things , I can see @ captivator gave that verse To let you see the kind of audience to whom that message is been evangelized . the gospel of Jesus Christ been preached to the Greeks . the Greeks are not disciples

So you can better understand the audience of Act 5;42 who is been preached to with the message of the Goodnews of Christ . it becomes clear they are evangelizing to it to people who are yet to know Christ .

You are beginning to manifest an inclination towards use of for abusive language and blackmail. such attitude tells me you know deep within you that you are not really making sense. Why accuse me of holding up irrelevant arguments rather than just make your point? Only bigoted opinions are defended with abusive language.
The Eunuch was an Ethiopian and not a Jew hence his going to Jerusalem to worship had nothing to do with the instructions for the Jews to meet together. Like Cornelius, there were non-Jews who believed in Jesus even before Jesus was crucified.The centurion is another example.
What happened between Philip and the Eunuch was not preaching but an explanation which took the form of teaching. An unbeliever could not have gone to Jerusalem out of his own volition to worship and then on his way home be studying the scriptures as well. Why not look at these thing logically at least for once?
Meanwhile you have been trying to change the topic from the rightness vs wrongness of house to house preaching by jumping around different verses which are not related to it.

You have refused to answer my question that "Could those who were preached to in the Temple as recorded in Acts 5:42 be unbelievers?"

CAPTIVATOR:


Receptive heart or not is not the issue here, Is the Eunuch a beliver ? What message is been preached to him ? Is it same with that mentioned in Act 5 :42 ?

Act 11:20 proclaiming the good news of Christ to Greeks ( another proof its to convince unbelievers )

Still taking verses in isolation thus out of context. In verse 27 of that Acts chapter 8, the Eunuch is reported to be on his journey back home after having gone for worship in Jerusalem. How could an unbeliever have gone to worship in Jerusalem?

And does Acts 11:20 record that they went from house to house among those Greek unbelievers?
Recall that the contention is about the rightness or wrongness of going from house to house among unbelievers.

CAPTIVATOR:
Its a very simple thing, the Message been evangelized exposed the flaws in your argument, Its to convince the people to accept Jesus as Messiah, Not believers who already did .

I could see you have edited your message, the transfiguration was to fulfil the prophecy that they will see the son of man in Glory before they died .

Jozzy4 gave a good example of preaching the goodnews of Jesus been done to unbelievers In Act 8 : 35 . that explains it

And what was the fulfillment of the prophesy meant to achieve other than prove it to them that he was really the expected Messiah? Are prophesies fulfilled just for the sake of that?

Acts 8:27 states that the Eunuch in question had gone to Jerusalem to worship. I guess an unbeliever could have gone to worship in Jerusalem, right?

Yea I edited my comment to supply you more scriptural evidence. Anything wrong with that?

CAPTIVATOR:
, Be sincere ..

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Every day in the temple courtyard and from house to house, they refused to stop teaching and telling the Good News that Jesus is the Messiah.



Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And they did not cease to teach every day in The Temple and in houses, and to evangelize about our Lord Yeshua The Messiah.

Does this Jesus is Messiah message sound like a message to fellow believers who already accept Jesus as Messiah or People who don't accept Jesus as Messiah ?

It is very obvious that you have not taken the pain to follow this thread from the beginning.
This verse you quoted in different translations a
is a part of a larger narration which the book of Acts contain. My argument here is that it is wrong to pick verses in isolation to the entire passages in which they are just a part. That exactly is what you have done. Drawing the hands of the clock back and asking me to be sincere. That advice is actually meant for you.

As for the bolded, were there not already existing believers in the Temples where the same verse you reference claims they preached?
If you think it does not make sense to continue preaching the The Messiahship of Jesus to already existing believers, then why did Jesus take Peter, Andrew and one other disciple to witness his transfiguration despite they had already believed in His Messiahship before then? Hope you know that the transfiguration was aimed at strengthening their conviction that Jesus was the promised Messiah?
Close to Jesus as the disciples were, they still need further efforts to ground their belief in Christ's Messiahship. Then how much more of believers who never got that close to Jesus?

Jozzy4:
Its a wrong generalization, they were teaching people NOT believers in the verse . this is why I asked you to Read Act 8:35 and see who are been preached the good news of Christ to .



#shakes head# seriously ?

U miss the point, I cite the verse to let you notice this fact ; The Goodnews of Christ mentioned in Act 5:42 is been preached to people who are not yet believers .

At Act 8:35, Philip preached this same goodnews of Christ to the Ethiopian eunuch , NOT a fellow believer .

What are they preaching In Act 5:42 ?

They preached the goodnews of Jesus Christ ... Clearly, they are teaching people with this message NOT to fellow believers.

@ Act 20:2 Paul also preached house to house , preaching repentance towards God and Faith in Lord Jesus .

Not a theme for a believer who has already have faith in Christ .



Assumption @ underlined ... Unfounded one .

They are preaching the goodnews of Christ , to whom is such message share if NOT unbelievers as seen in Act 8:35 ?

So they gonna be preaching the goodnews of Christ to someone who has already accept Christ as Lord ? Doesn't make sense, its a sentimental opinion .

The Eunuch was of similar spiritual standing as Cornelius and he was studying the scriptures with a receptive heart thus he had already believed but only wanted to understand. Remember the kingdom is by first believing so that you may understand unlike science and human disciplines for which you must first understand before believing.

The use of "people" connotes nothing other than generalization. "The people" mean both believers and unbelievers. However, when you factor in the preceding verses and treat the passage as a whole, you can't deny the nuances.

You lie about Acts 20:2
It did not say anything at all about house to house preaching.
Here is what it says starting from verse 1, " When the uproar had ended, Paul sent for the disciples and after encouraging them, said good-bye and set out for Macedonia. 2. He travelled through that area speaking many words of encouragement to the people and finally arrived in Greece."
Now apart from the fact that it wasn't recorded here that he went from house to house while traveling through those places mentioned, it is inconceivable that a man who was hurrying away from a city where there was an uproar against him would decide to start wasting time visiting houses in just the neighboring territories.

As per the bolded, the verse spoke of teaching and announcing the good news but in analysing it you removed the word "teaching" in pursuit of the predetermined doctrine you are trying to establish.

Put the "teaching" back and ask yourself who needs teaching between unbelievers and already existing believers?
Don't you as an already existing believer receive teaching in your Kingdom Halls? Does that make you an unbeliever? How does a believer grow if not by teaching?
Teaching is exclusively meant for believers. Unbelievers have no business with it.

You don't teach unbelievers. You first convince them by announcing the good news and healing them of their diseases since, as unbelievers, they require signs and not teaching.

In fact trying to teach an unbeliever is usually counterproductive because he too already has a belief structure which he rigidly believes in. When you speak he can counter you with superior arguments. When you challenge a Moslem's faith by trying to teach him the Bible you are very likely to fail because most of them study the Bible more than Christians and you inclusive. Same with Bhuddists and even Atheists. But by demonstrating the power and love of God through miracles you melt their hearts. That is why Paul says in 1 Cor 4:20 that the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power.

Jozzy4:
Is the underlined what the verse said ?

Oh, they are preaching the GOOD NEWS of JESUS CHRIST to fellow believers ? then why are they believers if they don't know Jesus Christ . lame excuse Bro

Read Act 8:35 , They preach the goodnews of Christ to those who are not yet believers . what is happening in Act 5:42 is a powerful declaration about Jesus Christ to people of all sort coming into the Temple and meeting such ones in house to house ministry .

As per your first paragraph, what you see in that verse is a generalization which does not alter the specific nuances in the details. I have repeated this enough.

Acts 8:35 has nothing about house to house preaching. It is rather an encounter between Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch who was on a journey and was reading Isiah without understanding. This means the Eunuch was not really an unbeliever. And even at that the angel directed Philip to catch up with the him on his way home and not in his home on arrival. So your argument fails again.

Let me now go a bit more detailed about this Acts 5:42 you've been holding onto as your remaining lifeline. What we have there is that they were teaching and proclaiming the good news from house to house. Now, aside the fact that there was no single person in Jerusalem to whom the gospel was altogether strange at that material time, you need to go back to Acts 5:12 - 16 where the whole show began. It records that the Apostles and believers performed healing miracles on the people who gathered around them either in the streets or at Solomon's Colonnade of the Temple and because of this more men and women were added to their numbers. This means they won new converts in the Temple and in the streets but never inside people's houses. It was on this note that the high priests and Sadducees got to know and out of envy got the Apostles punished. Had they won the converts inside people's houses privately it would not have been a public issue and the Chief priests and Sadducees would not have heard about it let alone getting them punished.
Again, if you read Acts 4:32-37 you would see that the believers lived communal lives relative to one another. This means they shared all they had among themselves even though they were living separately in the physical sense. For people residing in different houses to live communally, they must visit one another's houses to share those belongings and strengthen one another's faith by teaching and proclaiming the message which constrained them to live such pattern of life in the first instance. This is what house to house manner refers to in the verse you cited above, and not the evangelism targeted at unbelievers.
Till now you have not been able to cite outside Acts any passage or verse which clearly approves house to house preaching in unambiguous language.
I have successfully cited some outside Acts.
Whatever position we want to defend, we must be able to draw clear evidences from as many books as possible as long as we believe that these books are not cross-contradictory.

Jozzy4:
They not only focus on the Temple to reach people and declare the good news, House to House was very much practical too. No wonder Paul made mention of it in Act 20:20

Let's even assume that the above is wholly correct as stated by you. Now you seem to agree that every method they used should as well be used today. Good!
They also used open air crusades which held in public places that were not temples.
Now, why do you JWs avoid doing organized open air crusades at a particular spot in public places?

Jozzy4:
@ bolded, Same way he prohibit them from preaching outside Israel or going to people of the nations . ( Matthew 10:5,6


It all boils down to prevailing circumstances.

Neither did he ever prohibit them from entering a House , for he told them to go to the homes of people . this ones can either accept them or reject ( Luke 10:5,6 ) .


On a large scale as Christianity continue to spread, House to house became a practical method of reaching people .

Act 5:42 even reports :

" and every day in the temple and FROM HOUSE to HOUSE they continued without let up teaching and declaring the good news about the Christ, Jesus "


They not only focus on the Temple to reach people and declare the good news, House to House was very much practical too. No wonder Paul made mention of it in Act 20:20

As per the first and second bolded, I had explained in previous pages here that permission to enter a house on first arrival was not for preaching but to seek a potential believer ready to assist them with lodging and accommodation throughout their stay in that town. Please read further to verse 11-13 of that Mathew Chapter 10 which says, "Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave....". This can't be about the manner of preaching but of looking for where to lodge first before the commencement of business.
The same is repeated in Luke 10: 5-7.

For the third bolded; the events happened in Jerusalem among whom there were already believers converted by Jesus Himself, thus it was a visit of fellow believers to one another's houses for fellowshiping.

Acts 20:20 can't be divorced from Acts 19:1-7 as long as full understanding is the goal.

Jozzy4:


Even Jesus instruct his apostles to only go to the house of isreal and should not enter into the nations to preach , didn't he ?

Did they disobey?

This is why I asked earlier on if the apostles are disobeying Jesus Christ, a because clearly as seen in Act 20:20 and Act 5:42 , they presched from house to house .

Infact Jesus also said they must not greet anyone on their way to preach ...


Circumstances of the time make Jesus give this guidelines, after his resurrection he instruct them to.go into the whole world , House to house preaching becomes one of their preaching methods ( Act 5:42, 20:20)

In commissioning the 72 disciples in Luke 10:7 Jesus was silent on the question of whether they could go to gentile lands or not. But let us even assume that He didn't want them to visit gentile lands on that very outing judging from the constraining circumstances you claim were in existence at that moment, then it would mean that he forbade house to house preaching among the Jews. And those 72 actually went out and returned without actually visiting gentile lands. So how come it appears to you that they disobeyed Christ by entering into gentile territories thereby setting a precedent for future disobedience to Jesus' instruction against house to house preaching?

Even when Jesus later expanded the reach of His gospel to gentiles he only asked them to go out into the whole world and spread the good news without making any alterations to the manner he had already spelt out in previous instances. If He had found a change necessary about the manner of approach do you think he would not have made it known when he was expanding the outlook to cover all nations? And do you think it was a coincidence that Paul and Peter always first went to the synagogues in whichever gentile cities they set their feet on for the first time ever?

Now, let me tell you the actual reason behind Jesus disapproval of house to house manner:
Luke 10: 2 he said to the 72 appointees, "The harvest is ripe but labourers are few....". This therefore means the method that must be adopted for maximum harvest is mass approach. And that would normally involve speaking from the synagogues or other public places. On the other hand going from house to house would not yield a bountiful harvest within the timeframe they had to evangelize.
On return, their testimonies actually showed they made a mountainous harvest of souls that same day.
Small as Israel was in population, house to house approach was seen by Jesus as unproductive. Then how could He have ever intended it to be used for the far more populous gentile land where bigger harvests were ripe?
And have labourers outnumbered ripe harvest today to warrant a change of approach as you would have us believe?
Are other world's religions not being reported as growing faster than Christianity today through biological means?

Jozzy4:
Bro, the below statement is FALSE . admit that and present your apology , then we can proceed .

First show the proof that it is wrong.
However, I can't even continue with any of you because for three days now I have taken the pain to address and comment on all the verses you raised in defense of your beliefs in house to house preaching while you people on the other hand have refused to directly or indirectly address the Luke 10:7 I cited for my conviction against house to house preaching.
It has been a one sided game all along and it must stop being so. If you want me to continue then first tell me why the disciples later 'disobeyed' Jesus clear instruction in Luke 10:7 by going from house to house immediately on arrival in previously unevangelized towns as it appears to you.

Any further response short of this will not get my attention. Thanks.

Jozzy4:
This he said was done by teaching publicly and from house to house .

You have refused to address Luke 10:7 in which Jesus clearly forbade house to house preaching for fresh evangelism.
If you keep twisting the other verses to make it appear that JWs are right to go from house to house then where do you place this clear instruction from Jesus himself? Aren't Bible verses supposed to harmoniously agree? Your twisting of the other verses make them look contradictory to Luke 10:7. And you are okay with that just so that JWs ego must be massaged?

Jozzy4:
Firstly Apologize for your earlier FALSE statement.

You are not making any sense with this.
What is all this demand for apology about when you are not God? Why do you JWs so much love playing God?
Does the NWT indicate any footnote that there are two possible renderings to that verse?
Are the LXX Septuagint, RSV and NIV you referenced for evidence the same as the NWT you could not reference for same. Why did NWT translators avoid presenting both renderings but chose just the one which favoured their predetermined doctrine? That is the distortion. Distortion could take the form of addition or deliberate ommission which is the case here.