₦airaland Forum

Uncletony:
Ambode is a tipical Yorubaman...a COWARD!

Politics is not simple arithmetics.
You don't know what he knew that necessitated his decision.
I hope you know the meaning of 'coward'?

NaijaOlosho:
Let the rigging start

I think rigging is too late at this point.

thatigboman:
Obaseki has won. With 3 remaining local govts and leading with over 80,000 votes

He's leading with over 80k votes?

O ya na. Buhari, end the lock down now!

Raymondfayowole:
Who told u I was fighting for the Roman catholic.

I explained to u several times the purpose of the law, I told u dat the law of Moses was still in effect prior to the death of Christ. I told u that Paul utilized the Sabbath during his evangelistic efforts.

Jesus and His Apostles actually kept the Sabbath, not Sunday. Paul didn't utilize the Sabbath, he kept it holy. There are instances where he had the opportunity to have a Sunday service, but no, it had to wait till the next Sabbath. The evidences are all over the new Testament.
Jesus and His Apostles are not hypocrites that teach one thing and do another. They do exactly what they preach. They kept the Sabbath as an example for us to follow. Jesus didn't come to destroy the law, but to establish it. Follow in His steps.

There is nothing to indicate that Jesus and his disciples extended the Sabbath to all nations. There is nothing in the apostolic practice and writings to suggest that the Sabbath was made a part of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ.

How else are you supposed to know you're to keep the Sabbath holy if not in the actions of Jesus and the Apostles? They didn't extend it to other nations you say? What about the Gentiles urging Paul to repeat his sermon to them the next Sabbath? (Acts 13:42). If Sabbath was not extended to other nations as you claim, why didn't Paul just preach the sermon just for the Gentiles the next day, being a Sunday?
Don't bother to answer. Sunday service was a strange practice in the time of the Apostles.

From your write up..it seem u r nt ready to learn...hv given u enough bible passages. But it seems u r reading a diff bible...so I'll leave u yourself..but free to practice whatever u want.....peace

Were you not born into a Sunday keeping family?
All your Bible passages didn't tell us the Sabbath is no longer needed. No where in the Bible is it stated that the fourth commandment, out of the ten, is no longer binding? So what is it to learn exactly? You should free your mind and learn instead.

Words from those who know far more than you can ever dream of :

It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church

Priest Brady, in an address reported in The News, Elizabeth, New Jersey, March 18, 1903

Sunday is our mark of authority...the Church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is a proof of that fact.

_Catholic Record of London, Ontario, September 1, 1923.

Sunday is founded, not of Scripture, but on tradition, and is distinctly a Catholic institution. As there is no Scripture for the transfer of the day of rest from the last to the first day the week, Protestants ought to keep their Sabbath on Saturday, and leave Catholics in possession of Sunday.

_Catholic Records, September 17, 1893

Raymondfayowole
1. God commands His people to "remember the sabbath to keep it holy."
2. Jesus and His early followers kept the sabbath. You may search from Genesis to Revelation, you won't find a single verse replacing the sabbath with sunday worship.
3. Jesus declared He didn't come to destroy the law and He warned against breaking the law.
These are Bible evidence.
There are countless evidence that the Roman church changed the sabbath to sunday worship and yes, they've owned up to it. So you can save your breath trying to defend what's not.
If you can not explain why Jesus Christ and all His direct Disciples, including Paul kept the sabbath all their lives, -a law you claim is no more binding-, do me a favor and hold your peace.
Please don't tell me they kept it because of some reasons rather than obeying God's command. Neither Jesus, nor His Apostles are hypocrites. They do only what's right.
Why did they keep the sabbath and you don't have to?

Raymondfayowole

Go and learn the difference between law and covenant before you reply me.
While law is a set of rules that must be followed, a covenant is a pact between two parties.
Jesus brought about a new covenant, not a new law. He made that very clear in Matt. 5:17. How else do you want Him to tell you he's not doing away with the law (10 commandments) if not in the plain letters of Matt. 5:17?
1. Is the sabbath command not in the law?
2. Are the other 9 are still binding?
3. If so, who gave you the authority to tamper with the 4th?
Jesus and all His Apostles kept the sabbath, because that's what God wants.
Satan is seeking to CHANGE TIMES AND LAW (Dan 7:25). You belong to him if you follow his counterfeit SUNday.
Worship HIM that made heaven and earth (Exo 20:11,Rev 14:7).
Rev 14:12b: "here are they that KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD, AND THE FAITH OF JESUS."
If God didn't spare Adam and Eve for eating just a fruit, he won't spare anyone who disobey any of His commandments (Matt 5:19).

Raymondfayowole
...the sabbath law was never a command in the patriarchal dispensation

...neither was the other laws in the ten commandments: "thou shall not have no other gods, thou shall not make unto thee any graven image, thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, honor thy parents, thou shall not kill, thou shall not commit adultery, thou shall not steal, thou shall not bear false witness, and thou shall not covet."
So I ask again, since "thou shall not kill" is not a written command in Cain's time, why was it wrong that he killed his brother?
Keeping the Sabbath is a reverence to HIM that created the heaven and earth (Gen 2:1-3, Exo 20:11). It is the day the Almighty set aside that we worship and fellowship with Him.
There's an express command: "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."
It is incumbent on you to produce a portion of the New Testament in which this command is expressly altered, not Jesus resurrection, or pentecost (which is a feast in the old testament).

Raymondfayowole
Why did Christ need to clarify he came to fulfill the old law if he was referring to the old law in v.19?

Except your definition of "fulfill" means "cease to exist", you should not have problem knowing the law in v.19 refers to that in v.17.
Jesus already said he didn't come to destroy the law (he never refer to the law as old). You claiming fulfilling the law now means it has been abandoned is the same as destroying it. Jesus does not contradict himself. Fulfill is used in that verse is the opposite of destroy, so if he's not come to destroy the law, definitely, he's come to establish it. It's as simple as that
Jesus and John "fulfilled all righteousness" at river Jordan (Matt 3:15), that didn't stop righteousness, instead we follow that act of baptism till date.
But Jesus fulfilled the law, we should not follow or obey.
Do we have two opposite meanings of the same word?

@Raymondfayowole, simple grammer dictates that the same law Jesus is saying he didn't come to destroy in Matt 5:17 is the same law he warned us not to break in v19. Or where in the whole chapter, did you read, the old law is obsolete, now this is the new law? Don't turn the scripture on its head.
Or who, in their right sense, throw away what they've come to complete or give meaning to?
The sabbath law was not in effect in the time of the Patriarchs?
So why was it wrong that Cain killed Abel? Afterall, there was no "do not kill".
Did God not bless and sanctify the 7th day at creation in Gen. 2:3?
Even Jesus prophesied sabbath would still be kept after his mission (Matt 24:20).
Is sunday keeping part of the new covenant?
Take the cure for your ignorance: "The authority of the church could therefore not be bound to the authority of the Scriptures, because the Church had changed the Sabbath into Sunday, NOT BY COMMAND OF CHRIST, but by its own authority" (Canon and Tradition, p. 263).

What's the point of Jesus leading by example if his followers don't follow his steps?

Raymondfayowole
Matt. 5:17-- "but to give full meaning to the law and magnify it."
Do you agree there's now a full and complete law?

How many of my questions have you been able to answer? Common listing of the ten commandments and explaining how breaking any of them would make you a good christian, you refused.
I'll oblige you.
Jesus has come to give full meaning to, and magnify the law.
In Matt 5:21, Jesus quoted the 6th commandment, thou shall not kill. He gave full meaning to/explanation of that law by saying, even getting angry without cause would put you in the danger of the same judgement of a killer.
Matt. 5:27-32 magnified the 7th law in the sense that, it's not sufficient not to commit adultery. Looking at someone lustfully is the same as committing adultery with the person.
You can call this completing the law or giving it detailed explanation, yes, but it still won't nullify the law itself.

@Raymondfayowole
So you want me to give you a Bible verse to make you believe the law in Matt. 5:19 refers to the same law mentioned just two verses behind? Seriously? This isn't even an object of debate.
Jesus was assurring us in verse 17 that he has not come to destroy the law, but to magnify it, then in verse 19 he warned against breaking the law or teaching others to break it.
And you're still asking me to give you a Bible verse to support the claim that the law Jesus warned us not to break is the same he said he has not come to destroy?
You're supposed to be the one giving me a Bible verse to support your claim that he's talking about a new law.
The same greek word translated as "fulfill" in Matt 3:15 is the same translated as "fulfill" in Matt 5:17, so if the fulfilling righteousness means Jesus and John doing God's will, fulfilling the law also should mean Jesus doing what God wants, or isn't the 10 commandment God's will?
What's the point of Jesus leading by example if his followers follow his steps?

@Raymondfayowole
According to your deluded mind, magnifying the law or completing its design means, it's been stopped?
If you were Jesus (thank God you're not), this is how you'll sound in Matt 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy the law but to stop it".
Let me expose you a little. There are many verses in the bible with the word translated as fulfill in that verse 17. Matt 3:15 is one of them; "...it becomes us to fulfill (complete) all righteousness."
So in your warped mind, Jesus and John stopped righteousness right there by fulfilling it? How do you explain Matt 3:15 with your 5:17 logic Mr. Bible expert?
Please list the ten commandments and explain how loving God and your neighbor nullify any of the commandments?

Count the question marks in this post and answer them in short sentences. Your bible verses didn't answer my questions. You were only running around like an headless fowl.

If Matt 5:19 is also referring to Matt 5:17, so tell me where will you put the "new design"?

Where did you see new design in that chapter?
In verse 17, he says, he hasn't come to destroy the law but to give full meaning to the law and magnify it.
In verse 19, he clearly says we should not only obey the law, but also teach it. Is it not clear enough that the law Jesus was talking about in verse 19 same as the law he said he never came to abolish in verse 17. Even basic grammer should tell you that.
The new design -whatever that means- doesn't change the fact that Jesus didn't abolish any law and fulfilling it doesn't imply his followers don't have to obey it.
Jesus fulfilled the law by magnifying it as prophesied in Isa. 42:21, "The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake, he will MAGNIFY the law and make it honorable."

Raymondfayowole

Show of Bible passage where the word in bold: "all" refers to only 10 commandment

Matt. 22:37, "...thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."

Jesus is directly referencing Deut. 6:5, "And thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." The opening verses of Deut 6 is about God's commandments. Which commandments? They're the ten commandments. See Deut 5:6-21.
Matt 22:39, "..., thou shall love your neighbor as thy self."

Again, Jesus is referencing Lev. 19:18, "...,and thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the Lord."
Why would Jesus be quoting from a scriptures talking specifically about the ten commandments if "all" the commandments is not referring to the ten commandments?
Or is the ten commandments not all about the love for God and man?
Please list the ten commandments and point to the one not hanging on loving God and loving fellow men. I'm waiting!

Raymondfayowole
I've explained to you that Jesus can't destroy the law because it's also the law of God

What exactly did you mean when you said this...?

Saying something does not mean "it's stopped" is like saying I promised you something and I fulfilled my promise but you're still saying there's still agreement between us

So you believe Jesus fulfilling the law and the prophets means it has stopped.
So you saying Jesus can't destroy the law of God and at the same time thinks fulfilling the law means the law has stopped is contradictory. According to you understanding, Matt. 5:17 would read "Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets: I am not come to destroy the law but to STOP the law".
It's still the same thing as destroying the law. This is obviously not so and so neither are the ten commandments abolished.

Raymondfayowole
...if you are ready to list all the commandments of the old testament still binding on Christians today, I'll gladly write out the 10 commandment for you

I never told you all the commandments of the old testament are still binding on Christians.
What I've been saying is that, all the ten commandments, being the moral law of God is still binding on everyone that's called by God's name.
So now you know the laws I believe should still be obeyed. Can you now please list out the ten commandments and show me how any part of it is irrelevant to Christians today?

I never told you Christians are free to disobey any law. My argument here is that all of the old law are not binding on Christians anymore

What did you smoke when you said this?

Aug 2, 2:49pm
If you want to practice the ten commandments nobody is against you. You are free to do so, but there's a curse for those that practice part of the law and neglect some

You're encouraging disobedience to God.

Raymondfayowole
If you say all commandments are the same, then his death is nothing to you and Christians should still be killing animals for remission of sin.

So where did I ever write all commandments are the same? Or did you ever read me advocating for ceremonial and sacrificial laws?
I've made it clear I'm talking about the ten commandments.
It's you who believe they're all the same.
Here are your posts to confirm in case you have short memory

Aug 2, 1:17am
All the laws are equal as part of Israel's covenant with God.

Aug 2, 2:26am
I told you earlier, the law is the law. You can't decide to follow one and neglect another. You don't get to choose to follow ten commandments and ignore the rest, that's a curse on you

Those are your own words.
So in your wisdom, I should not only neglect the ceremonial/sacrificial laws, also the ten commandments.
I know blood sacrifices, priesthood, and food laws have ceased.
Ten commandments are eternal. They're written on stones

Raymondfayowole
DESTROY:
*Abrogate.
*Deny divine authority.
*Set people free from obeying them.

FULFILL:
*Complete the design.
*Fill up what was predicted.
*Accomplish.

That was your definition of "destroy" and "fulfill" according to Matt. 5:17.

Matt. 5:17 (KJV): "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill"

If we substitute destroy and fulfill with your definitions above, we get..."Think not that I am come to 'set people free from obeying' the law, or the prophets; I am not come to 'set people free from obeying them', but to 'complete the design'."

Now tell me you're not contradicting yourself, if you say this verse means, Christians are free to disobey the same law Jesus said He had not come to set people free from obeying?

Well, verse 19 speaks for itself. Even a mentally slow person should know Jesus is warning people from breaking the law in verse 17 and teaching men so.

@Raymondfayowole

If there's anyone with comprehension issue here, it's you.
Here's 1 John 2:3-6 in layman's language:
"You know Jesus only if you keep His commandments.
You're a liar if you claim to know Him and keep not His commandments.
If you abide in Him, you'll walk as He walked".

Does Jesus have a different commandment from that of His Father?
So the new commandment in 1 John 2 is about love, not about the ten commandments? And Jesus already gave the command in Matt. 22:37-40, to love?
I guess you missed the part where the Pharisees were asking the greatest of the commandments, before He summarised the ten commandments for them in two simple sentences (Love God and your neighbor)?
I will prove to you why Jesus' command to love one another refers to the part of the ten commandments that deals with our relationships with fellow men, only when you find the courage to list out the ten commandments.

@Raymondfayowole
1 John 2: Up till verse 7, John was talking about keeping a commandment and he made it clear in verse 7 that they're not different from the ones of old. How does verse 8 change the facts in the previous verses?

Matt. 5:17-18: You need to answer my questions. I'll post it again.
1. Define "DESTROY", and...
2. Define "FULFILL" according to Matt. 5:17.
3. Explain what Jesus meant in verse 19?

Ten commandments: I want you to list them out. Let's see the laws you said have served their purposes. Is that too much to ask?

Paul and sabbath: In Acts 13:42, those who asked Paul to teach them next sabbath are Gentiles, not Jews.
Since, according to you, church is an everyday thing, why didn't Paul simply invite them to his sunday service to hear the words again? At least, his audience were Gentiles right?

You claim to follow the steps of Jesus. Jesus kept the sabbath, you don't.
How does Jesus being the Lord of the sabbath interprete to mean his followers don't have to keep it?

Raymondfayowole

The law was established for a purpose...and when that purpose has been accomplished, what then is the usefulness?

Since you think the ten commandments is part of the useless laws that should be discarded, please do me a favor, list out the contents of the ten commandments. For the sake of people like us who don't read the Bible.

Paul preached on sabbath day based on missionary work.

Take your own advice, use Bible verses to support your assumptions, not your personal opinion.
Acts 13:42 "...the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath".
This was a perfect situation for Paul to tell those Gentiles to just come on sunday if he keeps sabbath on the first day now.
We found no record of a single Apostle holding church service on the first day, none at all.
If Jesus and the Apostles kept the sabbath, in whose foot step are you treading, doing otherwise?

Raymondfayowole
So you added ten commandments to your 1 John 3:4?

If you have another commandment you think he's referring, let us know.
1 John 2:4 "He that says, I know him, and keep not his commandments, is a liar, and truth is not in him".
Verse 7: "Brethren, I wrote no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning".

I told you Matt. 5:17:"...all of the law has been fulfilled.
Argue with Bible passage and not your personal opinion

Matt. 5:17 "Think not that I am come to DESTROY the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to FULFILL".

1. Define DESTROY according to the verse?
2. What's your definition of the word FULFILL according to the Bible?

Matt. 12, Jesus condemned the law

How? For allowing his hungry disciples to pluck the ears of corn to eat or for healing on the sabbath?
Why shouldn't one do what's absolutely necessary on the sabbath?

edoairways:
They are physicians, lawyers, business gurus etc on that platform. The content is mind blowing that many of us stick to that platform.

Whatever rocks your boat.
This is digital age. You'll see far beyond that platform if you look well.
It depends on what individuals want anyway.

edoairways:
If only you knew the great contents on tiktok, you wouldn't say this. If only you follow those that educate people you would retract this statement

Great contents the world has never seen?

Except you're getting paid for it, I see no reason why any reasonable person should be on either IG or most especially, TikTok.
Too much of social media is a sign of joblessness.
I find all these "install TikTok" ads on my phone very offensive.

@Raymondfayowole

I didn't need to mention Col. 2:17.
The main issue here is, what are the shadows of things to come? Ordinances! What laws are part of these ordinances? I believe, with the preceding verses, they are laws that pertain to what you can eat, drink, touch (Col. 2:20). The law that required you to be circumcised. The law that required you to make animal sacrifices for the forgiveness of your sins. The law that required you to observe the annual sabbaths. The Sabbath, the 4th commandments, is never a part of these ordinances.
Jesus kept the Sabbath, Paul kept it (the records are all over the book of Acts).
How does resting on God's prescribed day have anything to do with not touching, not tasting, or not handling (Col. 2:20-21).
If it's still wrong to kill, serve other gods, how is it right to change the sabbath to sunday?
I'll take you seriously if you can prove to me you can make heaven by just calling Jesus and at the same time, breaking the ten commandments

@Raymondfayowole
You like going in circles.
How can you say the law of Moses was added so that the Israelites wouldn't be breaking the ten commandments?
Is that not contradicting the verse you quoted the last time (Gal. 3:19), that the law (what you termed common law) was added because of transgression?
Is sin not the transgression of the law- 1 John 3:4 (the ten commandments)?
the ordinances was added because they were breaking the moral law, not to prevent them from breaking it.
That's why I said, the ordinances serve as remedies for sin (breaking the 10 commandments).
If you fornicate for instance, you've broken the ten commandments. To atone for your sin, you have to refer to the ordinances for the necessary sacrifice.
Now that we are in the era of grace, we only need to turn to Jesus because he has paid the full sacrifice.

As a Christian, you're a sinner if you break any of the commandments written on stones, but you're not required to be circumcised, abstain from eating certain foods or meats.

Raymondfayowole
Eph. 2:15a "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ORDINANCES..."

Col. 2:14 "Blotting out the handwriting of ORDINANCES..."

Please, take note of the word in all cap., "ORDINANCES".

Col. 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in MEAT, or in DRINK, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon or of the sabbath days".

Col. 2:20-21 "...why, as though living in the world, are you subject to ORDINANCES, (Touch not; taste not; handle not;...)

It should be clear to you now that the law (ordinances) observance Paul mentioned here are those customs that identify one as a Jew (circumcision, dietery restriction (don't eat this, don't drink that) and ceremonial regulations (sacrifices, offerings, feasts, etc)).
The ten commandments has nothing to do with meat or drink or holidays like passover or penticost (which is the sabbaths being referred to in verse 16).

Raymondfayowole

Did you know that the law of Moses was given for a particular purpose?

It's unfortunate you're seeing a set of law written by God's own fingers as law of Moses. Even after I showed you the clear difference?
I'll show you that even the verses you quoted are not talking about the ten commandments.

Gal. 3:19. The law was added because of transgression"

1 John 3:4b "...sin is the transgression of the law (the ten commandments)"
I've mentioned it here that the ceremonial law was added as a remedy for sin (breaking the moral laws). If the law in Gal. 3:19 includes the moral laws, it couldn't have been added because of sin, because there's no sin in the first place if there's no moral guide. Notice the word "added"? That means there's an existing law in place.
I'm disagreeing with you only only the basis that the ten commandments should be thrown away with the ceremonial law.
I'll keep the commandments of God (the 10 commandments) and the faith of Jesus (Rev. 14:12)...

Raymondfayowole

Jer. 31:31-33 is indeed, clear enough and should not be misunderstood.
Jer. 31:31 features God promising a new covenant.
You can't take this verse in isolation and interprete to mean a new set of laws. Our God is not a God of confusion. He will never leave us in the dark. He actually mentioned the new covenant.
Jer. 31:33 "...but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, says the Lord,...(wait for it)... I will put MY LAW in their inward parts and write it in their hearts;..."
Take note of the words in all block letters. Those who originally received this prophecy know the law God is taking about here.
There was a mention of a new covenant, but never a new law.
Verse 34 explains the essence of the new covenant (writing the law in our hearts)

Raymondfayowole
Gal. 5:14b "...you shall love your neighbor as yourself.

That's exactly what Jesus was saying in Matt. 22:37-40. Please read Ex. 20:3-17. The ten commandments only deals with moral concepts, that is, love and relationship with God and man. You can't be breaking the 1st-4th laws and claim to love God, neither can you claim to love your neighbor is you're not keeping the 5th-10th laws. This is because, these laws are meant to guide our actions.
While the ten commandments defines what's wrong and right, ceremonial laws prescribes offerings for sin (according to 1 John 3:4, sin is breaking any of the ten commandments).
Yes, Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial laws -that has been my stand-, but not the moral laws.
They are different in the sense that, the ten commandments are written by God's on stone -a sign of immutability- (Ex. 31:18) and placed inside the Ark of covenant (Deut. 10:5), while the ceremonial laws are written in a book (Ex. 24:3) and kept outside the Ark (Deut. 31:26).