₦airaland Forum

Sarassin:
Yeah, that was a bit devious even if i do say so myself.



It was not really down to my Dad, our arguments were legendary but given what I had put him through he was positively a saint. The decision to turn my back on organised religion was entirely mine, it is not one that I regret, it has allowed me to grow in a way that being a part of any organised religion demanding conformity of thought would never allow.

Some people choose to go their own way, I am one of those.

I know right? Some are born sheep and some are born goats. I didn't call my sweetheart a goat o.

If anyone try am eh. Hmm.

MizMyColi:
I have to re-read this story.

My little one won't let me laugh the way I desire to else she'll wake up.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Emmanystone is coming for you.
Just wait

Who am i coming for?

OkaiCorne:
Read my second post on this thread.

Take out time to research on the similarities between Jesus'sermon and Bhudda's own.

Also take out time to research on the similarities between Christianity and Bhuddism

You have been here bantering with me about Tithing, and you are a New Ager.

Remind me to.ignore you from now on.

MuttleyLaff:
I laughed so hard too

I guess we can safely assume Sarassin has created God in his own image then bwahahaha

"In the beginning God created man in His Own image,
and man has been trying to repay the favor ever since"

This is totally true. Man has been trying to create God in his own image and control and Will Him about as he pls.

Hahahahahahahaha, unfortunately, YHWH is no respecter of persons. You either allow Him raise you up to His standard or you use the exit.

MuttleyLaff:
⁴¹Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
⁴²And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
⁵¹And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them:
but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.
⁵²And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man
- Luke 2:41-42, 51-52

²³And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
- Luke 3:23

¹³At that time Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John.
¹⁴But John tried to prevent Him, saying,
“I need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?”
¹⁵“Let it be so now,” Jesus replied.
“It is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness in this way.”
Then John permitted Him.
- Matthew 3:13-15

¹⁴Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit,
and the news about Him spread throughout the surrounding region.
¹⁵He taught in their synagogues and was glorified by everyone.
¹⁶Then Jesus came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up.
As was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath. And when He stood up to read,
²⁰Then He rolled up the scroll, returned it to the attendant, and sat down.
The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fixed on Him,
²¹and He began by saying,
“Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
22All spoke well of Him and marveled at the gracious words that came from His lips.
“Isn’t this the son of Joseph?” they asked.
- Luke 4:14-16, 20-22

¹²When Jesus heard that John had been imprisoned, He withdrew to Galilee.
¹³Leaving Nazareth, He went and lived in Capernaum, which is by the sea in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali,
¹⁴to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:
¹⁷From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”
- Matthew 4:12-14, 17

Jesus Christ, from age 12-30, was at home with His parents in Nazareth.
At age 30, He left home to be baptised by John the Baptist, His cousin.

Sarassin, commendably, during his lively, interesting and healthy conversations with Emmanystone on the LoJ opened thread, tried to spill the beans.

Jesus knew the Essenes
He made use of their facilities alright
but He was at no time under any of the Essenes' tutelage
Contrary to the Sarassin opinion, Jesus Christ was never taught nor received training from Essenes

Jesus was a whizz-kid,
Remember, that, as early as when He was age 12, people already, were taken aback by His knowledge and wisdom
All who heard the 12 year old Jesus, in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions
were amazed at His understanding and His answers.

I laughed so hard to hear my dearest Sarassin say Jesus, who could read people's thoughts needed an education to be able to read the very words he gave to his prophets. In other Words, Jesus needed an education to understand his own thoughts, as the written words are His thoughts.

It's like saying Jesus needed to be taught the language he gave to the Jews.

Who is this Jesus even?

OkaiCorne:
Dear OP, Within those years... Jesus travelled extensively seeking relevant knowledge to aid His ministry.

He travelled west wards towards Egypt and returned to Israel when His earthly father Joseph died...He was aged 17 to 19 at the time.

He also travelled eastwards to as far as Nepal, China and India. He knew certain on Bhuddism. If you doubt me, do a research on Bhudda and Jesus... you'll see numerous similarities.

Bhudda existed 600 years before Jesus, and the Bhuddists acknowledged Jesus to be the brightest light of His time. In Bhuddism, Jesus is also known as Issa.


You can also check out this book for further details " the lost years of Jesus"

I can't see any Scripture backing this up.

Babacele:
you don't even know His real name ,birthplace and his works for about 3 decades and you are talking about conspiracy theory? Merry Xmas.

I don't even know whose real name and birth place?

Sarassin:
No one is arguing what you believe or disbelieve, we were referring to a period of at least twenty to twenty five years during which the NT gives no account of the life of Jesus, simples. Merry Christmas in advance dear.

Merry Chrimas dear.

Sarassin:
You say Paul was a “Pharisee of Pharisees” and studied under Gamaliel. Thank God we know about Gamaliel from contemporary historical accounts as well as other religious writings such as the Mishnah if not for that you Christians will continue to pull the wool over our eyes.

I hope you realize that i'm a Christian and not a Pharisee in any way? Like i will keep saying, i will stand with what the Scriotures says in all of these matters not adding or subtracting, so, if Pauls says he was a Pharisee of the Pharisees, then He was the Pharisee of the Pharisees.amcos he was addressing his own people, the same pharisees who knew him, of whom he worked for until his conversion, they knew him. Who am i to say other wise?

Sarassin:
We know about Gamaliel who was a highly respected figure, he was given the title 'Rabban', as the leading sage of his day. He was the highest ranking Pharisee leader in the Sanhedrin in fact at one point he was the president of the court. We know that Paul was full of talk and bombast it is not unusual that he would claim a relationship with Gamaliel simply to enhance his standing, in his own words, Paul was “all things to all men”.

Do you realize Sir, that Paul was standing trial before the same Sanhedrin of whom Gamaliel was their head? Why was there no rebuttal in that regard when he stood before those who knew too well to make such a bold claim?

I hope someone reading will see what am seeing? Paul was standing trial, an accusations leveled against him were dire, and could end his life. As a matter if fact, by Law, he should be killed. Before these Court and elites, Paul will stand and lie against Gamaliel? lolzz.

Sarassin:
... In Paul's defence he never actually states in his own words that he studied under Gamaliel, what you have is the author of Acts putting words into Paul's own mouth, so in fact the possibility exists that Paul is entirely blameless in this instance

Acts:22:3
I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

I may not be as intelligent as you are i think i would know the voice of the persona speaking in a text.

Going by the verse posted above, the persona's voice there is a personal pronoun 'I'. The persona didn't speak in the second or third person, but the first person. If you say Saul was lying there, he also must be lying about coming from Cilicia too.

Sarassin:
Cast your mind back to when Peter stood accused before the Sanhedrin on trial for his life, who stood up for him to plead on his behalf when the Saducees wanted him dead? of course it was Gamaliel the leader of the Pharisees (Acts 5), when the votes were cast all the Pharisees voted in favour of sparing him except one notable “Pharisee of Pharisees” who voted with the Saducees to have Peter condemned to death.

Acts:5:34-35
Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;

And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.

What is the connection between this and him being Paul's lecturer? At this point. Paul was still Saul. Gamaliel was a good and a wise man obviously.

I don't see the connection anyways.

Sarassin:
So ask yourself why would Paul out of all the Pharisees cast a single dissenting vote even against his own so-called “teacher”?

Hmmm. You are making it seem like the Jews left the Apostles alone afterwards because Gamaliel said so. Remember, he didn't actually ask them not to go on with their onslaughts, he just gave them a note of warning to apply restrain.

Wasn't Peter arrested again, wasn't James killed, wasn't Paul and Silas later arrested and kept in that same prison? What you talking about pls?

Paul said 'I' gave my consent to those who stoned Stephen and kept their clothes from being stolen.

Him giving his concent didn't mean that only his vote condemned Stephen to death. Who was Saul at that time anyways? A young Zealous Jew, not like he was a High or Chief priest or a member of the Sanhdrin.

Scriptures has shown us clearly that the Sanhedrin condemned Stephen to death, but rather than looking at those scriptures, we leave them to play mind's games.

Sarassin:
How is it that Paul had such a burning Pharisaical zeal that he would have Christians condemned to death but the majority of Pharisees in actuality were quite friendly and tolerant towards Christians and mostly regarded them as an oddity?

Lolzzz, because Galamiel warned his fellow Jews to apply restrain in the treatment of the Christians didn't mean that majority of them were quite friendly to the brethren, there weren't at all.. Am yet to come by scriptures which attest to that fact. If there are, pls direct me there.
Now, When Jesus met Saul and there was a reversal, did Paul continue with that zeal or there was an attitudinal change in him? Shouldn't that tell you that a force was at work inside of Saul propelling him to be negatively zealous working for satan but believing he was serving YWHW?

Have you asked yourself why there was such a sudden change in the person of Paul immediately he encountered Christ?

Why do you think satan and his agents hates Paul so much?
Now, let me tell you why. Saul was a very viable instrument of destruction in the hands of satan. And he would have been used to wreck great havoc in the Christian fold, but he was delivered. He broke ranks and switched sides. He has never been forgiven by satan hence he stirs his agents up to hate Paul as well for escaping. We know these things.

Sarassin:
So you see my darling, as much as I adore you, I believe you and your scriptures are wrong, Paul was no Pharisee, and he could not have studied under Gamaliel, Gamaliel did not teach children. Why would the Saducee Chief Priest grant special dispensation to a Pharisee (The Saducees hated the Pharisees) to wander around arresting Christians if not that first and foremost Paul was a trusted Saducee and Herodian family member to boot?

Like i will keep saying, my darling, i stand with the Bible's account.

Besides, That phase of Saul or Paul's life passed, he got converted. He became a new creation, all things passes and he began a new life.

Besides, He suffered far more than what he made the Christians suffer. He worked for his Master Jesus. He was used much more than even the other Apostles. He ran his race to the end. He had a good testimony.

Why aren't we talking about that, instead of his past?
His past passed, YHWH forgave him. Saul didn't do half of what i did as a sinner, but i'm forgiven, that's what matters.

I want to talk about testimonies, not what happened before i met Christ.

If my Bible is wrong, then whatever is in store for those who believe it, will happen to me. For, i will believe it till the end. Forward ever, backward never. There's nothing to turn back too.

I WILL NEVER worship Satan IN ANY GUISE.

Sarassin:
@bolded is so true. There is no contemporary evidence whatsoever for the death of Stephen by stoning, this is why the story makes no sense to biblical scholars, there is no internal corroboration in the NT either, it is not attested by any other gospel writer.

Hahahahahahahaha. It is Well.
There has been no evidence of the death of Stephen by stoning but here you are demonizing Paul? Wow. The NT didn't corroborate it? Where then did we find this account?

I don't think i have time for this conspiracy.

Sarassin:
But we know that something did happen

How did you know that something happened and what happened?

Sarassin:
Historical accounts tell us that it was in fact James "brother of the Lord" and leader of the Jerusalem church NOT Stephen who was attacked by Paul's henchmen whilst preaching on the steps of the temple, he was badly injured and whisked to safety by his helpers to the caves at Qumran.

James was killed by King Herod, not by stoning.

Lolzzzzzzzz. Try harder my love, but even deep in you, you know the truth, for no one can lie to themselves.

Most importantly, Jesus is coming soon. When He comes we shall know everything clearly as God knows us.

Let the saints say, Come O Lord, Come.

Sarassin:
Jesus was a child consecrated before his birth to a prophetic mission, by the express wish of his mother. In the first instance Jesus would have received his early instruction, and first become acquainted with the Scriptures at instruction of his parents under the calm and serenity of Galilee.

We know at least that Jesus could read. Interestingly the Gospels have maintained perfect silence regarding the doings of Jesus, previous to his meeting with John the Baptist, through whom, according to them, he took possession of his ministry but the debut of Jesus at the banks of the Jordan evidently took place after a long learning process this learning must have taken place in the only place in Israel, which, at that time, preserved the real traditions of the prophets and kept their ways of life.

We know that his mother Mary had links with the Essene Order, and that Joseph the father who was out of the picture much earlier was of the Pharisee class. At the time of Jesus the Order of the Essenes were the last remnants of the prophetic brotherhood set up by Samuel. They took refuge in silence and solitude simply preserving their traditions. They had two principal centres, one in Egypt and the other in Palestine, at Engaddi, near the Dead Sea.

The Essene Order accepted the children of the poor and gave them food, shelter and an education. Right there at Engaddi cut off from the immediate surrounds of Nazareth for many years, together with other children of the poor who were later to become his trusted disciples, this is where Jesus would have received the spiritual indoctrination preserved through a select band of prophets from Samuel to Elijah, Elisha and Ezekiel taught by the Essenes.

The evidence that Jesus was educated by the Order of the Essene’s is profuse. Upon acceptance which was usually after a One year induction members were made to swear “terrible oaths” to observe the rules of the Order and to betray none of its secrets.
The very silence kept by Jesus and his disciples about the Essenes speaks volumes. Why does he who attacks with unparalleled courage all the religious sects of his day, never mention the Essenes? And why do the apostles never even refer to them? Evidently because they considered the Essenes as part of themselves.

My beloved, i have always known you to throw away what the Bible says, and prefers rather to go with speculations and what you think justifies your stand. I on the other have decided to take the Bible's accounts of the things and live by them.


All these going back and forth adds or takes nothing from the Fact that Jesus is the Son of God, Who had been a Spirit before coming to earth.

It doesn't change the fact that He died to give me redemption. Am saved by the Grace He offered by exchanging his righteousness for my Sin. His life for my death. His light for my darkness. And most of all, eternal life when am done with this world.

He has ascended into heaven, he will come back and when He does, the sheep and the goats shall receive their due rewards.

I don't care if he were in my village, if he were Chinese or Indian. Whether He was a medical doctor or farmer.


Hahahahahahahaha. Jesus, had to go to school to be able to read. Lolzzz.

Babacele:
Hmmmm ....isn't the Bible given to us through humans? The most important person in Christendom is Jesus but about 30 years of his 33 years are missing in the Bible , so you may not know. But those who were aware of his coming -long before Herod ,and who had prepared for Him starting from Egypt where he started His education kept proper records meant for only true seekers.

Conspiracy Theories don't work with me. So I will leave you to your speculations. He student yet became a renown Carpenter abi?
Abeg. Enjoy your wile guesses.

Babacele:
I understand you bro but the Jewish language isn't like the yoruba....and for the most important person from the house of David being a Galilean does not make sense.... Jesus was most educated and could speak several languages fluently including Greek and Aramaic and many others not necessary of mention here. Like Samson, John the Baptist, Yeshua, Stephen and like others whose only sin was being a Nazarene

Lolzzz where did you get the bolded from? I don't believe in Extra Biblical speculations. The Word of God is enough for me.
Mark 6:3
Then they scoffed, "He's just a carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. And his sisters live right here among us." They were deeply offended and refused to believe in him

New American Standard Bible
The Jews then were astonished, saying, "How has this man become learned, having never been educated?"

Trust me if Jesus Christ attended School which were not as common as they are today, his contemporaries will know and won't be in doubt.

danvon:
Well I don't blame you sha it's the hopeless stupidity of mankind, anyone who oppose Jews support arabs, oppose Biafra support Nigeria, oppose Communism support Imperialism, with this kind of stupid mentality we wonder why the world isn't getting better

You have indeed spoken like a true [Christian].

As water to the face, so the Deep calleth to the Deep.

You can't pretend to be a Christian because as you begin to speak, we shall know.

Empiree:
As I said before, there is no time you ever made sense. I watched this weeks ago. Christian guy apologized at the end of the video for trying to manipulate the text. Watch the complete video.

I once posted his audio text somewhere on this platform weeks ago.

Empireeeeeeee. Videos don't lie nah. See how that imam fall una hand. I know many muslims there who didn't know this, will be fighting with their conscience now.

Rashduct4luv:
So why didn't Jesus show you by example? He became man, but man should be able to get married according to your verse!

If Jesus was against marriage, but we His followers are marrying, then this your question will make sense.

We marry because He Instituted marriage and called us into it. He didn't marry becos, He is not of this realm. He came down here for a mission and had to return back to His realm.


Now, will you give away your 6rs old daughter who hasn't changed her milk teeth to as a wife to a 54 yrs old bearded man, with milk teeth, with lice infested private part?

A man who everyone in his time knew was under a demonic spell cast upon him by a sorcerer. Will you subject your daughter to that?

Aisha could never get pregnant because of what Muhammed did to her fragile Ovaries.

What wickedness.

Satan is wicked.

mujahid777:
I don't have time for your petty questions.I just told you the Shariah ruling...where do you think we got it from
Bye!

. No run o. Come talk why you no go allow a 54 dirty bearded rotten teeth man marry your 6yr old daughter and stick it into her at 9.

Call a Spade a Spade, not a gardening tool. What Muhammad did was evil, period.

alBHAGDADI:
Empiree Rilwayne001 Udatso Titingz Abdelkabir FriendNG Rashduct4luv Aminusanti


Come and watch your mighty ACADIP man embarrassing ISLAM in public o.

This is so shameful of him. The video is all over facebook.

And to think this is the man they say converts Christians to Islam in their hundreds...

He must have been using muslims to act as Christians converting to Islam.

His yansh as leaked.

Wow, you are trying to resurrect very dead muslims.

Exactly, he uses Muslims to pose as Christians then pretend to have converted to islam.

One of such character is here claiming Christianity but fights the Jews. Danvon or something of that nature.

Babacele:
so what is it about' Galilee of the gentiles' or Galilean accent that will single

There's nno clue Jesus used an interpreter with his Apostles, even with the disciples who came from every where.

Aramaic was widely Spoken.

Babacele:
so what is it about' Galilee of the gentiles' or Galilean accent that will single

Yorubas in Nigeria speaks the language, but if an Ogun man speaks, an Ekiti man will spot him out.

They all spoke Aramaic, but dialectical accents.

Babacele:
thy tongue betrayed thee,though hath one of them...
....this clearly shows something about being not from the main. Why would they use such expression on a fellow Jew?

Am still sure it's not a different language entirely. I think it has to do with the dialectical differences.

New International Version Matt 26:73.

After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, "Surely you are one of them; your accent gives you away."

New Living Translation
A little later some of the other bystanders came over to Peter and said, "You must be one of them; we can tell by your Galilean accent."

Babacele:
yes but they spoke a different language not understood by the Jews because they are Essenes.

I doubt that they spoke an entirely different language. They spoke the same language.

The verse says, your speech betrays you, not your language.

Babacele:
Galilee of the Gentiles, Nazarene and Nazareth.... just do a lil research on these vis a vis the disciples of Jesus and their features
.....when Peter denied Jesus before the cock crowed during the crucifixion , one of the guards had said" surely thou hath one of them, thy tongue betrayed thee....". what was he talking about. Could St Stephen, Jesus , Peter etc have been speaking a different tongue from the Jewish?

They all Spoke Aramaic, but i think with a bit of dialectical slur.

Sarassin:
I try to be fair. There are instances where I do not agree with what Paul purportedly said or did and I point them out, this does not amount to having issues.

That's okay. It is your prerogative who or what to believe about people.

Sarassin:
For instance you wrote that Paul studied under Gamaliel but we know that this is simply not true.

Here is my authority, and i choose to go with it rather with you. Am sorry love.

Acts:22:3
I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day
Question: What prompted Paul to give this speech?

He was standing accused of breaking the Jewish law which to the Jews was punishable by death and he was going to be killed for it. Here he stands before all who knew him. The Sanhedrins, the Pharisees, the Chief prieats and High Priests in their Temple, in defence of his act. Should we allow ourselves to suggest that Paul, knowing the gravity of what was against him, and before whom he stood, lie about being a student under Gamaliel, who was alive at the time? Comeone. Was Saul a stranger to them? Wasn't he their former 'hatchet man' as you put it?

Note, that he stands accused of something, do you think lying before all these who knew him will release from the accusation held against him or plunge him deeper into trouble?

Integrity accounted at that very moment, hence, Paul couldn't claim studying under the great man if he indeed wasn't.

Sarassin:
it is “Thou shalt not kill” except, except, except…. I see,

YES, EXCEPT, the One who gave the command 'Thou shall not Kill, tells you by HIMSELF to do otherwise.

You have no right to take revenge against anyone except The LORD DEMANDS that that be done. He is the King over His realm. Whether a man dies or lives is His choice to make.
Daniel 4: 35
And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

Sarassin:
No, you are wrong. The Sanhedrin was a competent court. No vote took place, there was no sentence passed. And even if a sentence was passed unrecorded then it could not be "death by stoning" because it had been outlawed, it is a very simple concept. Paul did not merely consent to the killing of Stephen in the NT, he instigated it, Paul was the enforcer of the Saducees, Stephen was killed by his boys his “Oraisa’s” as you call them there, Paul could have called them off at anytime. He was clearly complicit

Again, i go with the Scriptures Sir.

(Acts 7:54-60 NIV)
When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul. While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.

Read that passage very well sir. Stephen stood judgement before the Court of the Sanhedrin. He found him guilty by reason of what they considered blasphemy. Who were the ones who covered their ears to keep from hearing the proclaimation of Stephen? The Sanhedrins. Who shouted on top of their vouces to drawn the voice of Stephen? The Sanhedrins.
Before who did the people rush with rage and dragged Stephen out of the city? The Sanhedrins.

Who then sentenced Stephen to death? Paul or the Sanhedrins? Paul merely kept the clothes of those who did the killing safe. He didn't have the authority you ascribe to him.

Sarassin:
The issue here is stoning and its legality not whether Christians were killed or not and not whether Paul was forgiven or not. Paul arrogated to himself the power of judge and jury, he took the law into his own hands and in the very least Paul was an accomplice to murder and we should not defend the indefensible because he is laying in the bosom of Jesus.

This is contrary to what the scripture says. Without the Bible account, we won't even know anything about Stephens stoning, thus, for us to bring in extra Biblical accounts to oppose what the scriptures states, can be an attempt to present things in a false light.

Everything that transpired happened before the court of the sanhedrins. False witnesses were brought to lay fasle accusations against Stephen. Lack of cohenrency was the problem of the witnesses, but even at that, the court was going to find him guilty anyway and they did.


What was pauls part in all of these?

Ishilove:
The rat is just stalking me around. Na wa o. I cover myself with the blood of Jesus

That is the way cowards express their love for a Lady. Fight and then settle.

Ishilove:
A fatherless e-rat be stalking users to project his insecurity and self loathing. I'm pretty sure his concave chest, narrow shoulders and reptilian appearance causes him sorrow so he comes online to troll women because he knows they wouldn't even him a second glance offline. Nairaland is his outlet for futile revenge

O LAWWWWD.

Ishilove:
Who says we aren't already married?

Where is Sukkot? Some guy is stealing your woman hia oo.

Sarassin:
Believe it or not, I have no issues with Paul beyond what Paul himself presents.

Your former inferences speaks differently sir.

Sarassin:
You see you fall into the same trap as the OP, you say that Paul never broke Mosaic Law surely you are having a giggle? Do you remember that Mosaic Law, “Thou shalt not kill? You then say that Paul could never have had Stephen killed of his own volition, what is your justification for that statement? Where does Mosaic Law state that non-adherents of Judaism are to be killed?

Now, you quote that scripture wrongly sir. Killing a man innocently is what that scripture is saying. That same Law says, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. Meaning, if you kill a man, you should be killed in retaliation to easpe for his blood.
This is why a city of refuge was created for anyone who accidentally kills someone to run to until the high priest dies.

The Lord ordered that anyone who serves an idol should be killed.

Good News Translation Exodus 22:20
“Condemn to death anyone who offers sacrifices to any god except to me, the Lord.
There are offences which warranted dead as a consequence. And the Jews till today view the Christians as idol worshippers, hence moved to enact their law against them.
It was on this pedestal that Saul was moved with zeal to cleanse his religion of the heretical Christians.

Sarassin:
We should not confuse the actions of a lynch mob with Law. In Nigeria today I am sure it is against the law to lynch a thief, but guess what happens when a thief is caught? A tyre is thrown around his neck irrespective of the law.

The inference you draw here comparing the Nigerian very lawless society, a society which is sliding into anarchy with that of the Jewish society which had two governments (Political and religious) ruling over them simultaneously, does not fit sir.
As much as the Roman government administrated over Judea, the Jews also kept strictly to the Laws handed down by Moses. The Law was very stringent and saw to it that every offender severely gets punished for defaulting.

Up until recently, thieves in Nigeria were not lynched the way it is done today. Our law enforcement agencies don't care, that's why anarchy seems to take over our streets, but that wasn't the case with the then Judean society.

If was a lynching as you try to pass it off, the consent of Jesus wouldn't be sort before the mob would carry out their lawless act.

Sarassin:
It is the same in the instances you provided with the woman taken in Adultery and the lynch mob that wanted to stone Jesus to death, but unilateral action does not constitute law.

You mean the Jews who attempted to Stone the adulterous woman did that against the law, yet brought her in the full glare of the public eye to see and hear what Judgement Jesus would give?

What then will you say about the governments both Roman and Jewish, which gave Saul the warrant to arrest and bring down Christians to be imprisoned and killed?

My point is, Saul acted on the strength of the government, not solely on his volition.

Sarassin:
Of course Stephen was targeted by Paul, I simply state the facts as they are, I demonstrated to you that Rome had outlawed death by stoning therefore the Sanhedrin would not disobey their Roman overlords by passing a ruling authorising death by stoning, you said it yourself that Paul had been commissioned to arrest Christians and bring them to “justice” therefore the only questions that needs answering here is; Why did Paul have Stephen killed?

The Sanhedrins condemned Stephen to death, not Saul.

Acts 7:54-60 NIV.
[b]When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul. While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.]/b]

Saul did not target Stephen as if he nursed a grudge, no. Here;
English Standard Version
And when the blood of Stephen your witness was being shed, I myself was standing by and approving and watching over the garments of those who killed him.’
He consented to Stephens killing doesn't actually make him Stephen's murderer sir.

Sarassin:
and what are the motives of the OP in trying to make it sound like it was a collective decision of the Jewish hierarchy?

because it was.

Bottom line, Saul did what he did in ignorance. The one he sinned against forgave him, called him into ministry. Nothing is held against him now. Besides, he suffered more than the Christians he persecuted.

Let us lay down our swords, Paul is up with his master.

He had this twstimony to share

2 Timothy:4:7-8
I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:

Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

So, let us do our best to have a testimony like his.

I rest my case.

Okpabana:
Good day brother, i dont know if you are a pastor but I need deliverance from the operations of community diety (idols) that had held the whole community spellbound for generations now. Many revelations have been given concerning this and some of us have been praying and fasting. The deity had been fighting against the progress and prosperity of members of the community. We earnestly need God's grace and deliverance. let every man of faith in this forum pray for my community. Shalom!

It has been fed with blood to keep it alive, it will take the blood of the everlasting covenant to destroy that yoke.
First step, get genuinely born again. Church going will only mock you, as satan can press you right inside the Church. Redemption legally buys you over.

And, Am just a sister o. I just believe what Jesus did on the cross and i made out time to understand it. Now i know, satan can no longer keep me.

@ Petra1 pls, you can handle this case better.

ivolt:
You are satan worshipper yourself.

Lolzzz. Okay. Move on now.

bodeskii:
What??
Bros.. Mbok, make all dese kind talk end with this year o

Lolzzzz. What you don't know is bigger than you.

See? What i asked him to do, i have done it myself and it worked. Let me share a testimony.

First off, am not a bro, am a sis.

When i got admission into uni. I was still very young, fresh out of the secondary school. I was naive and stupid. I used the toilet in school until i discovered my body won't stop itching. I still didn't know why I was itching and emitting fluids.

I had a senior friend who was a Nurse, i told her what I was experiencing, she called it Candidacies, and prescribed what to use. I treated myself, it stopped. But I was still in school so didn't know that as i kept using the toilet, it will persist. Well, it persisted. By the time i graduated, this thing had become a permanent menace to me.

After school, it kept on. Every toilet i used outside my house, no matter how clean, i go home treating Candidacies. The drug became scares (the original). I became a slave to this thing. I will walk distances looking for the original drug to buy. I was spending all of my money to buy this drug. When i don't have, i could borrow just to buy this drug.

My life was miserable becos, when in public, i wouldn't seat still because of the itching. I felt everyone knew I was itching. I kept myself very clean to keep from any odour.

I got a job and had to be using the office toilet everyday, so i had to have this drug with me everyday too, because the itching wouldn't stop, and I was told that, if i neglected it, it'll generate or metamorphose into something else which could affect child birth later in life. So, i was fearfully marshalling against it, as it was tormenting me.

One Sunday, I was invited to attend a programme in Winners Chapel. There was this short, smallish Pastor who spoke and acted like a an elephant. This man boosted my faith and made me question if i had been a Christian all the while? I saw myself a sleeping Christian before then.

I continued going to listen to that Pastor, subsequently, my faith was built. The Pastor taught on the authority of the believer and that, our bodies are our primary domains. We can accept or reject whatever and it shall happen. He said our mouths have life and dead. What we say is wtot we shall see.

I went home that day angry in my Spirit that this thing had taken me captive for years. I began by speaking to my private part.
This is what i said:
'You are my body. You belong to me, not i to you. You don't tell me what to do, i tell you what to do. From this day henceforth, i shall use any toilet i see. Public latrine, pit toilet or international toilet. You will never pick any infection anymore. I stand by the authority given to me, at redemption and seal you up with the blood of the everlasting covenant. No more infection of any kind for you. In Jesus name. Amen.

The next day was Monday, i went to work. When I was pressed, i went to the toilet, opened it and pointed to it and said;

You are a toilet, you are an inanimate object, but will listen anyways. You are made for me to relieve myself not for you to give me infections. This is what is going to happen from today, i will comfortably sit on you, no more suspending to use you. You'll keep your infection to yourself. No more give them to me, until i till leave this office, the last infection i got from you, is the last i have seen. In Jesus name. Amen.

I used the toilet and left.

Believe it or not, that was the last time i had any infection. I speak the truth i lie not, since 2012, i have never felt any itching since then. My kobo hasn't gone to buying any drug for itching again.

So, when I told the Op to go speak to his toilet, I was confident of it.

You underestimate the supernatural. If demons were responsible for choking his toilet to frustrate him, when they hear a command backed with the name that they are commanded to bow to, they will bow out.

Believe me, the name of Jesus in the mouth of a true believer is a deadly weapon against satan. he fights vigorously to make us sin,thereby, neutralize the effect of that power in us. If we stand sinless, satan is seriously in trouble.


Shalom

Sarassin:
On the above I agree with you for once (isn't it nice when we agree?).

The issue really is with the OP who very craftily is trying to give the impression that it was a collective act of the Jews to have Stephen stoned to death conveniently ignoring the fact that it was the singular actions of Paul that led to Stephen’s death.

So, Cara mia, to answer the man’s question, the history of the Christian Church tells us that by the time of the second temple, the Romans had abrogated the Jewish practice of capital punishment by stoning, and even before this ruling, the Sanhedrin had not condemned a man to death by stoning for more than seventy years, (it was on their statutes but never enforced)

Therefore, if we are to accept the accounts of the NT killing of Stephen, we must then accept that the Sanhedrin, of whom Paul was indeed a hatchet-man would never have condoned the stoning of Stephen, therefore Paul’s arranged killing of Stephen was extra-judicial and not the collective decision of the Jewish authorities.

Mia Caro, I get the point you are trying to make, but as i have always noted, you have your own issues with Paul which i'm yet to unravel, hence; i will say, you are not completely correct.
If the Jews had abrogated the punishment by stoning, the Pharisees who were the custodians of that Law couldn't have attempted stoning Jesus publicly repeatedly.

The attempted stoning of the women caught in adultery wasn't done in secrete, it was in public and in the day light. And, remember everywhere Jesus went, a great crowd followed Him, so if that Law was abrogated, the Jews who attempted to stone her would have tried to do so privately.

Apostle Paul was a man of the Law, he never broke the Mosiac Law and was very zealous to protect the law which he spent years studying under Professor Gamaleel, he couldn't have acted on his own volition to have Stephen killed.

You make it seem like Paul had a personal vendetta against Stephen, no. Just like every Jew, he did his best to keep the Jewish law from what he then termed heresy until the Master Himself intervened and stopped him.

After his conversion, didn't the other Jews continue with what they thought was right, by killing Christians?

Saul was Just zealous for his religion that's all. The same place Saul was, is the same place most Islamic Jihadist are today, and we hear many testimonies of conversions of these folks, and the Lord forgives them, Why? becos, INDEED, THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO.

Until recently, i didn't truly know what Jesus meant by that, but now, I know.
No one will knowingly fight himself. For fighting God, is fighting yourself.