Enigma's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Enigma's Profile › Enigma's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 (of 198 pages)
You know you once said something: that if you meet Jo you would first slap him before shaking his hand. Well, I just wish to be able to slap him and cast out the demons of fraud and Bible twisting from him. ![]() Going back to this issue, we see an indication of what happened in those instances elsewhere except it was post-resurrection and some would say that is different. In any event what happened in the post-resurrection incident is that God deliberately prevented the concerned people from recognising Jesus until later on (EDIT) when He Himself revealed Himself to them in breaking bread and also later when He "appeared from nowhere"! Luke 24 13 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him. |
The Day of Resurrection Preferred Tune = Ellacombe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISm_ywHNMQY The day of resurrection! |
Another example: Luke 4 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff. 30But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.If your fraudulent "MOGs" can do this they will not need bodyguards. Afterall, you have said Oyakhilome is doing greater works than Jesus. So he should do something superior not like heathens and even Christians who are not "gods" needing to use bodyguards -- or to use your fraudulent "spiritual language" ----- "armour bearers". |
[quote author=Idi-Amin link=topic=652310.msg8193017#msg8193017 date=1303621469]what can I say, I have been there and will not condemn this Edit: well, maybe not atheist because you refer to "the good God"? |
^^^Jesus did not "hide" --- your poor English (or maybe fraud?) is worrying you. What is lost on you is the fine distinction in the English language between (a) "he hid himself from them" i.e. more or less became invisible to them and (b) "he went into hiding" as in, hiding in some place like in hide and seek. John 8:59 Webster Then they took up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.KJV Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. |
Christ The Lord is Risen Today (abbreviated to remove stanzas same as above) Preferred Tune = Llanfair https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boauSrx9sbc Christ, the Lord, is risen today, Alleluia! |
Love's Redeeming Work is Done Tune = Savannah https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbYIMO1gRjs Love's redeeming work is done, |
Lord Enthroned in Heavenly Splendour Best Tune = St Helen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E5r9G80S9w Nice commentary on the hymn here: http://ingridschlueter./2007/10/29/stand-up-for-this-one/ |
Full text: Lord Enthroned in Heavenly Splendour Lord, enthroned in heavenly splendour |
Life-imparting heavenly Manna, |
|
nuclearboy:Well, the posts showed the subtlety and sensitivity {where is Ralph Tresvant?} of a bulldozer being driven through a flower garden --- coming as they |
No, You were actually caught in fraud --- not just accused; remember Akhozem? Fraudster kawai! |
Another category of person not worth answering is ------ the fraudster, just as you have been conclusively proved to be. ![]() |
^^^ Answer not |
EarsWide:It is what they do in Chris Embassy and WoF circles generally: they drag Jesus Christ down to a level lower than themselves and they elevate themselves into "gods". ![]() |
Ha ha, "the objective non- partisan reader trick" as expected ----- very predictable. OK let me too say something to "the objective non-partisan reader" ---- especially what might be expected of someone who wants to be taken seriously. Such a person will will say something along these lines. 1. We do not have the original manuscript (we call it "autograph" of 1 John.2. We cannot therefore say conclusively or absolutely that the Johannine Comma was not originally in the the autograph. 3. Some manuscripts (usually more recent) include the Comma 4. Many manuscripts and usually older manuscript do not have the comma 5. There is thus some reason to sugget that the Comma was an addition to the autograph 6. This is not conclusive however 7. There are any number of reasons why something which was in the autograph may not appear in later copies even though the passage in question is of great importance 8. Even if the Comma was inserted, there is no evidence that its inserrtion was capricious (I wonder what you mean by "illegitimate" anyway; I doubt even you know what you mean by a word used rather thoughtlessly) 9. In any event and in fairness the Comma is an indication of something that Christians believed from a very early time in Christianity. Now the honest person will acknowledge this much ---- even if they then maintain that in their opinion the Comma was inserted and they believe that it was inserted capriciously or "illegitimately" (whatever "illegitimately" means) |
^^^ Do you see how the fraudster lies in public without any shame saying Jesus had his disciples as security? Sometimes he's just so pathetic you just leave him to it! |
So where is the proof of "illegitimate insertion" even in the above? |
^^^^And that is your proof? Your case is worse than I thought. By the way, what you call insults was just telling youof the kind of preamble or premise required before making certain "weighty" conclusions --- if you want to be taken as a serious and honest person. It is a standard expectation --- nothing more. |
^^^You see why more and more people realise it is a waste of time discussing with you? You've made or given no proof, yet you speak of "illegitimate insertion"! That is fraudulent or at least daft. Was it inserted at all? By whom? When? If it was inserted what made the insertion "illegitimate"? An honest and true "intellectual" commentator would address these before making the kind of conclusive statements that you made. Again, I say that it is a waste of time bothering with your kind of approach. Even now I responded for the sake of people who may be misled by such fraud or intellectual poverty otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time. |
Christians need not worry or bother too much about misrepresentations concerning 1 John 5 and especially that which is known as "the Johanine Comma" --- further infomation on the passage already exists on a couple of threads; below is link to one examplle. https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-497445.0.html#msg6575922 ![]() |
Going back to the line below "Language is fluid and flexible, the product of the vagaries of the human soul."Even individual words can evidently be used in various ways with different meanings or shades of meaning which may depend on context. 1. Take the word "authority" and its use in the following contexts (a) Einstein was an authority on the theory of relativity (b) the case of Donoghue v Stevenson is an authority on the meaning of "neighbour" in law (c) the lecturer concluded on the position of the law on his own authority (d) Jesus taught as one who had authority (e) Christians believe in te authority of the Bible 2. Consider the word "cleave" which could mean quite opposite things i.e. either coming together or parting. |
Re "clever people": abi, now as dem like big big words so! |
Ha ha ha even me likkle bwoy like a what ya say. ![]() |
Re the point on reverse editing in the OP, while a certain writing style may be associated with a particular person one should also note the capacity of that individual to modify/change writing style on a particular occasion for any number of good reasons. Somebody reading the two quotations below without further information would not readily think they were written by the same person. Na so one time some years ago now, the Ghanaian bobo wen [Bleep] bin put for him Ghana church come vex when them wan transfer am. The bobo kuku seize control of the church for himself. As him and him erstwhile "spiritual father" come they fight (dem bin go court sef) na him e emerge say them bin dey smuggle money from Ghana come Naija like rogues and other nefarious activities. This is very interesting. In a proper setting, the "church" will have a governing board; the governing board will set the monthly or annual salary (or income) of the "pastor". On this monthly/annual salary/income, the "pastor" should then pay tax --- as the amount is a fixed or set amount, calculating the amount of tax due will not be difficult. The problem we have is as identified by one poster earlier; our modern "pastors" (and their family in many cases) treat all church funds/incomes etc as personal or family assets for all practical purposes e.g. they alone use the "ministry"'s jet etc but for government and tax purposes they will claim that these assets belong to the "ministry" and therefore exempt from tax. |
^^^ Some clever people call it antinomy. See e.g. https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-477833.32.html#msg6382869 |
In relation to whether Jesus and apostles tithed you said Joagbaje:In relation to whether Jesus and the apostles made burnt offering sacrifice, you said Joagbaje:Do you see your own double standards? EDIT: Meanwhile when Jesus was born you forget about the turtle doves that were offered? |
Grey Beard:Tisha no tish me nansens! ![]() . . . the Roman Catholic Church who canonised the Bible under the leadership of Emperor Constantine beginning with the Council of Nicea in 325 ADThe above that you wrote is misinformed nonsense and if you are wise you will first reeducate yourself before speaking of "educating" others. |
@Joagbaje At least you made an effort ---- I was hoping Greybeard too would come back and expand. Anyhooos: for the Old Testament, below is a useful piece which gives a wider picture than you painted. Warning: section 2:2 of the article is however very faulty because it should have made clear that the Council of Jamnia is in dispute as to whether it was a proper "council" in the first place and whether it indeed established an OT canon. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/canon.htm As for the New Testament, the wiki entry linked below also gives an overview of things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon EDIT: see also this related post https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-645892.0.html#msg8127199 BTW if Greybeard is still interested, I have a question: what was the decision taken at the Nicea Council (325) on the issue of the canon of the Bible? |
^^^ Did Jesus or the apostles give tithes? The New Covenant ushered in by Christ did away with "tithes"! |
Oh, as for me, I don't care enough to even ask you for proof let alone to investigate. I am happy just to laugh at your words --- please keep them coming! ![]() |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 (of 198 pages)




Re "clever people": abi, now as dem like big big words so!