₦airaland Forum

Interesting piece in a UK rag today; those who can read between the lines will understand the reason(s) for posting the piece here. 

Excerpt from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336371/Going-church-makes-happy-Religion-affirms-sense-belonging.html

Religion makes you happy because of its social rather than spiritual aspects, scientists have revealed.

Being part of a church congregation surrounded by friends is more important to your happiness than prayer, the study concluded.

Forming friendships with like-minded people makes people more happier than the theology or spirituality of a choosen faith.

While past studies have revealed a positive connection between religiosity and life satisfaction, American researchers claim a sense of 'belonging' made people more 'extremely satisfied' with life's lot. 

Sociology assistant professor Chaeyoon Lim of the University of Wisconsin-Madison said: 'Our study offers compelling evidence that it is the social aspects of religion rather than theology or spirituality that leads to life satisfaction.

Thanks, sis.

Actually, after making my last post I felt I did not word it very well ------ as though I do not like others responding to the question. What I really meant is that I am hoping to draw a particular response from Joagbaje.

eyzhvntsn:
1. ABSOLUTELY NOT, in fact >90% of them are not even close and had no business being 'ordained' in the first place.

2. A minister on the path of maturing spiritually is more a man of God than a pastor who marinates in the flesh.

I wonder if he would be minded to comment (he obviously doesn't have to) but I was hoping to hear Joagbaje's answers to those questions: I will wait to see if he will respond before I also try to build on the points you've well made.

Oga Joagbaje, if you are so minded, please attempt these:

1. Is every ordained pastor a man of God?

2. Is any other "minister" in the church a man of God?

Charles Spurgeon on The Personality of the Holy Spirit

http://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/0004.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08cGl44SWGM&feature=related

I really like this version/arrangement; pity it can't be embedded.

chase4:
I want the moderators to note that there are times when one would like to reason with fellow christians on a subject that might not make sense to those who are not Christians, instead of throwing christians into one basket with atheists, satanists, pagans etc  and have our discussions derailed everytime, let us have a seperate section. I noticed one has been created for moslems so why not for christians? Or is it because we dont threaten and blow things up when the things we consider sacred are "played" with?

You don't know how much I absolutely agree with this!  There are many many things and times that I would much prefer to discuss with just professing Christians ---- whatever denomination. It is all well and good having atheists, deists, satanists, sciolists parading as "intellectuals" and whatnot (they are entitled to their own positions), it is another thing when they constantly excreta on what could have been edifying discussions among Christians.

I have a variety of ideas for several threads on discussions among Christians but find it hard convincing myself that it is worthwhile to put them up.


EDIT PS It is of course up to the site's owner and his "staff" whether to have a separate Christian section; I am not particularly advocating one; I would just rather discuss some things with Christians only.

I understand, actually 

One day go be one day

Every day for the thief . . .

Above all, in the Lord's day  . . . . . . . .

A vocal version ----- just because I can! 


[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjn3fBTvBjY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_GB"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed[/flash]

Another question (in fact, two): 

1. Is every ordained pastor a man of God?

2. Is any other "minister" in the church a man of God?

@ Nuke 

I certainly agree about the role and complicity of the congregation in their own being fooled and fleeced by the men/women of dog parading as men/women of some god (Men/Women of the true God do not fleece the congregation)! People do like to be deceived; they want to hear "all is well", "this is your year of open heavens", "the wealth of the wicked is laid up for you",  and thus ready for the sucker punch ------ "you will be mightily blessed - as long as you pay your tithes and sow into the life of the man/woman of dog".  In this respect, I always feel sorry for the illiterate and the unlearned, I can somewhat excuse them; it is more difficult to excuse the supposedly educated . . . .

Re Joagbaje: when I started engaging his posts, I honestly thought he was genuinely mistaken and was wrongly passionate about something he truly believed; in fact some of his posts were the cause of me posting in this section again (I had largely kept away for a considerable time); while I really do not know of Joagbaje's Internet responsibilitis at CE, it has been clear to me for some time that he and a number of other posters are working together on Nairaland (some times even using the same laptop --- they got caught once) whilst pretending to be making independent posts.

^^^  Seasonally appropriate too


[flash=400,350]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Lj48lYLIvs&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;fs=1?rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed>[/flash]

Lo He Comes with Clouds Descending (Best Tune = Helmsley)

http://nethymnal.org/htm/l/h/lhecomes.htm  (longer version)

Lo! He comes with clouds descending,
Once for favored sinners slain;
Thousand thousand saints attending,
Swell the triumph of His train:
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
God appears on earth to reign.

Every eye shall now behold Him
Robed in dreadful majesty;
Those who set at naught and sold Him,
Pierced and nailed Him to the tree,
Deeply wailing, deeply wailing, deeply wailing,
Shall the true Messiah see.

The dear tokens of His passion
Still His dazzling body bears;
Cause of endless exultation
To His ransomed worshippers;
With what rapture, with what rapture, with what rapture
Gaze we on those glorious scars!

Yea, Amen! let all adore Thee,
High on Thine eternal throne;
Savior, take the power and glory,
Claim the kingdom for Thine own;
O come quickly! O come quickly! O come quickly!
Everlasting God, come down!

^^^ Very good post/analysis.

Zikkyy:
As usual you only quote the part of the scripture that seems to align with your position. That’s how you deceive the congregation, they never get to hear the fully story. You deliberately skipped some bit of verse 13 & 14.

I like this bit that I've quoted particularly because this is indeed what they do: take a bit of scripture/scriptural truth and stretch and misapply it all with the purpose of deceiving the congregation to line their own pockets and fill their own bellies. The case of Joagbaje particularly saddens me because initially I used to think he was honestly mistaken but it has become increasingly clear (at least to me) that he is a deceiver too.

Question: to whom does the passage below apply ---- every Christian or just some "specially anointed" ones?

2 Timothy 3:16-17

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works

Reply below repeated from similar thread in the Religion section:

There is no true Christian teaching that requires "sowing into the anointing" on any "pastor". It is simply a ruse used by thieves (and some misguided people) to put a burden on the un/misinformed and to steal from them.

Jesus' teaching is simple and clear: as long as you feed the hungry, clothe the unclothed, visit the prisoner ---- in other words, help the poor around you ---- you are doing it for Jesus or, to appropriate the daft Christianese, you are sowing into Jesus Himself.

Some of the thieves even teach their victims to go against what Jesus said: they say that 'the anointing into which you sow determines the size of your reward'; thus, don't 'sow into the poor' but instead sow into some big name 'anointed' "pastor" when Jesus and His apostles clearly taught that Christians should give to the poor!

Ọrọ wipe Ọlọrun ni Jesu Kristi really n dun awọn alakatakiti yi gaaaaan ni o!

^^^ On the Moslem marriage of convenience - urfi marriage: when I spent some time in Egypt, this was well known as a hypocritical practise to avoid (only technically, if at all) the rules against sex before or outside marriage. For example a Saudi oil rich fella comes to Egypt on holiday and intending to cavort with a local prostitute/s (or woman), does the urfi 'marriage' with the/each prostitute (or woman) ------ sometimes to last for as little as seven days!

In fairness, some argue that this practise is an abuse of the original motive/purpose of an urfi marriage.

^^^ From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazca_Lines

Scholars have theorized the Nazca people could have used simple tools and surveying equipment to construct the lines. Studies have found wooden stakes in the ground at the end of some lines, which support this theory. One such stake was carbon-dated and the basis for establishing the age of the design complex. Researcher Joe Nickell of the University of Kentucky has reproduced the figures by using tools and technology available to the Nazca people. The National Geographic called his work "remarkable in its exactness" when compared to the actual lines.[3] With careful planning and simple technologies, a small team of people could recreate even the largest figures within days, without any aerial assistance.[4] Most of the lines form a trench about six inches deep.

[quote author=Vivian. SA link=topic=557621.msg7226331#msg7226331 date=1290846949]@Nuclearboy.
Jesus commened every christian to go out into the world and preach the gospel,that is what CE members r doing be it by ministering healing,ministering the word of God.I might do it here in this forum or at my house,at the coffee shop,at the mall, where ever it does not matter. Bcz I am ministering the word of God and this is what u call marketing Pastor Chris Oyakhilome.Is it bcz the world has evolved today and the are words such as marketing,if that is what we r doing by preaching the gospel than it is safe to say if Jesus was still in earth today he would commend us in ure words "go out the into the world and market the gospel".If that is what we r doing than we r fullfilling what christians hve been called to do.[/quote]That is all well and good. The problem is that, from what we can see on this forum (including your posts) and elsewhere, Christ Embassy's doctrine subverts the teachings of Jesus Christ and of the apostles ------ on this particular issue, it does so in a very very subtle manner (on other occasions, not so subtle). The subtle subversion here is that many CE members see "marketing" their "church" and their "pastor Chris" as "preaching the gospel". In other words, they do not know the difference between preaching the gospel and marketing a man and his business.

Try reflecting on some of the following:

2 Cor 2:17  

For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.

or NIV

Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God.

2 Peter 2:3

And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

Yep, there is "relatedness" between Technomate, Strong, Clark Tech etc receivers; I mentioned this once in an old post here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-242036.2080.html#msg4008801.

@ameboperoo

What is the model of the Technomate used by Infinity?

lol Just seeing this!

Hola to all - esp InesQor & eyzhvntsn.

@thehomer

I want to step back not to interrupt the particular flow of your discussion with logic1.

However what brought me in was your point on the relatedness of English and French languages ------ all you can prove with similarities is 'relatedness' and in fact that is all there is to the two -------------- not identity of origin. Furthermore, 'similarities' do not even necessarily prove relatedness let alone identity of source.

With above, I revert to 'observer' status.

thehomer:
These are not assumptions. These are facts. E.g have you considered the fact that most of the animal life currently present were absent millions of years ago and that this fact is supported by multiple lines of scientific evidence?

And so far, you have failed to supply any worthwhile evidence of these "facts"!!!

thehomer:
Again with a terrible analogy. Why not go with something like the resemblance noticed across families, tribes and races? At least, the entities you're comparing have a biological basis.

And what is the biological basis of your analogy of the English and French languages? In any event what is the basis for saying "similarity" proves the singleness of origin (chance origin at that) in biological 'settings' but not in non-biological settings?

Anyway, I really feel like an intruder in this thread and I will leave you and Logical1 logic1 to get on with it.

thehomer:
Do you have better or even plausible alternate explanations?

The point being made to you is that you don't! And that you and your science/evolution theory are making assumptions ---- the same thing you accuse others of.

A BMW shares a lot of "similarities" with a Benz; does that prove that they are from one source?

thehomer:
. . . I already explained to you that the basis of understanding of various fields (not just in science) is similarities. e.g Can you demonstrate that the English Language and French Language are related without recourse to similarities?

The real question is whether the similarities prove that they are or can only be from one source!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for those links, Lagos Shia. Hope you enjoyed the recent 'Ileya'.  Hope also you realise that the quotations in my post immediately preceding yours all came well before each of the things referred to in your posts/links?

I would like to add this Wikipedia entry to this thread and for a graphic presentation will actually make an extensive quotation of the entry. I would argue that it should be clear that to maintain or insist that the 'Trinity' was 'invented' at a council meeting smacks of either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty if not indeed intellectual fraud.

From Trinity of the Church Fathers

The Trinity formula, in the sense of an expressed conjunction of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit occurred very early in the history of the Christian Church. This conjunction appears in two New Testament texts: 2 Corinthians 13:14 and Matthew 28:19. The context of 2 Corinthians 13:14, which is the closing of a letter, suggests the church's conjunction of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit may have originated as a doxological formula, while the context of Matthew 28:19 shows that the verbal conjunction of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was used early on as a baptismal formula. The oldest extant work in which the exact word "Trinity" (Greek Trias, triados) is used to refer to Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is Theophilus of Antioch's second-century To Autolycus. The relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was not explicitly expressed in the writings of ante-Nicene Church Fathers exactly as it would later be defined during the First Council of Nicaea (325) and the First Council of Constantinople (381), namely as one substance (ousios) and three persons (hypostaseis). But their Trinitarian concepts did become defined with greater detail over time in this period.

Early second century: Ignatius of Antioch

Ignatius, second bishop of Antioch, who was martyred in Rome around 110 AD [1], wrote a series of letters to churches in Asia Minor on his way to be executed in Rome. The conjunction of Father, Son and Holy Spirit appears in his letter to the Magnesian church.

     “ Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the  flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit; in the beginning and in the end; with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God. Be ye subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual. ”

(Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 13 [SR]).[2]


First half of second century or late first century: Didache

This source uses the gospel of Matthew only and no other known gospel, and thus it must have been written before the four-gospel canon had become widespread in the churches, i.e. before the second half of the second century when Tatian produced the Diatessaron. Given its literary dependence on the Gospel of Matthew, it is not surprising that the Didache follows the Gospel of Matthew in designating the Trinitarian formula as a baptismal formula:

     “After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water…. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

(Didache 7:1).[3][4]


ca.151: Justin Martyr

Even though he does not use the word "Trinity" explicitly, Justin Martyr's First Apology, written around AD 150, reveals a primitive theology of the Trinity, in which God is in first place, Christ in second, and the Spirit in third,

     “We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein.”

(First Apology 13:5–6).[5]


169-181: Theophilus of Antioch

Theophilus of Antioch's Ad Autolycum is the oldest extant work that uses the actual word "Trinity" to refer to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The context is a discussion of the first three days of creation in Genesis 1-3.

     “It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place,  The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity, God, his Word, and his Wisdom. ”

(To Autolycus 2:15).[6]


Third century: Trinitarian theology in response to Patripassianism and Sabellianism

In the early third century Tertullian and Hippolytus of Rome wrote Against Praxeas and Against Noetus, respectively, which may be considered the first extant expository treatments of Trinitarian theology. Both authors use the word Trinity (Latin: Trinitas; Greek: Trias). They wrote these works to combat Patripassianism, the view that the Father suffered on the cross along with the Son. In the third century there were also Trinitarian theologies expressed in writings against Monarchianism, Sabellianism and Modalism.


216: Tertullian

Tertullian's treatise against a Patripassian heretic named Praxeas, who claimed that the Father had suffered with the Son on the cross, is arguably the oldest extant treatise with a detailed explicit Trinitarian theology. In his Against Praxeas Tertullian wrote:

     “And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. ”

(Against Praxeas 2).[7]


ca. 220: Hippolytus of Rome

In the early third century, Hippolytus of Rome wrote a treatise Against Noetus, in response to a Christian from Smyrna named Noetus who had been promoting Patripassian views, which Hippolytus deemed heretical. Noetus and other Patripassians, such as Praxeas (see above), claimed that the Father as well as the Son had suffered on the cross.[8] Like Tertullian, Hippolytus explicitly used the word Trinity in his treatise against Patripassian views.

     “The Father's Word, therefore, knowing the economy and the will of the Father, to wit, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in none other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after he rose from the dead: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt 28:19) And by this he showed that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through the Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did and the Spirit manifested.”[9]


ca. 225: Origen

Origen's On First Principles (De Principiis or Peri Archon) is the oldest extant Christian theological treatise. Origen develops Trinitarian theology is developed in this treatise, which reveals that by this time the use of the word Trinity to refer to Father, Son and Holy Spirit is standard in orthodox churches.

  “For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages . . . .

It seems right to inquire into the reason why he who is 'born again through God' to salvation has need of both Father and Son and Holy Spirit and will not obtain salvation apart from the entire Trinity, and why it is impossible to become partaker of the Father or the Son without the Holy Spirit. In discussing these points it will undoubtedly be necessary to describe the activity which is peculiar to the Holy Spirit and that which is peculiar to the Father and Son”[10]


ca. 256: Novatian

Novatian, presbyter of Rome, wrote the oldest extant Christian treatise that is specifically dedicated to and entitled On the Trinity.[11] It was written in response to a number of views deemed heretical by Novatian, and particularly against Sabellius, who had maintained that the Trinity was divided into three prosopa, or "characters by which God is revealed to man, the Trinity being one of revelation, not essence." [12]

     “For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth him to be the Son of God only, but also the son of man; nor does it only say, the son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. So that being of both, he is both, lest if he should be one only, he could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that he must be believed to be God who is of God…. Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God.”

(Treatise on the Trinity 11).[13]


262: Pope Dionysius

According to Athanasius of Alexandria, in the mid-third century Pope Dionysius (Dionysius of Rome) a letter to Dionysius of Alexandria criticizing Sabellius's views on the relations between the Son and the Father, as well as some who attempted to refute Sabellius's views. Athanasius quotes parts of Dionysius' letter in On the decrees of the Council of Nicaea .[14] In this letter it is clear that Dionysius used the word Trinity (Greek Trias) to explicate the relations between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

     “Next, I may reasonably turn to those who divide and cut to pieces and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the Divine Monarchy, making it as it were three powers and partive subsistences and godheads. I am told that some among you who are catechists and teachers of the Divine Word, take the lead in this tenet, who are diametrically opposed, so to speak, to Sabellius' opininons; for he blasphemously says that the Son is the Father, and Father the Son, but they in some sort preach three Gods, as dividing the sacred Unity into three subsistences foreign to each other and utterly separate. For it must be that with the God of the Universe, the Divine Word is united, and the Holy Ghost must repose and habitate in God; thus in one as in a summit, I mean the God of the Universe, must the Divine Trinity be gathered up and brought together . . . .

Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine Unity, Rather, we must believe in God, the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to the God of the universe. 'For,' he says, 'The Father and I are one,' and 'I am in the Father, and the Father in me'. For thus both the Divine Trinity and the holy preaching of the Monarchy will be preserved”[15]


265: Gregory the Wonderworker

Gregory was Bishop of Neocaesarea in Asia Minor,[16] and wrote a Declaration of Faith which treats the Trinity as standard theological vocabulary.[17].

     “There is one God,  There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything super-induced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever."

Interesting thread, indeed.

This interview is not being conducted by me and I will not derail the thread with any argument from my part; however, I think it is legitimate to provide 'ammunition' for your interviewer (or for readers to put your answers in context): so below is a statement that you have previously made concerning "false prophets" etc.

Joagbaje:
. . . The bible foretold about false apostles and prophets.bible also is clear on how to know them. So we first have to identify if this man was a man of God, or some imitators. There is difference when a man of God makes mistake and when a crook is on rampage. But we still leave all for God in prayer. Because of the name of christ. . . .

There are false brethren , (i just hope youre not one of "em ) there are fasle prophets and apostle. We only have right to handle them scripturaly.Jesus recognise that Satan may send pollution to his work. But he warns us against rash stupidity , because in the attempt to root out the wrong ones, you destroy the faith of others especially on the Internet. How will Tudor get saved? By Reading posts like yours? See what jesus said:

Matthew 13:24-30
24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: 25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
. . .

Edit ====== wrong thread!

Joagbaje:
@nuclearboy
I didn't say you are not Christians, and I didn't say you are either. I said you guys don't act like Christians . I don't have right to say someone is not Christian until I know what he believes.

Pasiiitor Joagbaje, the truth is that you have said here that several people are 'not born again' or are not Christrians or are 'false brethren'.  Examples below - all said to posters who are professing Christians:

Joagbaje:
@kunleoshob , well seem very obvious youre not born again there will be no need to give any response since you may not have the facility in you to understand. But if you ask intelligent question , I will gladly enlighten you. . . .

Joagbaje:
All you guys need is to get born again first. It will end your Judas kind od anger against giving to God. No explaination can suffice. until you become a new creature ,understainding will come to your hearts. . . .

Joagbaje:
The bible is clear on how to know false teachers etc : it has to do with their doctrine of salvation what do they profess. Who is christ to you. You are the one acting like a false teacher. You don't have a pastor , You can't understand spiritual things until you're born again ,come out of whatever unspiritual religious organisation .join a living church and submit yourself to a pastor.

Joagbaje:
@ viaro and Altheia , The anti faith websites you guys are visiting has clouded your mind from the truth. Those websites are Satanic, false brethren. . . .

Joagbaje:
You are more than a spy. you are a "false brethren". If you can ridicle a church you attend , publicly. what are you still doing there? If you dont belive in what they do , go somewhere esle. . . .

Joagbaje:
What a shame, doing dectective work to ridicle the house of God.  And you guys are applauding such. . . .

They should have caught the false brethren and beat the demon out of him! I trust Paul , After suffering fro false brethren like this, If he catch you??.

Joagbaje:
@ Enigma
I cant discuss certain issues with you for now until you recieve the infilling of the holyghost.

Joagbaje:
Where do I star from with you guys; The kingdom of God is here now .  We are in the kingdom. When you get born again. you will join us in this Kingdom!!

Joagbaje:
The maggots you vommit only shows the nature of you spirit, you need the real salvation. . . .  We shall help if you allow.

Joagbaje:
. . .
You that has not recieved the holyghost is the one its talking about here. We have the power of the holyghost backing our gospel with signs and wonders. " Not in words like people like you but in power" .Its so amazing that a religious fellow who hasnt recieved the holyspirit nor know him will be accusing someone who demonstrates the power of the spirit  of denial of the power!. . .

One word of caution: I guarantee you that you are not going to convince any of the invitees and potentially you risk much 'heartache'. However, I hope I am right in having noticed that you take the approach of presenting a view and leaving it to people to choose -------- at least if you can maintain that you should survive the inevitable backlash and onslaught.

Best wishes.