₦airaland Forum

The problem with what you are saying so far is that the "tongues" in the two examples I gave i.e. Acts 10:46 and Acts 19:6 were not used to preach the gospel.

Are you now saying that the unknown tongues are also used to preach the gospel?

Also, you didn't deal with my other question: are the unknown tongues also human languages?

Thanks again. But then again, what about the tongues in the two examples below; were they "praying tongues" or "speaking tongues"?

Were they used to "speak" or preach the gospel to anyone? Further, how do we know which is which?

Finally, is the "praying tongues" also human languages?

Acts 10:46

For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

Acts 19:6

And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Thanks. But what about the "tongues" of 'today', is that not meant to be human languages also?

@Goshen360

What exactly do you mean by "divers" tongues?

Pukkah: . . . The Nigerian version of Christianity is sadly unique and stands out in the world. It rests on two cardinal points - magical increase in personal prosperity and death to enemies/witches.

This is true only to an extent. Often what is called Nigerian Christianity is the most visible Charimatic/Pentecostal "churches". These have been overtaken by the lunacy called the "Prosperity gospel" which is NO gospel in fact. Now the key point here is that the lunacy that is the "Prosperity gospel" is an American invention which the materialistic, biblically ignorant and intellectually poor find attractive. Thus in that sense "Nigerian Christianity" is not unique to Nigeria; it is the product of what used to be in the fringe in America but has used the things of the flesh to gain global prominence especially through satellite TV etc

This is not to say that other faces of Christianity in Nigeria (or other denominations and/or abominations) do not have their own problems and serious shortcomings.

Pukkah: This has distracted them from the core of Christianity and from doing what they can do with their own hands by obeying the natural laws which are no respecters of anybody whether you are male, female, black, white, christian, muslim, atheist, etc.

They take whatever comes out of the mouths of their pastors or self-styled general overseers hook, line and sinker. They are quick to say 'I claim it' or 'I reject it' , or 'it's not my portion' even when they do nothing. Some of them have even mixed up the business of motivational speaking with christianity. They tell people 'feel-good' messages and worn-out phrases so they can bring out money.

Sadly, true!

ogbori: State what your problem is and stop hidding behind your ignorace.
When you come out to say something, they tell you 'you dont have the holy ghost yet. Try to remember this, the holy spirit is always manifesting himself in anyone that made himself available to him.
I hear pastors say " the disciple did not have the holy spirit when they were with Jesus and did not perform any miracle" Why? By what what did they heal the sick, cast out demon and did wonders when JESUS sent them out in twos, telling them to dust off their sandals when anyone reject them. Jesus said Peter, flesh and blood did not reveal this to you. Revelation is manifestation of the holy spirit.
Break away from the bondage of doctrines you live by, its a big restriction when you cant check what is preached to you.

+1

Sadly, the ones at the very top (in Nigeria and in America) are basically churning out their vomit of satan; in fact I daresay some of them are spawns of satan masquerading as people of light calling themselves "men of God", "GOs", "Papa" and what have you.

The unfortunate thing is that many undiscerning as well as spiritually and intellectually lazy, even if well-meaning, Christians including so-called "pastors" lap up the nonsense/heresy/doctrines of demons and repeat it down the line. Trying to point out that they are teaching and practising unbiblical things find them coming up with more demonstrations of their problem: "touch not my annoyingthing", "do my proFITs no harm", "jezebel spirit", "spirit of rebellion" and other nonsense.

It is bad to do brainwashing (and probably the greater sin); but even if arguably the lesser sin, it is worse and a most terrible thing not to develop oneself into a questioning person with ability to detect brainwashing ---- at least some times.

OLAADEGBU: Guard your hearts from trolls.

Ah, that reminds me.

Trolls are pinheads.
These trolls like to visit and try to disrupt our happy forum. Their lowly reason for existence is to post provocative, hostile or annoying messages. They claim they are here to discuss, but in fact are just here to cause trouble.

Posted on previous occasions but then of course the leopard that is our trolling friend never changes its spots.

Pastor Kun: You make a mistake here, as a pastor the general expectation is that you should live above board as such it generates trust. My submission is that the woman in question might not have trusted him so much if he was not a pastor. You cannot divorce the fact that he is a pastor from this transaction cos his being a pastor might have been what encouraged the woman in question to do business with him in the first instance.

Nope, I did not make a "mistake". Maybe you need to take time to understand my post.

Addendum

I do not know the position of his "church", Deeper Life, on this kind of thing; but it won't be a bad thing if he is asked to step down or "take leave" as a "pastor" ---- even if only temporarily (initially) until the matter is decided.

First, I think it is important to make the distinction that he did not use his position as "pastor" in connection with this alleged fraud --- as far as we know from reports.

Second, whether a "pastor" or not, a Christian simply should not be involved in fraud. Simples.

@Goshen360

To be fair, going by the various reports, it was in the guy's "occupation" as a lawyer that he did this alleged fraud----- nothing to do per se with whether he is a "pastor" in whatever "church".

Kay 17: Its dangerous to say all gods don't exist. I don't think supernatural gods exist. So still atheist.

This is contradictory, my ol' good friend. I would say that by this, at best you are an agnostic - not quite an "atheist" (strictly speaking there is no such thing as an "atheist" anyway).

I have also pointed out before that I had noticed quite a number of Nairaland's self-proclaimed "atheists" subtly using style style to shift their positions to a form or other of agnosticism. I guess, we have done a good job of undermining the atheist positions afterall.

Kay 17: Don't you think you and sthnesis have very different ideas on the subject God?? Because sthnesis insists God didn't always exist, and that he was caused at a particular time.

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't recall snthesis saying God has not always existed. Maybe he will clarify.

Kay 17: I'm that I'm is a natural concept. Unlike "Greater than the Greatest, Higher than the Highest" which is supernatural.

"I Am that I Am" is only one description. Even that matches your "Greater than the Greatest, Higher than the Highest" --- when you think about it carefully.

But then I also give you "The Beginning and The End"; "The First and The Last"; "The Alpha and The Omega".

Try also: "The One who IS, always WAS and IS still to come".

And try "The Almighty"

Yep, that indeed is your "Greater than the Greatest, Higher than the Highest".

Kay 17:

Enigma:

An effect cannot preexist its cause.

Thus, the creation cannot preexist the creator.

And if man is created, man's creator i.e. man's God, preexisted man.

If the Universe is created or caused to exist, then its creator i.e, its God or its cause of existence, preexisted it.

Thus the argument is not about the existence of God; that has been implicitly conceded by the statement I quoted in the beginning of this post.

Rather, the argument is about the nature of God!

I totally agree with you on the aforementioned point.

However in this premise: God is God by virtue of self cause/ self creation, which you would disagree to!

If I understand you right, you are suggesting that I disagree with the notion that God caused Himself or created Himself ("Itself" if you like). If I've got it right, I would say not necessarily do I disagree with that --- though it could be expressed differently that God simply exists in and of Himself/Itself ----- hence God simply IS, hence I AM that I AM.

On another note, do you realise that you have indeed now almost expressly conceded the existence of "God" (except to work out His/Its nature)?

So, would you still call yourself an "atheist"?

An effect cannot preexist its cause.

Thus, the creation cannot preexist the creator.

And if man is created, man's creator i.e. man's God, preexisted man.

If the Universe is created or caused to exist, then its creator i.e, its God or its cause of existence, preexisted it.

Thus the argument is not about the existence of God; that has been implicitly conceded by the statement I quoted in the beginning of this post.

Rather, the argument is about the nature of God!

nuclearboy: @Enigma:

Why you want me to throw up from laughter this morning? That thread you referred to is more than I can handle on a morning, abeg!

Meanwhile, I suspect the imege below is that of Image123

Holy anger

Dat thread na real orishirishi!

[quote author=iconic_s]@Goshen Jesus was not the high priest while he walked the earth. They were priests as well as the high priest when he walked the earth. I think what you shld ask yourself is:
1. Which came first, the law or tithe . . . .[/quote]Please, you will need first to explain what you mean by "tithe"!

Otherwise, I too can ask: which came first, "half" or the law?

Which came first, 100% or the law?

Which came first, number 1 or the law?

mollie12: . . . The Bible lets us know that 'a little leaven leaveneth the whole lot'. That's what I regard this tithing issue as - leaven. If you let your mind be conformed to the idea that God demands or requires tithe from you to bless you, you have allowed leaven, because this is an untruth. All God requires to keep you in His line of favor is to be reconciled to Him - and this is only achieved by salvation through Christ. Leaven is yeast - if you are familiar with baking you would understand that the end result of the yeast you allow into your pastry is not comparable in size with what you put in in the first place. . . .

This leaven is particularly dangerous leaven especially in societies that tend towards materialism and corruption. It encourages out and out thieves to enter the fold and make things worse in other ways with all sorts of lunacy (passed of as "Christian doctrine" ) to support the sham edifice they call "ministry". It is the kind of leaven that encourages the sort of lunacies on display here https://www.nairaland.com/930598/will-you-attend-these-type

musKeeto: When nothing works, they start a quibble over semantics. I have better things to do today.. so take your glasses off..

Why the rudeness?

. . . the fastest way to becoming a Christian is reading the Bible completely

Reading the Bible is not quite the same as studying the Bible.

@Image123

I hope you will answer just one question from me.

Would you say "tithing" is an obligation for a Christian today?

debosky

You have a point but please trust and take my word that I have quite good reason for not pointing to any individual teaching.

@debosky

In terms of the authority of the Pharisees on interpretation of the old Testament, I wouldn't say it is a widesread claim. However, what prompted this thread is that, rather alarmingly, I have seen that viewpoint of the Pharisees' authority pushed on nairaland in the last few weeks.

I guess in terms of individual things, we do have Christians who prefer to follow the Pharisees' line (consciously/unconsciously) for whatever reason --- the tithing thing being an example (even though the modern "tithing" is a gross departure from if not bastardisation of what the Pharisees actually taught/did). On the other hand, one could point to more "crazy" things like Paula White and Eddie Long's use of shawls and other shenanigans.

This thread is about something far more important than individual teachings of the Pharisees! It is primarily about whether Christians should defer to any perceived authority of the Pharisees on the interpretation of the Old Testament especially. In terms of individual teachings, you can see Jesus Himself telling people to jettison Pharisaic teachings/interpretations --- just follow for example His "ye have heard etc" sayings.

Matthew 16

5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread. 6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? 9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Christ Is Made The Sure Foundation (Tune: Westminster Abbey)

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBiMu6gN5sg?version=3&amp;hl=en_GB"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBiMu6gN5sg?version=3&amp;hl=en_GB" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

hisblud: [b]Eternal Security must be the main thing, [/b]all the scriptures above you quoted are in the bible but i believe it is taken out of CONTEXT to mean ETERNAL INSECURITY. Thinking through, My Redeemer cannot be a schizoid and therefore this is my conclusion: I would rather believe in Eternal security and ask like paul, in the prayer of the Ephesians that the eyes of my understanding being enlightened to understand the gray "scriptures" than believe in eternal insecurity and have a fear (wrong fear and unbelieving), unloving relationship to God.

+1

In Matthew 23 we read:

1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you . . .

Does this mean that the followers of Jesus' teachings today are to follow the Pharisees' interpretation of the Bible?

Of course not! It is wholly misconceived to assume or suggest that Christians in particular are to defer to the authority of the Pharisees in the interpretation of the Bible.

Firstly, the Pharisees were of course concerned with the Old Testament and, especially, the law aspect of it. It is a non-starter to suggest that Christians should follow the Pharisees when it comes to interpreting the New Testament in particular. The Pharisees, in general, did not even believe in Jesus anyway. They even went as far as to say that He had a demon and did His works by the power of Beelzebub.

Matthew 12:24

But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”

Are these the kind of people that Christians are to follow when trying to understand or interprete the teachings of Jesus?

But then what about on the Old Testament, are Christians to follow the Pharisees' understanding, interpretation and teachings on the Old Testament?

Let us start with this "they sit in Moses' seat" business. There are at least two ways of looking at this. One view is that Jesus was not even recognising the Pharisees legitimate authority in fact but was pointing out that they had usurped Moses' position and arrogated authority to themselves to interprete the law and judge people based on that usurpation. Thus some Bible versions have a rendering in similar vein to the NASB:

"The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses.

A second view is that Jesus did in fact recognise the Pharisees' authority to interprete and judge based on the law. Either way Jesus did say: "So you must obey them and do everything they tell you."

Whichever of the two views is taken of the Pharisees' sitting in Moses' seat, it is consistent and legitimate to interprete the "do whatever they tell you part" as meaning something like 'as long as they have (legitimate or illegitimate) authority to interprete the law and judge you on it' do what they say. This is similar to going to court and losing the case even though you were in the right: it may still be in your best interest to obey the judge nevertheless or you risk being held in contempt of court.

Again the question: does this mean that Christians in particular are to follow the Pharisees when it comes to interpreting and understanding the Old Testament?

Again the answer is a resounding: "Of course not!" Let us see why.

Firstly, Jesus said in the same Matthew 23: 1-2

But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

The objector will say it is only what they do that we are not to follow, we are to follow what they preach! WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let us go back a little before returning to Matthew 23.

In Matthew 15:6 Jesus said that these same Pharisees, by their teachings

{they} nullify the word of God for the sake of {their} tradition.

Are those the kind of people that we are to follow when interpreting the word of God ----- even in the Old Testament, which they nullify by their tradition in their teachings?


In Matthew 15:12-14, Jesus called the Pharisees blind guides:

12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?” 13 He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.

Again, are those the kind of people to follow when interpreting and trying to understand the Old Testament?

OK then, let us return to Matthew 23. We have already seen in verse 2 that Jesus told His disciples not to do as the Pharisees. Even more striking is that Jesus pronounced no less than seven woes on these same Pharisees in that very chapter! Let us look at some of these woes.

Matthew 23:13

13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

Matthew 23:15

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

Matthew 23:16,17

“Woe to you, blind guides! . . . You blind fools! . . ."

I will leave out the other woes but then I will also point out that both Jesus and John the Baptist called the Pharisees snakes/vipers!

Again, are the Pharisees the kind of people that Christians should be following when it comes to interpreting and even understanding the Old Testament?

Of course, Christians can learn from understandings of the Old Testament in the times close to when Jesus lived. These understandings could of course come from the Pharisees and others be they Sadducees or whatever.

However, it is a different thing altogether to suggest to Christians today that the Pharisees hold any particular position of authority when it comes to interpreting the Old Testament. It is a seriously misguided and dangerous position to hold!

As an aside, this little exercise also points to the importance of sound biblical hermeneutics e.g. "scripture interpretes scripture" etc, rather than forming doctrine out of a single verse without sufficiently due consideration.

From http://careysjournal..co.uk/2006/12/ever-only-for-thee.html

May my love always be
Ever only for my King.
May my passion, constant be,
For Thy glory and majesty.
May my heart, so fragile,
Belong to my Beloved --
Whose heart was pierced for me.
May my life be given freely
To Thee alone, for Thy use.
May my love forever be
Ever only all for Thee.

And from http://www.freewebs.com/5thirty/mischymnssongs.htm

Take my voice & let me sing always only for my king

Take my lips & let them be filled with messages from thee

Take my silver & my gold not a mite would I withhold

Take my intellect & use every power as thou shalt choose


Take my will & make it thine it shall be no longer mine

Take my heart it is thine own, it shall be thy royal throne

Take my love my Lord I pour at thy feet its treasures store

Take myself & I will be ever only for my king.

^ Being a modified version of "Take my life" sung below to the tune 'Nottingham'

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pxhE3XkUmE?version=3&amp;hl=en_GB"></param><param name="allowFullScreen"

Luke 16:16,17 (edited)

16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. 17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

buzugee: what you disagree with Chief ? lets iron out the matter over some cyber beers

Bros, let us do the cyber beer part only; I raise my glass, erm, hic!

The disgar erm disamentgree erm dis hic whatever, do not really matter. hic.

^^^ You dis guy, I disagree with a lot of things you write but, oh boy, you are most certainly my favourite poster at the moment!

Addendum:

In relation to my point 1 especially, check out this post that I made elsewhere on the same day that I made the post that has led to the present queries.

From https://www.nairaland.com/924281/addiction-please-help#10693416

Enigma: When one reads something like this (or himself/herself have a comparable experience of one's own), all this big big grammar like "exegesis", "hermeneutics" etc etc take secondary place.