₦airaland Forum

malcom1X:
You can watch this video to confirm what I'm saying


https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1770966660234551296/vid/avc1/1280x720/-bLeML_3LkK5TyOQ.mp4?tag=14

Okay. Thanks.

Veecruz:
[quotte]Did you not read that through Abraham and THAT COVENANT, ALL NATIONS, will be blessed?

False! Through Abraham and his Seed (Christ), all nations shall be blessed. Not through that covenant. Quote the scriptures that says all nations would be blessed through the Old Covenant. Should you lie against the Word of God for the sake of winning an argument?

Although this assertion of yours is a gross misrepresentatiion of God's Word, it still does not answer the question asked.

I'll ask the question again: If any nation adopts the laws of Moses, does that bring such a nation into a covenant with God?

It's one thing to argue the scriptures in order to uncover truth. It's another thing to argue the scriptures just in order to win an argument. Arguing the scriptures to win an argument is sin. God forbid that I should ever do such. I'll stand for the truth of scripture anytime any day. It seems you just want to win an argument. You don't have any scripture in your favor, yet you're getting agitated because I didn't buy your unscriptural logic.

Unfortunately, Abraham's descendants threw it away and tried running away from it and did everything for God to be angry and take it away. Rather, God deepened it and made it worse for them (better for other nations) since they wanted it gone.

Is that what God said? Where did God say He created a New Covenant because Abraham's descendants threw the old away and wanted it gone? This is absolutely false. Show us the scripture! You think you can add your own logic to the Word of God?

The children of Israel rejected the covenant, okay, let's agree for your sake. Meanwhile we do not forget that the Old Covenant was still strongly observed in Israel even in the days of the Lord Jesus. Now, tell us where God said He created a New Covenant because the children of Abraham rejected the Old.

I've given you a firm rebuttal on this already. You're saying what you think. The scriptures say the covenant waxed old. God promised a New Covenant ever before the Old expired. The Old covenant had not even begun when God told Abraham about his seed (Christ) through whom the whole world would be blessed. The people of Israel have not even been created before God already had a Lamb He slew in the spirit realm from the beginning of the world. All these are scriptures. Not logic. I've quoted them to you severally, but you remained adamant because you want to win an argument. Not because you want the truth of God's word to prevail.

Perhaps you don't understand. If the Lamb had been slain before the beginning of the world ( Revelation 13:8 ) , then, that means the Old testament which was introduced after the lamb was slain would still have been discarded whether the people rejected it or not. That's because God already had a future plan of a spiritual Lamb whose covenant would terminate the Mosaic covenant.

See how you are behaving stiff-necked exactly like Israel. You clearly see that it is Written "they rejected his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their fathers.

they obeyed not the voice of the LORD their God, but transgressed his covenant, [AND ALL] that Moses the servant of the LORD commanded,AND WOULD NOT HEAR [THEM], NOR DO [THEM].

You're the one behaving stiff-necked against the Word of God while I behave stiff necked against your unscriptural logic. Now, If they rejected the covenant, does that become binding on God to reject it too? Even the logic of this logic is not balanced. Are you saying God would bend His laws because of people? That's your logic anyway but Did the scriptures say so? Did the scriptures say that God instituted a new covenant because the people rejected it? You were the one giving God your own reasons why God instituted the New Covenant. God never said that! The scriptures say that the New Testament came because the Old testament was obsolete! That's loud and clear! Now, tell me the scriptures that explicitly states that God instituted the New covenant because the people rejected the old. Do it the same way I have given you the scriptures that tell you clearly that God terminated the Old Testament because it expired. I gave you the scriptures that say the Old Covenant was just a schoolmaster that was used tentatively for guidance before the coming of the Real Guide - Jesus. Hebrews 8:13 and Galatians 3:24.

God gave His reasons but you want us to reject God's reasons and take your own logic! Who are you to impose your reasons against the declared Word of God?

I'm waiting for you to show me the scriptures where God explicitly stated that the New Covenant came into being because the people rejected the Old.

Read Romans 7 where Paul compared a dead husband (Old Testament) to a living wife (The Church). Paul gave a lengthy explanation in that chapter on how a wife is released from the covenant of her dead husband the same way the church is released from the Law of the dead Covenant. This position is consistent with all the scriptures.

[b]And you are talking about how everyone is guilty of sin? [/b]Did David not personally undersign to keep the covenant and Laws even when Saul and Israel was not?

Would you tell me where I spoke about everyone being guilty of sin? Quote me in that post. If you don't understand what I said in that post, how would you understand the entire post, and by extension the Word of Life? I've seen you misquoting me several times but I just ignored. But since you have the audacity to call a fellow brother stiff-necked, I need to explicitly show you your flaws.

In summary, what I said in that post is that sin is rebellion - a rejection of God's laws and covenant. The context of the scriptures you quoted regarding the rejection of the covenant is applicable to all sinners. All sinners have rejected God and His covenant. Does that then mean God would reject His covenant because men rejected it? Would God bend for men?

Just say you cannot bear to hear the information I have given you in proof of how greatly wrong you are.

You're clearly talking about yourself. With no scriptural proof of anything you've said, you blatantly go against the word of God to add your own incongruous meanings. You hang on what you think the Word of God means rather than what the word of God says. God would say one thing, you'll reject it and say "this is what He meant". Who interprets the Word of God like that? Giving self-fabricated meanings to explicitly declared statements of scripture?

I have shown you from the scriptures that God said the Old Testament is obsolete. God said it was a Schoolmaster only used for men pending the coming of Christ. God said it clearly that it waxed old and expired. God said the new covenant is a better covenant established on better promises. God said the Lamb had already being slain before the world the began, hence the Old testament was not the real deal. It was a tentative arrangement pending the manifestation of the slain Lamb among men. All these are explicitly and clearly written in the Word of God. Should I still quote the scriptures for you again for the umpteenth time?

Now, show me one scripture where God said the Old covenant is a forever covenant. One scripture that says the Old covenant is still alive today. I'm waiting.

You never have just one scripture to back you up, yet you rejected the many scriptures that say the Old testament expired, is obsolete, it waxed old and vanished away, and then turn around to tag a child of God stiff-necked for rejecting your logic in favour or God's written word.

[quote author=Veecruz post=129041426]

And I am telling you that The Law is The Covenant and the Covenant is The Law.

Then answer this question: If a nation adopts the laws of Moses as their national law, does that make them to be in covenant with God? If you say the law is the covenant, then any nation that adopts the law is in an automatic covenant with God.

Waiting for your answer.

2 Kings 17:7-15
For [so] it was, that the children of Israel had sinned against the LORD their God, which had brought them up out of the land of Egypt, from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and had feared other gods,

Kings 2 17:8
And walked in the statutes of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel

Kings 2 17:15
And they rejected his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their fathers and his testimonies which he testified against them; and they followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen that [were] round about them, [concerning] whom the LORD had charged them, that they should not do like them.

If this is the rejection you're talking about, then you don't understand this scripture. Every sinner is seen as someone who has rejected God and His laws. That's the context of these verses. It is a form of rebellion. God does not pamper rebellions people. He punishes them. It is very demeaning to say that God abandoned a covenant because the people rejected it. God doesn't ever bend for man. That's impossible.

This is what God says:
Psalm 89:4
"My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips."

Except the duration of the covenant expires, God would remain through to His covenants. He won't create another covenant just because a generation rejected it.

You're a applying logic to spiritual issues without minding what God said by Himself. God made it explicitly clear that the New Covenant waxed old, it decayed and then became obsolete. God has always had the New Covenant in plan. The Old Testament and its Laws was just a schoolmaster to guide us pending the arrival of Christ. This is the word of God and not human logic. Human logic cannot replace God's Word.

Note Law (statute) and covenant is together.

This scripture quoted out by you further gives credence to my position. I told you that there can be a law without a covenant but there can be no covenant without a law. That's why that scripture says, they rejected His status and His covenant. The statue is still a separate entity from the covenant, so the conjunction 'and had to be used.

The husband is one with his wife but the husband is not the wife, and the wife is not the husband. So, you refer to them as husband and wife because they're two separate entities. I hope you now understand? The word 'and' is a conjunction that is used to join two separate entities together in communication. If the statutes where the same as the covenant, there'll be no need for the statement 'statuse' and 'covenant'. ' it would be either 'status' or 'covenant'. No 'and'. The covenant is not same as the law. They're separate entities.

Kings 2 18:12
Because they obeyed not the voice of the LORD their God, but transgressed his covenant, [AND ALL] that Moses the servant of the LORD commanded,AND WOULD NOT HEAR [THEM], NOR DO [THEM].

In Deuteronomy 28, God already told them the repercussion of following the above actions. It is a recipe of curses and total rejection of the nation as well of harrowing captivity. Not the termination of the covenant. You make God a weak God if God abandons a covenant just because mortal men rejected it. Is that not demeaning?

I have many scriptures running through my mind right now by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost regarding the terminal nature of the Old Testament. I'm ready to take you into new levels of biblical exegesis on this matter so that the truth can be established by the Word of God, and not by human logic.

"That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." - 1 Corinthians 2:5.

Expanse2020:
So did the JESUS/God really Know he will died on the cross..

Yes He did. His purpose for coming into the world was to die for sins. It was long prophesied .That's why John called Him 'The Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world."

Long before the crucifixion, Jesus on many occasions told His disciples that He'll die and rise again. On one such occasion, Peter was rebuking Him and telling Him He would not die. He rebuked Peter and said "Get thee behind me Satan, for you do not love the things of God but the things of man" Jesus knew exactly what His purpose was, and when that time came for the purpose to be fulfilled, He asked the Father to glorify Him "with the glory I had with You before the foundation of the world."

I'n John 10:17-18, while His ministry was still at its early stage, He told His Jews:

"The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

Jesus willingly laid down His life for you on the cross so that through Him you might have eternal life.

[quote author=Veecruz post=129023175][/quote]

The point is, this is not the argument. The argument is The Law was transferred from the stone into our hearts. So as long as man lives, The Law lives, therefore, you lie to say it was abolished whereas, it lives with and in us.

I never said the law was abolished. I said the covenant was abolished. Your inability to separate the law from the covenant is the only reason why you're misinterpreting scriptures. My position is that the New Covenant Law retains some components of the Old Testament Law. However, in the New Testament, we're not not under the Law but under Grace.

We're talking about the Old Covenant and not the law that is attached to it. The Old Covenant has expired even though some components of its law remains. This has been my stand from the beginning.

But this what the scriptures say to New Covenant saints:

Romans 8:1
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."

The Old Covenant Law is the law of sin and death. If Christ's New Covenant Law of the Spirit of Life has made us free from the Old Covenant Law of sin and death, of what use any more is the Old Covenant and its law to us? The scripture explicitly says we're free from the Old Covenant Law. It's covenant is not binding on us. It has expired.

I am querying you to go back and re-enquire what Paul meant when he said Hebrews 8:13, which i have told you means because they LAYED IT ASIDE, FULLY REJECTED IT AND RENDERED IT OF NO EFFECT!

Then if it's of no effect, what makes it eternal? In what way is it still alive? A covenant would be in effect if it's still alive. Only dead covenants are of no effect.

But Paul never said they laid it aside. Do you want to add to the word of God? Paul said the covenant waxed old. That is to say, its dispensation expired and therefore, it had to give way to the New. Give me a scripture that says they laid the covenant aside. We won't be taking your word as authority against the Bible. We're talking about what Paul said, not what Paul meant. His message was loud and clear.

Even if humans have laid a covenant aside, as long as its dispensation is still active, God would continue to hold true to His own terms, and the humans would continue to bear responsibility for breaking the covenant. But there's no responsibility for the Old Covenant anymore for both parties because its dead. For example, God is not going to punish anyone for not offering animal sacrifices today because the covenant that the sacrifices represent has already expired.

[quote author=Veecruz post=129016420]

It is off point because we are not arguing on whether The Law is love or not, so off point.

You clearly don't get the point. The point is that only two components of the Law which you claimed was transferred into our hearts are relevant in the New Testament. These two commandments are the Royal Law upon which the New Covenant stands. The entire Old Covenant law was not transferred. These two laws incorporate more than just the old testament laws.

And i showed you that The Law was put inside you and i and all of us, so how can it vanish away?

Are you now querying the scriptures? Was I the one who said it vanished away?

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. - Hebrews 8:13

Can you read it yourself? I have quoted this scripture and several others to you times without number.

And i also showed you that The Law was discarded, and God tried bringing it back by sending Messengers including His Son, so does that not tell you how abandoned it was? You could not even counter any of them rather you showed how groundless you are and how your grounds are sinking sands by moving from place to place whenever i sink your ground, like a homeless person. So you accept correction and stand on a Rock that Never Sinks!

You showed me nothing.

I have shown you from scripture that God never intended the old testament to run forever. The Old Testament was a shadow of the New Testament. Ever before the Old Testament was founded, Jesus was already in God's plan of salvation. I showed you from scripture that He is called the lamb of God slain from the beginiing of the world:

Revelation 13:8
And all men worshipped it, that dwell in earth, whose names be not written in the book of life of the lamb, that was slain from the beginning of the world.

I also showed you that the law was just a schoolmaster that was asked to hold sway until Christ came, and after Christ, it was entirely discarded according to the scriptures:

Galatians 3:24

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

May the Lord Give You Understanding.

Correct!
And as you rightly have said, we can live with no covenant, but is there a time that there was never a Law?[quote]Law is not equal to covenant. Your assertion, by implication means that any country that imbibes Israel's laws is in covenant with God. Absolutely wrong.

[quote]Bottomline, no sealing (signature) yet you have a covenant of Fidelity.

There's no such thing as a covenant of fidelity among unmarried people. There is a law of fidelity only. There's no covenant attached.

Innformal covwnants are not covenants, yet you sue on it, have people arrested, prosecuted and punished for its breach. Please, dont speak stupidly. If you had no covenant, you would never sue or arrest people based on your so called informal covenants.

No one sues on informal laws. Unmarried couples cannot sue one another for any breach. Even though they have a law of fidelity running between them, their cases would not be heard in court.

Accusing me of speaking stupidly? I know it's just a matter of time. You would soon show the son of whom you are.

So, Jesus Saying

For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Jesus at the time was asking them to uphold the law of Moses which was still in force. The New Covenant dispensation had not begun.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Is unscriptural?

All these Jesus said before the New Covenant came into force. Even in the new covenant, God still has laws that are refined, much broader and more perfection oriented than the old testament laws.

Did you hear how Jesus redefined some Old Testament Laws?

Mathew 5:20-22

" For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kil; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

Can you see that the New Covenant Law goes beyond a mere "Thou shalt not kill?"

Mathew 5:27-28
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Can you see that the New Covenant Law goes beyond a mere "Thou shalt not commit adultery?"

How can anyone not see that the New Covenant is not the same as the Old?

John 13:34
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another."

Luke 22:20
Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.


We have an entirely new covenant in His blood. We have no other covenant. There is a redefined Old Testaments law written in our hearts, but the covenant relating to that law is the New Covenant. We don't relate to that law on the basis of the Old Covenant. We don't have to kill animals or wait on the levitical priesthood to remain in tune with God. These were for the Old covenant. In this New Covenant, the Blood of Jesus alone, and the power of the Holy Ghost is enough.

Isreal threw rubbished it and threw it away, and God several times and with jesus still brought it back. And Jesus even declared that even if the world ends, they would never end, yet, here you are trying to kill iit and pass it away, JUST LIKE ISREAL DID! I just pity you.

No one is trying to kill anything or pass anything away. God was trying to re-establish the Old Testament with the Israelites while its dispensation was still running. God is a dispensational God. As soon as its dispensation expired, the Old Testament has passed away. Again this is the scripture:

Hebrews 8:13
"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. By calling this covenant 'new,' He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear."

You argue with the Scriptures. You deny them as you wish. Once again, may the Lord give you understanding.

A comparison was made between the Old Covenant and the New in Hebrews 8 in relation to the priesthood of both covenants. These are deep things.

Hebrews 8:6
But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

Think deeply about the above scripture. Do you think the Better covenant and the problematic covenant are still running together? You need to read the entire chapter 8 to get the entire message passed.

[quote author=Veecruz post=129007038]

It was unnecassary and irrelevant as it was not the issue of argument, so it was Off Point!

Of course it was necessary except you do not understand what the Royal Law is. The Royal Law are the two Love commandments of the Old Testament Law. The New Covenant stands on these two laws. So, what's offpoint about that?

I did not argue against the scripture, i argued against you and against your understanding of what the scripture CLEARLY SAID!

Of course you did. The scriptures clearly say the Old Testament is obsolete and vanished away, you said it's not. Humble yourself before the Word of God and take corrections.

Another new post!
Every reasonable person knows that a Covenant means Laws for there is no covenant without Law.

What's new about the post giving you a broader explanation for more understanding? Now, you seem to be coming out. There's no covenant without a law as you said. That means the covenant is clearly not the law. They're two separate entities that could be found together. There can be no covenant without a law but there can be a law without a covenant. Hope that's clear? A covenant is necessarily a law but a law is not necessarily a covenant. The Old Testament is currently a Law without a covenant.

And yet another new post.
Seal, means signing or signsture.

So, the unsigned (unsealed) Agreement with your Fiancee to.be faithful and just is not a covenant, eh? If it is so, then why do you complain she is cheating after.all, your covenant is unsealed?

So, what's the "another post" you're talking about?

Yeah, there's no covenant binding you with your fiancee. That's why you can go your separate ways without any issues. The law of faithfulness between the two of you is just mutual respect borne out of fidelity. That's a law without a covenant. No covenant between unmarried people even though there could be agreements. No seal. No signature. The agreements are not covenants until a seal is introduced. Informal agreements are not covenants.

As already stated a covenant means Law.

As already proven, a covenant means law only because there's a law attached to it. That is, roles each party in the covenant must play for the covenant to remain active. Mutual responsibilities. These roles and responsibilities are the laws. "if you do this or that, I will do this and that "

Recap: A covenant is a law because it always comes with a law of roles for all parties of the covenant, but a law is not a covenant without its seal of agreement between all parties involved.

Because, Isreal cast it aside and disregarded it, what else would happen to a thing that has been thrown aside?

Not true. Not because Israel cast it aside. That's unscriptural. God's original plan was Jesus from the beginning. Infact, the Bible calls Him "The Lamb slain from the beginning of the world." - Revelation 5:9. Jesus , and by extension, the New Covenant has been God's plan of salvation from the beginning of the world.

The Law was just a school master that tutored us until Christ came as we saw in Galatians 3. After Christ came, the tutor was done away with. You read that clearly in the book of Galatians 3:24 - 25: "Wherefore THE LAW WAS OUR SCHOOLMASTER to bring us unto Christ... But after that faith is come, WE ARE NO LONGER UNDER A SCHOOLMASTER." But according to you, we're still under the schoolmaster. Should we believe you or the Scriptures? Are your opinions higher than the Word of God?

As is already clear, your opinion is baseless which is why you are just moving from post to post raising fresh issues in a bid to find a place to stand and it is not reasonable that i follow you everywhere you run to. So without a doubt, you can see that your opinions here are unfounded and do not stand,. So take correction for you are in great error. Bye

Those are no my opinions. God forbid that I should hold my opinion against the Word of God. You're the one whose opinions are baseless. I have no opinion. I'm just telling you what the scriptures say by quoting the scriptures themselves. No fresh issues were raised. New explanations are not fresh issues. If previous explanations are not understood, then, new explanations can be provided to drive in understanding.

1. I have established from the scriptures that the Old Testament is obsolete: Hebrews 8:13. "In that He says, "A new covenant, " He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."

The scriptures say it is obsolete, not me. Please check the dictionary for a broader and indepth meaning of the word 'obsolete'. I don't expect you to keep arguing after seeing this scripture.

2. I have established that the Old Testament needs yearly renewal. If you think the old Testament is still active, then, I admonish you to renew it yearly with the blood of animals.

3. I have established that the 2 laws of love are a component of the Old Testament which we find in the New. These components do not necessarily mean the old is still active just as the old Nigerian constitutions do not remain active just because some of their components are in the new.

4. I have established that a law cannot necessarily be a covenant but a covenant can be a law.

5. I have established that even though the old covenant has some of its law components transferred into our hearts, it does not render it active. The New Covenant incorporates some components of the old covenant with its own new features.

6. I have established that God is no longer interested in the blood of animals which is the seal of the old covenant. The Blood of Jesus, which is the seal of the New Covenant is the only seal that holds value in heaven, making the old covenant of no value.

7. I have established that the New Covenant is the everlasting covenant promised . The Old covenant was temporal and has been done away with according to the scriptures." A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 8:13.

8. I have established that Aaron and his levitical priesthood which were the mediators of the old covenant have had their priesthood terminated. The High Priest of the New Testament, which is the Lord Jesus is the only recognized High Priests in heaven. And He is the Mediator of the New Covenant (Not of the Old), according to the scriptures: "[b[In this manner, Jesus became the “mediator of the new covenant[/b]” Hebrews 12:24. The Old Testament cannot remain active in the absence of its high priest and seal.

Note: God's covenant with Day and Night is not the same as the covenant God had with Israel, should we look into this scripture together if it's causing confusion?

Jesus the Lord didn't attach any Old Covenant to Himself. The scriptures already said the Old Testament was a schoolmaster and a shadow. It was just a tentative arrangement made by God with Israel pending the arrival of Christ. The New Covenant was the plan of God from the beginning, even before the fall of man. God who foreknew man's fall already made the provision for restoration ahead of time.

The Old Testament activities down to the emergence of the New Testament dispensation were pre-ordained processes of God. The endgame is the salvation of the whole world through Jesus our Lord. The Old Testament was a mere shadow. The New Covenant is the real deal.

Should we now abandon the Word of God and listen to Veecruz? God forbid!

Veecruz:
Now, you are changing post yet again. First, you did not know that The Law and old covenants was transferred from the Stone to our hearts.

Then, you still changed post and did not know that The Law is the Covenant!

And now, yet again you are still changing post raising fresh off point issues and even none issues.

Clearly, your running from place to.place shows how not founded and not grounded your opinions on this issue are WHEREAS, TRUTH IS STABLE.

And it is unreasonable that i should follow you to every ground you run to, so clearly, you are wrong and your oipnion is baseless



Agreements in deed can be cancelled but was this Agreement cancelled? Never

Rather, God tranferred it from be the Stone to the hearts of men as Jeremaiah 31:33 clearly, tells us, so you are wrong.

God even made it impossible for you or anyone to break it saying

20 Thus saith the Lord; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;

25 Thus saith the Lord; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;

26 Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.

And no one has stopped the day nor the night from coming according to their season, therefore no.one broken themself free from the covenant.

So as i have said, you are very very wrong!



And that is what i.am trying to get you to see, it is both old and new.

It is old because it is indeed old but the party who agreed to it threw it away and discarded it like a bad tenant. But, the prophets tried unsuccesfully to bringi it back and then.finally, The LORD, JESUS CHRIST brought it back AND ATTACHED HIMSELF TO IT saying

Jeremaiah 31:
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them,

And we all know that He Who was called Jesus Christ, is The LORD!

So, you are very wrong, so do take correction and err not!

Everything I said in this post regarding the Royal Law and a few others are things I have already mentioned in my previous posts. So, what am I changing? What is it that I do not know that I am just now knowing? What post have I changed? Can you make a comparative analysis of my posts to point out what I've changed?

You keep arguing against the scriptures when the scriptures pointed out that the Old Testament is already obsolete. You read that clearly from Hebrews 8. Do you prefer your own frail logic or God's Word? You need to decide.

There's nowhere in the Bible where the Law is referred to as the covenant. A written agreement or law does not become a covenant without a seal. The Blood of animals was the seal of the Old Covenant. The Blood of Jesus is the seal of the New.

I have told you that the Old Covenant has the law as one of its components. The Law alone does not make up the covenant. Otherwise any nation that copies the 10 commandments would be regarded as a nation in covenant with the God of Israel. You and I know that this is impossible.

Paul made it clear that the law itself was a shadow:

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." - Colossians 2:15-16.

Now, an agreement is not a covenant without its seal. And the fact that a component of some former agreement is carried over into a new agreement does not mean that the former agreement still holds.

Don't you remember that the Old Covenant was to be renewed yearly with sacrifices? Don't you know that the absence of that renewal means the covenant is broken?

God has abrogated the Old Covenant in favour of the New. Even if you decide to renew the Old Covenant with a sacrifice of animals, you're just wasting your time. God would not respect such a sacrifice because that covenant is already obsolete.

In summary, let me tell you again that the law is not the covenant. The covenant has several components which includes the law, the prophets, the tokens or seal or emblems. Without all these, there's no covenant.

Ordinary agreement without a seal is no agreement. Ordinary law without its seal is no covenant.

The transferring of the law into the new covenant does not make the old covenant active. The same way the transferring of some components of the old Nigerian constitutions into the the new constitution does not make the old constitution active. You can't use the Old Constitution of Nigeria to argue in court even though some of its components are transferred into the New Constitution.

In the New Testament, we only know Christ the crucified. Trying to resurrect the Old covenant was a practice for which Paul rebuked the Galatian Church, calling them "Oh foolish Galatians."

Veecruz:
The Law IS THE COVENANT! (Note! You have moved post from not seeing that the old covenant Laws which was on tables of stone that is being transferred and transplanted into our hearts to continue there as declared by Jeremiah 31:33 to this new argumrent where.you dont know that the Law is The Covenant)

You obviously dont know that a covenant means Agreement (contract) betwern the Agreeing parties.

covenant
" a written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action".

And every Agreement (covenant) must always have LAWS called terms of Agreement or Rules of Engagement.

And it must have the Duties/Obligations (Laws. again) of the parties agreeing exactly like your Tenancy Agreement, Record Label Contracts, Sponsorship Contracts etc.

And that Agreement and signing ceremony is what you see took place in Mount Sinai in Exodus 19 when God first Spoke it, then got Moses to Write it down and repeat it to the people for them to Agree. And the people gave their agreement and consent to it.

So, you are wrong yet again!

You're contradicting the scriptures. I told you clearly that the law of the old covenant is encapsulated in the Royal Law. The law of love.

Agreements can be abrogated. A second agreement can have components of the abrogated agreement. That does not make the former agreement eternally active.

The New Testament is an upgrade of the Old. That's why it is called a Better covenant. It retains some components of the old, that doesn't make the old eternal. If the old is eternal, then it's no longer old.

The law is written on our hearts, not the covenant. The covenant is old, but the law of the covenant has given way to the Royal Law and Grace. In the Old Testament, there was no grace. There was just law. A new covenant was enacted to incorporate law and grace. It is completely different from the old. Both covenants don't run concurrently. The Old gave way to the New because the New contains important components of the Old, as well as additions such as Grace, the sacrifices of Christ and the Presence of the Holy Ghost. The Blood of Jesus is the token of the New Covenant, not the blood of lambs.

As long as the Old Covenant is no longer being renewed yearly with the blood of animals, the Old Covenant ceases to be active. Animal blood is the token, the emblem of the Old Covenant. Without the emblem, the covenant ceases.

Veecruz:
Is it not the old covenant Laws which was on tables of stone that is being transferred and transplanted into our hearts to continue there?

Jeremiah 31:33
But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

There's the law of the covenant. The law is the law, and the covenant is the covenant. The law is not the covenant and the covenant is not the law.

The old covenant consists of the law, the prophets, the ordinances and the tokens of the covenant. The law alone does not make the covenant.

Luke 16:16
“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing into it."

Watianoengineer:
When Isreal was bombing every inch of Gaza just because of the actions of few Hamas insurgents, majority of the hypocrites condemning the actions of the Nigerian Army today were supporting Isreal to continue the genocide. To them every one residing in Gaza are all terrorists so Isreal's action to bomb everyone was justifiable.


Now the tables have turned and the Nigerian Army are ready to do what Isreal is doing in Gaza. A dozen or more soldiers were murdered in cold blood but you hypocrites wants the army to look for the killers and not make the whole community pay.

If you can support what Isreal is doing by punishing every Palestinian for the offense of few Hamas agent, then the Nigerian Army should as well wipe out the whole community and make them suffer for the sins of the few killers.

Tell me, did the community rejoice over the killing of the soldiers as did the Palestinians when Hamas killed over 1,000 Israelites?

Are the killers of the soldiers using the community people as human shield as Hamas is doing in Palestine?

Tell me, does the community have a written constitution and charter that states that they must continue to fight soldiers until there are no more soldiers in Nigeria, the same way Palestinians have such constitution by their Hamas leadership to keep fighting until Israel ceases to be a nation?

Veecruz:
And the same Jeremiah told us what the New Everlasting Covenant was.

Jeremiah 31:33
But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

And It is after this The LORD, came as the Man called Jesus Christ, to do all that was Written and Prophecied.

So, you can see the New Covenant was an Addition exactly how "a woman shall compass a man" was a new thing.

It did not remove anything in the old.

If you read my reply to you , you'll remember I said the Old Covenant was written on Tables of stone, but the New Covenant is written in our hearts. This is exactly established by the Jeremiah 31:33 that you quoted.

Rather than invalidate my position, your response validates it. It proves that there's a new covenant established on better promises.

Jesus is the Mediator of this New Covenant. It is an everlasting covenant.

Hebrews 12:22-23

"But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel."

The Everlasting New Covenant which was promised in Jeremiah was fulfilled in Jesus. There'll be no other covenant after this covenant. This covenant is the real covenant God initially intended to make with man. The Old Testament was a shadow.

The Lambs and Bullocks that were sacrificed foreshadowed the real Lamb, Jesus, who takes away the sins of the whole world.

John 1:29
"Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

The dead High Priest Aaron and his levitical priesthood foreshadowed Jesus who is our eternal, and never dying High Priest:

"Therefore, since we have a Great High Priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess." -Hebrews 4:14 - 15.

It is said of Jesus:

"For it is declared: “You are a Priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.” -Hebrews 7:7

Jesus, the High Priest of the New Covenant is a Forever High Priest because the Covenant of His Priesthood, the New Covenant is a Forever Covenant.

The children of Israel who worshipped God in the Old Covenant foreshadowed the Church of God who worship God in the New.

"This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:" - Acts 7:38

The church in the wilderness is replaced by the New Testament Church which Jesus purchased with His blood.

Finally, the scriptures reaffirm that the New Covenant which we are in, is the Everlasting Covenant:

"Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that Great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the Everlasting Covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do His will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever." - Hebrews 13:20.

Veecruz:
You are absolutely.wrong here. I have reasonably proven it to you several times until.you had no valid counter.that The old Covenant runs forever. And that since the jews left Egypt they did everything to get God to leave them alone which surely includes the putting aside of the covenant.

But the prophets and then finally Christ, tried bringing it back which is why Christ Said

Mark 7:8-9
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

So, you are very wrong to say that the old covenant was abolished.

And the curtain of the temple was supposed to tear for how can our God, our Creator, die and then it would be quiet and nothing remarkable and memorable? Impossible! See all the noise made when Queen Elizabeth died, is it now when God was murdered when He came visiting? You should have expected that it can never be quiet. Exactly, how His next visit will be!

First of, where did you ever prove to me that the old testament runs forever? You and I have never had any discussion before. This would be our first discussion ever. If you think otherwise, bring proof. You can never prove to anyone that the old covenant runs forever because there's no scriptural backing for such an erroneous claim.

Now, let me engage you with scriptures. The Old Testament does not run forever, that is why it became old, obsolete - no longer in use. It was replaced by the New.

Note that the Old Testament was still running when God said to the people of Israel in Jeremiah 32:40:

"I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never stop doing good to them, and I will inspire them to fear me, so that they will never turn away from me."

Notice that in the above scripture, God promised the people of Israel a future covenant which is everlasting. They were at that time already in the old covenant. God was telling them indirectly that the current covenant they had with Him was a temporal covenant. There's an everlasting covenant slated for the future.

In Jeremiah 31:31, God spoke more about this everlasting covenant slated for the future, which was fulfilled in Christ:

The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a New Covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah."

The New Covenant is the everlasting covenant. Not the Old.

There's no need to argue unnecessarily on this. If you ever proved to anyone on this platform that the Old Testament was not abolished, you were probably arguing with someone who lacked the basic knowledge of scripture. The scripture explicitly declares that the Old Testament has been abolished. I'll bring you a few scriptures:

Hebrews 8:13
"In that He says, "A New Covenant, " He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

The old testament that is made obsolete by the declaration of the future new testament was already prepared to be vanished away by the declaration.

Hebrews. 8:6-7
"But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second."

Galatians 3:24-25
"Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor ."

Now, do not think that the 10 commandments are no longer active because of the abrogation of the old testament. The 10 commandments are encapsulated in the Royal Law - the law of love. To love God and to love one's neighbors.

The difference between the Old Testament and the New is that the Old Testament was written on tables of stone. The New testament was written in our hearts. The yearly blood of animals was needed as propitiation for sins in the old testament. In the new testament, the blood of Jesus is an everlasting sacrifice.

We live under grace and not under the law in the new covenant. We do God's will by the grace of God - doing His will as part of our new nature, not by observing commandments. God Himself does His commandments through us by the Holy Ghost whom He has given unto us.

Philippians 2:13
For God is working in you, giving you the desire and the power to do what pleases him."

This is grace.

John 1:16
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Beautifulday:
The last scripture you quoted said, "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

Why should he be a Jew?

When God met Abraham and wanted to make Israel his people he said,"

You also said God has gone back on his choice of Israel. Omo! This actually makes God but a liar and a covenant breaker.

Abraham didn't look for God. God looked for him. Israel never looked for God, God looked for them.

God doesn't love them because of anything but because he choose them. The same applies to christians.

Israel and the gentiles doesn't have the same covenant.

The covenant Israel have with God was seal with Abraham. God because the God of any seed of Abraham at circumcision.

The covenant of the gentiles with God is seal with Jesus. God becomes the God of any gentile who believes in the Jesus and his savior.

Jesus will have to come again to Israel to save them. But he will never come again to save the gentiles.

Please read my post again and allow the Holy Spirit to guide your thoughts.

You can see that you said so much but you have no scriptural backing for anything you said. Those are your own personal thoughts. They're not the thoughts of God.

Who did you think Jesus was talking to when He said:

"I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”
- John 8:24.

The Jews of course. It was the Jews He was also addressing in John 5'24:

“Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life."

Jesus clearly told Jews who their real father is for rejecting Him:
"For you are the children of your father the devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning."
- John 8:44

Jesus clearly told them they're of their father the devil. They're not children of God. Anyone who rejects Jesus is not a child of God, including the Jews.

Jesus said to the religious leaders of the Jews:

"If you were blind, you would have no sin. But since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains." John 9:41

For everyone who belongs to Jesus, the scriptures say:

"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Meanwhile , in John 8:39, Christ clearly told the Jews that they're not the children of Abraham.

"They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham."

But for anyone who is in Christ, the scriptures say again:

"And you, dear brothers and sisters, are children of the promise, just like Isaac."
- Galatians 4:28

Beautifulday:
That is a good one. That is not the sense I am referring to. I mean, no other tribe or human worship Jehovah as God except Israel. Jesus gave the gentiles the opportunity and access to be able to worship God. Without Jesus, the gentiles cannot worship or be linked to God.

But God chose Israel to be his people. He hasn't at anytime gone back on that choice that Israel should be looking for another means to get back to God.

God has gone back on that choice. The physical Israel was a shadow of the real Israel - the church. God decided to use physical Israel as a specimen to demonstrate His love and judgements in physical terms. There was nothing special about them.

Deuteronomy 9:6
"Therefore understand that the LORD your God is not giving you this good land to possess because of your righteousness, for you are a stiff-necked people."

Deuteronomy 7:6-8
“For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.”

All through Israel's old testament history, God was teaching us physically who He is and what He wanted His children to be. We get to know the character of God through God's dealings with Israel.

And once that was accomplished, God decided to abolish the Old Covenant and Establish a new one which would incorporate the whole world and Israel.

Anyone, including the Jew is expected to have a stake in the new covenant. God does not love only Israel "For God so love the whole world.."

And now that God is done with physically demonstrating Himself, He shifted His attention to the whole whole, breaking the middle wall of partition that was once wedged between Israel and the rest of the world, to make both Jews and Gentiles one entity in Christ Jesus.

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

- Romans 2:28-29

The spiritual Israel is the real Israel which the physical Israel foreshadowed.

Beautifulday:
The Jews aren't children of God through Jesus death and resurrection only gentiles are. If Jesus didn't come through the children of God the Israelites, the gentiles cannot be children of God through him.

That's not correct! The Jews themselves don't regard themselves as children of God. They see it as blasphemy for anyone to be called a child of God. To them, such a claim is worthy of the death penalty.

In John 10:29-35, Jesus said:

"My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”

33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

The Jews wanted to stone Jesus because He referred to God as His Father.

It is through Jesus that we all became children of God, including the Jews. The condition for becoming a child of God is just to simply believe that Christ died and rose again.

John 1:12
"But to all who believed him and accepted him, he gave the right to become children of God."

Both Jews and Gentiles are among the "All" that must believe in Christ to have the right to become the children of God.

Beautifulday:
Jesus death doesn't save the Jew from anything. It is the gentiles it gave access to become children of God. This is possible because Jesus came through the Jewish bloodline.

Jews are children of God through Gods covenant with Abraham. They are not children of God because they obey the ten commandments.

In fact, before the ten commandments came. They have been children of God.

It is ignorance and over Sabi they make people go to preach to the Jews.

Absolutely Wrong! You're the one who's ignorant.

Jesus Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant which God has set for the whole world including the Jews. The old covenant is abolished. God is no longer in Judaism. That's why the temple cloth tore into two the very night Christ hung on the cross.

The disciples of Christ who preached the gospel to us were all Christian Jews. The apostles were Christian Jews. There are still Christian Jews in Jewry today.

The Israelites rejected Christianity because they were blinded. The blinding of Israel has been prophesied. This is necessary in order that the crucifixion of Christ may take place. If Israel wasn't blinded, nobody would shout "crucify Him" unto Pilate. There would be no propitiation of sin. Christ's mission as lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world wouldn't have been fulfilled.

But there comes a time when Israel would return to God through Christ. The prophecy for that is also future.

Zechariah 12:10
“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn."

Note, Jesus is the One whom they pierced. Israel would return to God in the latter days.

They are expecting a physical Messiah who would rule the whole world from Jerusalem. They were disappointed because Jesus didn't fulfil this expectation. Their expectation is absolutely correct but that's going to happen in Christ's second coming. First, Christ has to reconcile the whole unto Himself as He is doing today. His work is first spiritual (Christianity), afterwards, He'll do the physical manifestation. The Jews missed the spiritual but they'll not miss the physical. Christ's death saves everyone, including the Jews.

CC:
Uchesis

Ken4Christ:
You are correct but if you are into ministry and you are single, most people will not trust you. This is my experience in ministry. And there are people who will never attend your church because you are single. It also exposes you to temptations.

Absolutely true.

That's the down side of being a single minister. Infact, no married couple would take your marital counseling serious. Your congregation would be full of youths and a few young couples. The elderly will run away from you. You wouldn't be regarded as someone matured and experienced enough to provide guidance for some issues. These are all the down sides. Your ministry would be limited.

The most balanced option is to marry one wife. It has its shortcomings too but they're very manageable.

Ken4Christ:
Where did the idea that a Christian should marry only one wife come from? The God we serve today is still the same God of Israel, his chosen people. And the nation of Israel was founded on polygamy. Is God not aware of it. The children that makes up the nation of Israel were born by four women, one man.

Please, let's renew our minds.

Paul only insisted that Bishops should limit themselves to only one wife. And Paul never said that it was the commandment from the Lord.

Besides, he only gave this instructions to Timothy and Titus. He never mentioned it in his letter to churches.

It's even far better for a Bishop to marry more than one wife than to marry one and be cheating with little girls in church. And this is what the command of one wife has done. A good number of Bishop cheats. I personally will not even condemn any Bishop who has more than one wife. We don't all the same sexual urge. If Paul wanted this instruction to be a doctrine that must be strictly adhered to, he would have included it in all the letters he wrote to all the churches. This is because, not all the churches know Timothy and Titus. And both of them didn't know all the churches.

I have made my point. You are free to throw stones. But don't forget that the stones you throw is also attempting to tell God that he did not do well by permitting his own people to form a nation out of Polygamy.

This issue you raised about Christian marriages is true. But I think Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus to tell everyone of us that one wife is the best for a man who'll go into Christian leadership.

I don't see how a polygamous man would be able to manage such a complex family affair and combine it with the extreme complexity of church management.

It all boils down to leadership focus and efficiency. A man with no wife would be a better focused and efficient leader. He'll be able to dedicate himself to service much better than a man with one wife. In the same vein, a man with one wife is much better than the one with two. The one with two is also a better leader than the one with 3, and so on and so forth. The more wives a man has, the less dedication and time he'll be able to commit to kingdom service. One wife is good for Christian leadership but no wife is better. This is also Paul's position but mainstream Christianity has made polygamy a sin which it is not.

]Please who I'll tell us where the doctrines of closing one's eyes while praying comes from? This doctrine is not anywhere in the Bible.

OLAADEGBU:
If you cannot name the bible doctrines Kumuyi promised to overhaul before he passes then you should know that you were never a spiritual son of his.



You are only proving to be an impostor and a liar, a son of your father the devil. Kumuyi was never your spiritual father if you are to lie that he promised to change bible doctrines he had once preached.



The fact that you could not mention your so called spiritual fathers shows that you are covering up names of some shady characters. If you are covering up workers of darkness in the pretence that they are making mistakes then we cannot be birds of a feather. If you cannot expose workers of iniquity posing of ministers of light then you have just shown yourself to be equally guilty by association.



If you could not name them then you have something to hide. What are you worried about if they are not people of shady characters?



The characters I've been exposing on this section have been rapist, cultists, murderers, swindlers, liars, paedophiles and adulterers. You say these are only making mistakes? That shows how ignorant you can be when it comes to the word of God. Paul named and shamed workers of iniquity in the church.



What is your history on this forum? What thread of yours can you point to on this forum that proves that you are gathering with Christ? My record on this forum speaks for itself.

OLAADEGBU:
If you cannot name the bible doctrines Kumuyi promised to overhaul before he passes then you should know that you were never a spiritual son of his.



You are only proving to be an impostor and a liar, a son of your father the devil. Kumuyi was never your spiritual father if you are to lie that he promised to change bible doctrines he had once preached.



The fact that you could not mention your so called spiritual fathers shows that you are covering up names of some shady characters. If you are covering up workers of darkness in the pretence that they are making mistakes then we cannot be birds of a feather. If you cannot expose workers of iniquity posing of ministers of light then you have just shown yourself to be equally guilty by association.



If you could not name them then you have something to hide. What are you worried about if they are not people of shady characters?



The characters I've been exposing on this section have been rapist, cultists, murderers, swindlers, liars, paedophiles and adulterers. You say these are only making mistakes? That shows how ignorant you can be when it comes to the word of God. Paul named and shamed workers of iniquity in the church.



What is your history on this forum? What thread of yours can you point to on this forum that proves that you are gathering with Christ? My record on this forum speaks for itself.

Man, you're really satanic. A liar and an agent of hell. You even have the audacity to challenge me brazenly without shame, knowing fully well that what I said about Kumuyi was true.

You need to be born again and give your life to Christ. You need to be saved. There's no single truth in you.


Now, prove that these people like Olukoya and Funke Adejumo are murderers, rapists and the names you call them! May the Almighty God judge you for bringing the names of these monsters into the mud as you're doing.

The same Olukoya who was known to be so upright to the extent that he used to reject gifts from people whose sources of wealth are unknown, especially politicians. Even in the days when Olukoya was still poor. He rejected unclean monies that could have made him rich. God has blessed his ministry. He has had no single scandal for these many years of his ministry. A very renown upright man of God who is now being attacked by a woman who is a known liar and fabricator of fact. You join hands with her to paint this servant of Christ in bad lights. God will judge you Olaadegbu. What evil has Funke Adejumo done that you have dragged her name into a matter that doesn't concern her? God will judge you. You won't escape the wrath of God when God begins with you!

I have already exposed you as a liar and an hypocrite. A servant of the devil. God shall judge you unless you repent and give your life to Christ!

I have even named EA Adeboye as one of my mentors, you're still telling me that I couldn't name my mentors. You're such a devilish fellow!

https://www.nairaland.com/4366613/pastor-kumuyi-remove-some-doctrines#65344349

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://m.facebook.com/youneedtoknow.ng/videos/before-i-die-i-will-destroy-certain-deeper-life-doctrines-i-set-up-i-created-the/770621516394991/&ved=2ahUKEwjXoNjo2PmEAxWwW0EAHdNxCScQtwJ6BAgfEAE&usg=AOvVaw19eJ4BHHjWEt9m5CgWIO5m

Did Nairaland hide my history on this forum? My threads and posts are all test testaments to the fact that I believe in the unity of the body of Christ.

This Olaadegbu of a fellow is very devilish.

OLAADEGBU:
What is stopping you from naming those spiritual fathers, what are you afraid of?



What flaws and who is speaking about flaws? What doctrine did he restructure? If you believe Kumuyi restructured the doctrines he once preached you need to give me concrete evidence.



I am not gathering wolves but sheep.

Olaadegbu, I wouldn't name the human and umbilical doctrines that Kumuyi himself has prominently promised to overhaul before he passes on to glory. If you deny this, then you're an hypocrite.

I have told you Kumuyi is my spiritual father so you can know the calibre of spiritual fathers and mentors I have. If you categorize Kumuyi as lacking in integrity, then all my spiritual fathers would be in the same category. Whatever you categorize Kumuyi to be, that's the calibre of mentors I have. They're many. Both here and overseas. EA Adeboye is one of them.

You lack spiritual wisdom my friend. We're all working together to move the kingdom of God forward. Not to expose one another's weaknesses to the world. That's a foolish move unbefitting of a kingdom soldier.

Men who are known to have genuinely given their lives to Christ, been mentored by reputable ministers, preached the true Word of God, taken the salvation of souls as top priority, and have been partakers of the heavenly gift with long standing testimonies of integrity cannot be tagged as workers of darkness because of some single errors they committed.

They can be chastised, admonished and called to order within the body of Christ. Exposing them to the world as agents of darkness is foolishness. Paul confronted Peter among brethren. He didn't expose him to the world.

Are you gathering with Him or scattering? Whatever wound you do the body of Christ, you shall suffer the consequences at the judgement seat of Christ on that day. And if you do well, you shall equally be rewarded.

OLAADEGBU:
If those other spiritual fathers you refuse to mention have any integrity you will not hesitate to name them and that's why the Lord is exposing them either you mention them or not.

If those spiritual fathers don't have integrity, they'll not be my spiritual fathers, okay? Then, I would have rejected Kumuyi himself if I love spiritual fathers with no integrity.

There's no perfect church. There's no perfect minister of the gospel. Kumuyi has his many flaws. No one calls him a worker of darkness because of that! No one thinks he doesn't have integrity just because of that. He is trying to restructure many of his previous doctrines today.

Are you gathering or scattering? Answer my questions.

OLAADEGBU:
Name the remaining spiritual fathers since you left and what Christian ministries did you join? Who else are your mentors?

I have many spiritual fathers. Kumuyi is still my spiritual father till date. My other spiritual fathers are not supposed to be your concern.

Answer my questions.

OLAADEGBU:
When did you become a Christian and under whose ministry? Who is your mentor or spiritual father if any?

I became a Christian in Christian Life fellowship. I attended Deeper life Christian ministry for many years afterwards before leaving Deeper life in the early '90s. W F. Kumuyi is one of my spiritual fathers and mentors.

Now, answer my questions.

OLAADEGBU:
I'll answer you on the condition that you name your own G.O./ministry.

I'm a Christian. A member of the body of Christ. I do not have allegiance to any ministry or G.O. All my allegiance goes to Jesus. My ministry is to defend the gospel.

OLAADEGBU:
Who is stopping you from posting scandals you find in DL? You are also free to cover up the works of darkness as you deem it fit.

Are you answering my question with a question? Are you telling me that Kumuyi has never been called out for anything in the past? Did anybody tag Kumuyi as being of the Kingdom of darkness because of that? Are you not being an hypocrite?

I asked you whether you're gathering or scattering. Can you answer that question without hypocrisy?

Why is it that every controversial topic relating to other churches other than Deeper Life always come from you, Olaadegbu? Are you gathering with Him or scattering?

PoliteActivist:
Oh there are atheist churches. Quite a few. Just google

Wow!

Just hearing about that for the first time. They've even gone really far in their religious organization.

jesusjnr2020:
Was This Prayer Of Apostle Paul Inspired By The Holy Spirit?

2 Timothy 4:14-15 (KJV)

Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:
Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words.

Was the bolded prayer of apostle Paul inspired of the same Spirit that was in Jesus, who taught us to forgive those who trespass against us so God would forgive us ours, pray for our enemies, bless those who curse us, and reward their evil with good? Matthew 5:44, 6:14-15.

This is also the prayer Jesus who never sinned, prayed for His enemies who had done so much evil Him and were behind His sufferings, crucifixion and death:

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34)

So was it the same Spirit in Jesus that also inspired that prayer of Paul for God to repay his enemy, Alexander the coppersmith, according to the evil he did to him?

Remember this was the same Paul that did much evil to the church while formerly known as Saul before his conversion.

Acts 8:3 (KJV)

As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.

Acts 9:1-2 (KJV)

And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

He was said to have consented to the death of Stephen who was stoned to death, but Stephen didn't still pray for God to repay Saul and the rest of his killers with the evil they did against him but that God forgave them according to Christ teachings.

Acts 7:58-60 (KJV)

And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.
And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

So this was same Paul who had been forgiven by God despite all his evils he did against the church, probably an answer to Stephen's Christ-like prayer, so what evil could Alexander have done to Paul that was worse that Paul couldn't forgive but asked God to reward him accordingly?

If God had done the same to Paul, and rewarded Paul with all the evil he had done to the church, would he have been able to stand?

Note: This is not to judge or condemn Paul but just to prove that he was also human and not inerrant even in his teachings, because this prayer clearly wasn't inspired by the Spirit of God but of the apostle's flesh.

Therefore if anyone followed his example in this prayer, the person would also be walking in gross error despite it being in the Bible and coming from a true apostle of Christ.

That's why we keep urging people to take priority of the teachings of Jesus over those of anyone else, including the apostles, because Jesus was inerrant but they were not.

God bless.

The hurt Alexandra the Coppersmith did Paul was not a personal hurt as you can see in his instructions to Timothy. He was obstructing and opposing the work of the Kingdom, thereby preventing others from entering in. Paul was pained because of that. He asked Timothy to be wary of him.

The prayer Paul prayed is in line with scriptures. "As long as the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest...shall not cease." Genesis 8:22. The prayers align with the law of sowing and reaping.

The Lord Jesus came harder than Paul on those people who did exactly the same things Alexandra the Coppersmith was doing in Christ's day:

Mathew 23:13
"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

Paul was mild. He only prayed for him to reap what he sowed. That's the law of the spirit. It is dangerous for anyone to stand against the kingdom of God.

My friend, you don't know God.

jesusjnr2020:
James Rebuttal Of Paul's Erroneous Teaching On Salvation By Grace/Faith Not Works

This is apostle James, the half brother of Jesus, who succeeded Simon Peter as leader of the church in Jerusalem. He should know a thing or two about Jesus and His teachings. Although he didn't specifically mention whose false teaching he was referring to on this occasion, it's that glaring everyone true Christian knows it was Paul's.

Here's the teaching of Paul he was referring to:

Ephesians 2:8-9 (KJV)

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

This is his impeccable rebuttal:

James 2:14-26 (KJV)

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

You can clearly see that not every apostle agreed that every teaching of Paul was inerrant and inspired of God as many Paulians erroneously think.

God bless.

I am glad that my beloved brother in the Lord, Steep, has given you an uppercut using the scriptures.

I have told you that if there's anything you don't understand, come and ask us for clarification, and we, by the help of the Holy Ghost would explain it to you.

All your satanic attempt to subvert the faith of young believers on this forum would be met with spirit-force. No soul would be swept under his feet by your demonic winds of doctrine.

Paul's emphasis in that verse was even on grace. He never said faith alone saves because faith has work. And the work of faith is love: Paul said "Faith which worketh by love.”— Galatians 5:6, This same love is the fulfillment of all commandments.

We are saved by Grace through faith...which worketh by love...which is the fulfillment of all commandments. Paul had treated this topic in detail with the church at Corinth in one of his epistles:

1 Corinthians 13 1
"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing."

Notice how Paul emphasized that faith is zero without Love?

Both Paul and James are in unity with John who wrote in the gospels:

"For the law was given through Moses; but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." John 1:17

PoliteActivist:
Oh, of course, Atheism and Evolutionism are outright religions and not even "of some sort".

No doubt!

But atheists would deny this claim outright.

They're even now yearning for brotherhood. They want association.

PoliteActivist:
Exactly. Religionists are same way too, by the way, sometimes to an annoying degree, only that they don't claim to base everything on logic!

You're right.

That's why as a person, I try to be as objective as possible during religious debates. I do accept my shortcomings if I find out I was in error. There are times I have debated Muslims based on wrong interpretation of some of their quaranic verses. I have often apologized whenever they provide clarity. But, just as you said earlier, they (Muslims) would never accept or apologize for errors when they're given clarifications; or when it is clearly shown to them that they've been wrong all along. I admit that some Christians are like that too. Atheists are known to behave this way too. This confirms that Atheism and Evolution are religions of some sort.