₦airaland Forum

pickabeau1:
Now I see why u r so defensive when you see comments highlighting the gimmicks being practiced by some church

Unfortunately you are an island in an ocean which is increasing in water level

I have heard of 60 fold and 100 fold
In so many churches.


It is real..you need to listen more

mbaemeka:
Gombs,

You are being derailed. I think you should just go on with the review and entertain the derailments subsequently.

As per the Coat and Garments debacle, I think the problem is caused by the wanton urge to speed-read scriptures with the notion of looking for possible ammunition to contradict the post.

The bible and bible history clearly states that Jesus wore a gown as well as a seamless coat over it even when he was arrested. When he was to be flogged and scourged the soldiers took both of him. After they were done they put the garment that was scarlet and the crown of thorns over his head and then took him to Golgotha. Obviously, when he was placed on the cross before it was raised they took of the garment provided by Herod and divided into four portions (possibly for memorabilia) but when it came to the aspect of coat they decided to cast lots for it (because it was a costly possession), hence they didn't want it torn. That they fulfilled scriptures while at it was purely coincidental to them for they didn't even know the scriptures (they were Gentiles). Besides, they didn't say "let us fulfil scriptures by casting lots for his coat"- it was the disciples recounting the story, that told people how that even the aspect of casting lots for Jesus coat proves he was the sent one.

So Kenneth Hagin was still spot on- Jesus was not a homeless bum, Pauper or what have you that had "no where to lay his head". Jesus wasn't also flamboyant or extravagant (both 2 represent extremes). Jesus was however not POOR and those who have written articles to that effect can be humble enough to make their adjustments now.

pickabeau1:
Gombs

I am gettin confused

You are making too many interjections into the text and i cant recognise which is the book and which is your annotation

i also observe ur side remarks to others... why

Who made the mistake of the 100 fold teaching because it felt good --- you or the author


Now as per your annotations i find it hilarious that you are find some of the practices highlighted by Hagin. Are they strange to you





Please stop annotating the book

let me know when u have chp 7

Candour:
Dont worry my friend. You can go ahead with chapter 7. I won't derail you. However, see another hint that First fruits has nothing to do with money in the new covenant. It's from the same page 136 and it's even embeded in your response to me


Y
I wont be doing any injustice to the book if i break it down into 2 statements thus:

''There is not even the vaguest hint of it by any new testament writer in reference to money'' meaning first fruits has nothing to do with money

''There is not even the vaguest hint of it by any new testament writer in reference to the support of ministers'' meaning it has nothing to do with support for ministers

This is because the ''OR'' there is a conjunction that joins two statements together

Anyhow you choose to look at it, first fruits offering has no scriptural basis for a Christian

I'm grateful to God that our nerves have come down, things are a bit calm.

I saw ur points & also the things you listed that are being practiced in CE.

remember I'm still there, I'll give my position on tithe & first fruit

but just want to ask(no offence intended)

in CE, we i think we practice

1.giving to get

2.naming your seed

3.hundredfold return

4.debt breaking/money multiplying anointing

I don't agree with all Hagin wrote in that book & I also know u might have ur own disagreement but what's your take on these 4 points I raised above, am I wrong or I'm exaggerating?

Do you agree with me that once there is challenge in any area of our life, the first response any CE member will give is "have u sown seeds?"

yes we pray but without the seed aspect, any leader will tell you it's not yet complete

Am I correct to say that it's a shame to say you don't have in CE & that we are taught & encouraged to live a live of wealth & opulence?

am I correct that there is too much emphasis on money, giving, Patnership in CE?

What's your take on "miracle money"(lol, you know what I'm talking about), in your opinion is it biblical?

with all the "too much money" u know na, "too much grace" how come the ministry still has needs, sometimes owe staffs salary, still have uncompleted church projects, owe for rhapsody etc

Will you agree with me that the needy/poor in our midst(pls don't tell me we don't have them) are "sometimes" neglected, but there is much emphasis on inner city & regions beyond or sending bibles or relief materials to folks that are far away

Gombs, I'll appreciate if you give answers with explanation & invite others who are in house to answer this, maybe I'm the one missing it

These questions are not meant to cause strife & they are strictly meant for anyone in CE on this thread, I'll appreciate if this request of mine is honored. Thanks

Candour:
Haba we shouldn't start again na!!

What does the below quote from page 136 mean then?




Pls, first fruits offering (in money or whatever form) as a doctrine for christians has no single basis in scriptures. We've always said it and now Hagin has confirmed it. If you still argue this, i'll be very surprised.

Making a New Testament application of Old Testament technicalities violates every principle of Bible interpretation, especially when there isn't a single New Testament usage of the word "firstfruits" in the context in which it is being preached by some ministers. The concept of firstfruits is not used in the New Testament in reference to financial giving. There is not even the vaguest hint of it by any New Testament writer in reference to money or [b]the support of ministers. 

Candour:
This is a step in the right direction. However, Its just not about extremes, its about some practices that are [size=20pt]TOTALLY ALIEN TO CHRISTIANITY[/size] being bandied about in almost all churches today which Hagin pointed out e.g First fruits which you graciously admitted CEC does.

I'll find time to point out the others later.

I too have learnt a lot and will surely be making some adjustments. even though i do not agree with Hagin on some things, i'm the better and wiser for reading this book.

Thanks once again and also to Gombs, thanks.

Edit: Pls don't play this card
there's nothing like team mates with atheists and pagans otherwise í can also accuse you of a pact with a satanist who has been defending your course and that of Jo in the past few weeks

nannymcphee:
@Gombs, as listed in chapter 6, can you kindly list the ones you have been practicing?
I recall you telling pickabeau1, that "in your church they dont boast"(i recalled this because if you could tell her you folks dont boast, you should be able to also say which one your church practices )
kindly list those that are being practiced in your church

Thanks
PS:welldone, I know it wasnt easy to post all of that, the little I did wasnt funny. the highlighting on that particular pdf file isnt smooth

WinsomeX:
Welcome to the politics section, Baby Gombs.

suckcybay:
Thank you Very much for the Rhapsody. Please can the Rhapsody be sent early, like from 6:30am. Thanks

WinsomeX:
I too could protest the moving of this thread to the politics section because the thread clearly states "Calling Christians...", the plea is to "religious people", Christians; thus the reason the OP thought it wise to put in the religion section at first. But I will not. I respect the decision of the moderators.

I however request the same mods who moved the thread from religion to politics, should also consider it for front page as the OP is a subject of interest for many Nigerians.

trustman:
Will he allow anyone to come to his own conclusion?
I think not. 
Remember, in his own words, He's thrilled, super excited, in epileptic laughter. 
He wants us to be brainwashed by the line of propaganda he intends to spew out.

pickabeau1:
And so it begins - the e fights

Gombs u need to act as a moderator and let us come to our own conclusions

vooks:
They were his no doubt but they were forcibly put on him hours to his death. Even a marine invertebrate can see that these garments are NO indication of Jesus' wealth status. If a firing squad puts an Armani suit on you before dispatching you, does that make you rich seeing you had expensive suit at the point of your checking out?

vooks:
Did anybody suggest that Jesus wore rags? Or is that a strawman argument?

vooks:
Luke 23:11 (ESV)
11 And Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him. Then, arraying him in splendid clothing, he sent him back to Pilate

Matthew 27:28 (ESV)
28 And they stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him,

Mark 15: 17 (ESV)
17 And they clothed him in a purple cloak, and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on him.

Whether they shared the clothes for memorabilia or to gain sell them off, those garment/robe was not His'. The fact that they did this on a bloodied garment suggests its high value

Candour:
I don't think anybody needs to argue too much with Gombs. Hagin knew the reason he wrote that book. No matter the format my friend adopts in presenting it here, except he'll twist chapter 6&7, he can't obliterate the truth about this question by Hagin

"If You Get What You Want, Will You Want What You Get?"

That is the overall message Hagin sought to pass accross in that book. Its a miracle how my friend didn't devote a single line of commentary to that. Also I still wait to see the correlation between Jesus having 'nice' clothes and pastors living ostentatiously and in obscene opulence. Hagin also spoke on that.

I await the presentation on chapter 6, then we can properly take a trip into the inner sanctums of our 'churches'

My friend isn't seeking the balance Hagin sought. He's simply looking for a way to justify mog's excesses.

Ride on Gombs......na you we know

nannymcphee:
John19:23-24
23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts to every soldier a part [b]AND also his coat[/b]now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.
24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.

Jesus garment was torn into four parts & shared amongst the soldiers, it was the coat that was not torn, that's what they were referring to. They didn't want to tear the coat hence the casting of lots. but the garment was shared. Check the italicized line

Oh thanks for the insults, unfortunately I'm not dyslexic neither I'm I twisting scriptures

trustman:
Alright 'BOY', I'm waiting.

PastorKun:
Are you a dunce or can't you read the quoted scripture that stated clearly the garment was put on him by Herod and his goons

trustman:
Maybe you should quit being cynical yourself
and don't be overly excited.

LambanoPeace:
Olodo rabata, read your Bible
John 19:23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.

Read the post of nannymcphee you quoted, you'd notice "my clothing" "my garments" "my clothes"

Are you guys having brain malfunctions this morning?

PastorKun:
Another thing that these WOF charlatans deliberately omit is that the garment Jesus wore to his crucifixion was not his own but a garment worn for him by Herrod to mock him as king of the jews.

Luke 23:11

11 Then Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him. Dressing him in an elegant robe, they sent him back to Pilate.

nannymcphee:
here again is a statement that people throw around without looking at the scripture, just because a minister said it.

the reason they gambled for his coat was in fulfillment of scriptures and not because of the quality of the clothes

Psalms 22:18


(AMP) They part my clothing among them and cast lots for my raiment (a long, shirtlike garment, a seamless undertunic). [John 19:23, 24.])

(ASV) They part my garments among them, And upon my vesture do they cast lots.

(CEV) They took my clothes and gambled for them.


(KJV+) They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

(LITV) They divide My garments among them, and they made fall a lot for My clothing.

(YLT) They apportion my garments to themselves, And for my clothing they cause a lot to fall.

so whether or not the clothes were clean or dirty or stinking, they would have still casted lots and have it shared, SO THAT THE WORD OF GOD MIGHT BE FULFILLED



As for the above, this word will come into play MEMORABILIA

1: things that are remarkable and worthy of remembrance
2: things that stir recollection or are valued or collected for their association with a particular field or interest

serial killers are known to do this and they dont pick that which is most expensive

besides what benefit will a shredded piece of quality designers cloth material of a condemned criminal be to a roman soldier?


bottom line: Jesus garment was torn and lots were casted for it, for the sole purpose of fulfilling scriptures

nannymcphee:
the reason why we are in this state today is because the pentecostal circle has taught the minister infallibility "the pastor cannot be wrong in what he teaches"

so when you question any teaching, you are then asked who are you to question such? what do you know? are you saying you know more than so and so?

when a ministers teaches wrong, people have a hard time believing its wrong, how could he be wrong, this man that has done great and mighty works(I have a video showing the great billy graham saying "JESUS ISNT THE ONLY WAY", A lot of folks will not dispute that simply because of the mans record, afterall when it comes to issue of altar call, i dont think anybody beats his record.

I didn't want to comment here but i'm forced to



the above quote is irrelevant, the scriptures never showed that the any of the prophets were homeless or didnt have a place of abode(whether its outright ownership or rent). whats important is that they had a place to sleep. if the disciples had houses, why will Jesus be homeless?

People who use this point to buttress that Jesus was rich because he had a house normally use it to describe ownership and not tenancy. Jesus was not a pauper, neither did he live a live of penury, he had his needs met supernaturally and for crying out loud he was a carpenter(so he wasnt without skill) BUT never did he for once live in OPULENCE as the present day church will want all christian to live in

As for this


people that live under the bridge can also say this, afterall should they travel and are returning to that town, the above is what they will say

Oyinprince:
Got dat from a Whatsapp group.
Shoulda taken permission before I posted, hope I didn't go against any law

Oyinprince:
I downloaded the book already. I av to finish d one I'm reading b4, but this summary just wanna make me jump to read it

pickabeau1:
OK...so basically there is nothing wrong..

All is fine and dandy

No problem....


Let's see what the book addresses then

Goshen360:
After you go say you wan teach me. Not that I'm not teachable but by God's grace, I'm a student of the word under the Spirit of truth. This is exactly what happens when you copy men and panel beat scriptures. You're still using the OT to interpret the NT. Isaiah was talking about or remembering them of obedience TO THE LAW of Deuteronomy 28. Listen here...as regards that verse you quest. Obedient is required in the NT but it is NOT obedience that causes something to happen but obedience to what is already done in the finished works of Christ.

So you are saying, IN ORDER FOR ME TO EAT THE GOOD OF THE LAND, I HAVE TO OBEY but the NT says, in order for me to partake of what is already available, I have to believe AND BE OBEDIENT TO THE FAITH OF THE SON OF GOD. It is by His Obedience that everything I receive by believing or by faith happens, not by MY OWN OBEDIENCE to cause it to happen or to make me eat\partake of what is available.

Lemme go sleep. I will join this brainwashing thread if I can.....