₦airaland Forum

I will help you blow it OUT after I'm done.....with my exams at the end of the month. The more I study God's word the more I can expose or correct lies. Some people 'might' not like me for my new 'craze' about Greek\Hebrew meaning but that's one of the things I found to be true and helps to correct issues. As a matter of fact, I'm doing little study of the Bible now, I'm only going back to the Hebrew\Greek and apply word meaning. If they like, they should hate me for that, that's their headache. It's available for everyone, go and do your own study too.

The lies of tithe is further exposed when I further looked into some words meanings @ those who said Apostles Paul by 'inference' taught tithe to Christians even without using the word 'tithe'; they are just being dishonest and word meanings proves that. Before I return again fully, lemme drop this here and if it doesn't shut their tithe mouths forever,

Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. 2 Corinthians 9:7, KJV

Now, we all know what grudgingly means right.....abi make I still do word study ni? Now, what is the 'necessity' aspect of this instruction? As usual, taking you through word blabla, if you like, hate me...but it will help you.

It is the Greek word, anagkē and means,

1) necessity, imposed either by the circumstances, or by law of duty regarding to one's advantage, custom, argument
2) calamity, distress, straits.

From here, Strong's concordance: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G318&t=KJV

So we know it's using 'necessity' by the first meaning. Take that meaning and key into the text and it will open your eyes to clearer understanding. Here is it,

Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of imposed either by the circumstances, or by law of duty regarding to one's advantage, custom, argument: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

Now, if the law of Moses or of tithing was imposed to the national Israel or given to them as a law of duty to one's (their) advantage or by custom or argument, whatever it is and this Christians giving instructions says our giving should be by what is purposed in the heart and NOT by imposed either by the circumstances, or by law of duty regarding to one's advantage, custom, argument (that is, meaning of 'necessity'); it is very clear that Christian giving negates Israel's way of tithing which is\was 'imposed...by law...'.

@ Enigma, Truthislight & Others,

Just as I was preparing to respond to Enigma's post above, truthislight bombarded me with another shot, shooting arrows of the mighty. Okay. That's fine! I'm gonna merge both together in this one post, not intentive anymore though.

1, @ Enigma, when I first sort the meaning to the word fornication in the context you quoted where I said, "I lifted that word fornication" and I got the meaning and you quoted it plus the numbering, (1) & (2). You then went further to say,

Enigma: OK so we start with "fornication" (1): that is what you are trying to undestand from the Bible. Strong's tells you that "fornication" (1) is 'porneia'. So you ignore secular dictionaries and focus on 'porneia'

BUT THEN Strong's now tells you that 'porneia' includes "fornication" (2). So where do you get the meaning of "fornication" (2) from? Of course, you must now go back to secular dictionaries! And they will tell you that "fornication" (2) includes sex before or outside marriage!

So you see what your brethren and sistren (especially Alwaystrue) have been saying?

That is partly where you got blindsided, unfortunately, bros.

Going back to your post, the (#1) was where we sought meaning from context not as different but lifted from the scriptural verse I wanted to find meaning to. The (#2) which you rightly said that Strong's itself still have another fornication (#2) within itself meaning. Now, what is that fornication....numbering (#2)? Now, you turned to secular dictionary to define it as above to be BEFORE or OUTSIDE of marriage....That's accepted by me but not agreed until proven.

I strongly accept that, that fornication (#2) included in the meaning of 'porneia' to be what Christ said in Matthew 19:9, that is 'OUTSIDE' but let's see if the secular dictionary is right to fit into the word of God as per the 'BEFORE' marriage. How do we find that out? Since we have a reference from Matthew 19:9 to mean 'outside' of already existing marriage, then can we get another reference somewhere or anywhere to also mean the same as fornication as to 'before' marriage? This is because, if it means both, then we must have reference to testify to both.

The questions I then want you (Enigma), truthislight and others, even Alwaystrue to answer is, if it means "outside" of already existing marriage bound, can it also mean "before" a marriage AT THE SAME TIME?. If it can, then we\I will need a reference to that from scriptures. That's the only way to prove reference to the "before" marriage issue as that is the point of contention here for now.

^

The second point raised by truthislight is,

truthislight: [s]yes, ALL kinds of sex outside of the marriage circle = fornication. [/s]

unless you can give her a certificate of divorce since she is no longer a virgin, hence she is a wh.ore if you send her away.

at that stage, if you send her out will you Give her a certificate of divorce? If no, you Go against Jesus words for sending a woman of yours away as a none virgin, she is hence a who.re because of you.

^ @ the above, I honestly and sincerely 'reason' with truthislight to be true and here's where the issue I'm talking about comes in - that is, when or where both ends up in marriage. The questions I wanna ask here as per ^ truthislight above is, if or in the case (with few exception) where both end up in marriage, having had sexx before the actual 'ceremonial', will it or can such act of 'before' still be termed 'fornication'? If yes, scriptures reference please! If no, then I hope you guys can now see what I've been saying since.

@ Enigma, I'm sorry, I can't do intensive talk anymore because I'm having an examination coming up and I also need time to study some stuff - your brother is in the promotion list. And don't ask me for tithe or to sow seed like. . .(can't mention names now) so I can pass the exam o otherwise, I will come and drop mango and groundnut seeds for ya doorstep.

What's going on here? Why hasn't Obadiah777 seen in this thread yet? Hasn't he seen this thread ni? Still, LWKMD @ Team A & B.

ATMC: ooo, so this kim, @obadiah, she very much looks like you! Is she your relative?

How did you know she looks like Obadiah? You seen obadiah before or you have been seeing '777'? I've been paying 'apostolic' attention to ya'both recently.

You know that list cannot be complete without Obadiah777... By the way, this is a very good creative thread...for laughing. Well done bro.

Can't stop laughing at description of some folks in the list. I had to go over it the second time looking for my beloved OBADIAH777. Can't wait to have the atheists' team list. It's gonna be fun laughing in this thread.

Enigma: Seriously, for a minute, in my earliest exchanges with you I was actually that polite.

Please go back and check; it was when you started making some ridiculously outlandish claims and being extremely arrogant that my attitude towards you changed.

But no show attitude for me...me, I wan show you something...because I respect your reasoning and word level. E jo, mo fe sun die....

@ brother Enigma,

Thanks, I have read what you wrote. Also, I noticed like you mentioned, interchange which Young Literal Translation used, I have checked all translations and there one translation I will point you to, it gives a whole new 'idea' of meaning and you might have read my using that translation, The Expanded Bible. Read 1 Corinthians 7:2 from that translation.

Now, I'm HEAVILY interested in this matter or subject. Not because I want to win argument or anything but because religion is putting guilt and condemnation where Christ never placed on us. You don't have to let side talk bother you when some said you brothers closer to me are not talking to me this subject.

When I wake up, I WILL DROP STRONG'S ASIDE AND ONLY USE WHERE VERY IMPORTANT; I WILL FURTHER OR HENCEFORTH, USE SCRIPTURAL CONTEXT TO INTERPRET ITSELF AND SHOW YOU THAT RELIGION HAD BEEN WRONG FOR AGES ON THE MATTER.

Allow me to sleep now brother. Though I need take care of somethings when I wake but I might come on late. Thank you.

@ Big Brother Enigma,

I reading with in-depth attention sir. And also, still studying some materials as I type, not sleeping yet. I found something you might be interested in. But finish what you posting though. Thank you.

Okay bro, @ Enigma,

I will await your 'detailed' post following after later as said. Thank you.

Enigma: ^^^ When addressing the issue, could you please consider the following:

Is it "sex.ual immorality" or not for two people to sleep together if they have agreed to marry each other and have obtained the consent of both parents BUT the two sets of parents have not met, and the two sets of parents have not agreed with each other.

Please bear in mind that I did not use the word "fornication". So, I am not speaking of "fornication"; rather my question is about "sex.ual immorality"!

^

Enigma: @Goshen360

Could you please answer the question in this post. Again, I reiterate that the question here is about "sex.ual immorality" and NOT about "fornication".

After that, I will comment on your explanation.

Thanks.

@ Enigma & to whom it may concern,

Now, I perfectly understand your question. However, the issue with that word you choose to use, I mean 'se.xual immorality' is that, it is the same word 'fornication' that is translated in almost all other translations as 'se.xual immorality' to give is a general 'sense' of something that is 'immoral' if not done in a way that is 'moral' or 'lawful' or 'natural'.

Now, what is it that could make a sexx to be termed as 'immoral'?, hereby called 'sexxual immorality'? Is that sexx itself is immoral? or when it is not done in a moral sense or way? Your answer is as good as mine - it is when it is not done in a moral way then it becomes 'immoral'. Therefore, I strongly accept the true meaning of fornication as sexxual immorality when sexx is done "outside" of marriage (not in the PRE or BEFORE 'sense' as disussed earlier), but as in, "AFTER" one is married - going outside of one's already existing marriage bound to have sexx, then that's 'immoral sexxual' activity, not the sexx he\she had with his\her spouse; or having sexx with animal - that makes such sexx immoral; female having sexx with female - UNnatural or male having sexx with another male, also UNnatural, hereby making it immoral; having sexxual intercourse with married men\women whether both of them are married or one of them is single; having sexx with one's self - matur.bation, also immoral; or perverting sexx against natural intent - selling sexx and\or who.re.dom These are acts of the same sexx that makes sexx immoral not sexx itself.

Therefore, when you talk of using the word, 'sexxual immorality' to say or ask, "is it "sex.ual immorality" or not for two people to sleep together if they have agreed to marry each other and have obtained the consent of both parents BUT the two sets of parents have not met, and the two sets of parents have not agreed with each other"? it also means or could still be talking about fornication, you cannot separate 'sexxual immorality' from 'fornication', it means the same things within the definite meanings.

The answer to your question is NO! It is not sexxual immorality as it doesn't qualify to be termed such. None of them is jumping around, committing who.ore. or perverting sexx etc because what makes a sexx immoral is doing it against the moral definition or natural law. It has been settled in their hearts and parental consent had been sought. The issue of both parents had not come together is 'ceremonial' because the same 'both parents' had already first given their consent. You cannot say they have sought parental consent and at the same time the parents have not agreed. If you're talking about the 'coming together' to or meeting together, then that has to do with 'ceremony'. Ceremony got nothing to do with when the parents had agreed or not, they had agreed or rejected by consent before 'ceremony' should they have agreed or given consents. It all depends on the focus we're putting emphasis on - many\men focus on the 'ceremonial' aspect but God sees the heart of intent.

Lemme further put your 'sexxual immorality' into perfect scripture lens so it will be very clear. I don't like saying this but I will say it anyway. You see, many people carry about 'religious' view or scripture interpretation and hereby loosing the very intent or true picture of what is conveyed in the text. Those who wishes to denounce religion should do so and those who wished to continue should do so. Take a look at this scriptures as it relates to 'sexxual immorality' VS 'fornication'

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

VS

New International Version (©2011)
Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.

1 Corinthians 6:18. From here: http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/6-18.htm

What KJV calls 'fornication' is what many other translations calls 'sexxual immorality'. What is it exactly to flee from, that is called 'sexxual immorality' VS 'fornication'? We have to know and when we do, those things gives of a perfect sense of where engages in such sexxual acts is termed 'immoral or immorality'. The sexxual acts that fits into a term to be called 'immoral' are such as illicit sexual intercourse that involves having sexx outside of a legal marriage AFTER one is already married; homo.se.xuality, lesb.ianism, inte.rcourse with animals, sexxual intercourse with close relatives, sexxual intercourse with a divorced man or woman etc. Nowhere scripture calls the PRE-marriage sexx by those, that is, the New Testament saints of Christ, who intends to marry themselves (who are committed to themselves, are in genuine love for themselves, not deceiving themselves, made up their mind\hearts for a lifetime journey and have sought approval from both parents and both parental consents given) having done these things we've been saying to be term the sin of 'fornication' or 'sexxual immorality'; absolutely nowhere in scriptures. I challenge anyone, if anyone finds such place in scriptures where pre-marriage sexx is termed as the sin of fornication or sexxual immorality, let him\her speak now or shut his\her mouth. Glory to God!

I hope this answers you well. By the way, after you make your comment, I have another (one) challenge or question for you, Enigma (& maybe plus the OP) personally but you, Enigma in particular. I hope you will be able to face this challenge and\or question? After your answer the challenge\question, I will then make a follow-up statement for you, the OP and others.

Thank you!

obadiah777: GOSHEN IS A WARLOCK. YOU NEED MORE THAN LUKE 10 VS 19 TO BREAK THAT MAN DOWN. YOU NEED A KEG OF HOLYWATER, ABOUT 10 BODYGUARDS AND A BULLET PROOF VEST AND SOME INCENSE

obadiah777: YOU ARE NOT PLANNING TO AMBUSH ME IN HARLEM AND BEAT ME TO A PULP FOR OUR NUMEROUS E-BEEF ARE YOU ?

obadiah777: HARLEM ? DUNNO BOUT DAT BRUV. HARLEM IS LIKE 6000 MILES OR SO FROM ME

Don't worry about that, we take care of all your travel expenses. Just lemme know when you can come. I sent you an email to that effect though. Waiting for reply.

@ Obadiah777,

When you gonna be chanced, I need to schedule you to come tell some folks some truth here in Harlem and some in Brooklyn? They've been acting crazy in recent times. These folks needs to understand Grace is not a license to CONTINUE TO PRACTICE SIN. So, when can you come over?

Honestly, @i.chuka, I asked God for forgiveness in my heart because I have often MIS-understood you to be a man of the Torah. Now, I'm cleared. Torah must first be cast out, then Grace can be planted and have its root in the lives of believers. Keep the good work still.

Alwaystrue: Jesus is bore our sins so we will sin no more not for unlawfulness. So people that kill, lie, fornicate and gave us law of the spirit like self-control, bridling our members, having pure thoughts so we will not even have to do these things as our minds are renewed. Jesus was not lawless and the earlier you understand this the better

See, all the things you wrote up there, sincerely & honestly, they are irritating. I mean where you first responded and quote Matthew 19:9 & from Deuteronomy. I didn't say that to discredit you but I already being screaming that EVERY WORD HAS ITS MEANING WITHIN EVERY CONTEXT.

It clearly shows you are reading with a biased mind. If fornication means something in Matthew 19:9, can you tell us it means the same thing in ANOTHER CONTEXT? Didn't you see the last post where quoted where a fornicator means something else according to that context? You're mere disjointing scriptural context and believe me, though you don't have, when you apply word meanings to every scriptural context, they will mean a whole different thing to you other than what you 'think' it's saying.

@ Alwaystrue,

I'm not forcing you o. Abeg. You hear me so. I honestly find it irritating when you quote the law of Moses to discuss this subject. You and I are two poles apart, sorry to say that. I say that because, do you still stone people to death by the the law of Moses in this day and age for any offense whatsoever? How many of the laws of Moses do you still adhere to? Well, you can hold unto your law of Moses, that's you but I'm sorry, I don't define Christianity by the law of Moses.

enilove: God bless you,that is exacly what is happening.
People see grace as a lower standard to indulge in immoralities.

May God forgive us all.

Na lie joor. Are you Jesus that brought Grace? Or you now know more than Christ that brought Grace, John 1:17. Those who do not understand the Grace gospel talk the way you just did. Grace is NOT you're forgiven so go and continue to practice sin but rather, go and practice sin NO more because you have been forgiven. Grace is an empowerment to go and sin no more? How does that happen? How have to be crucified & die - to self and the law of sin & death.

ATMC: Lol, if dowry according to torah is what you said then you guys should be charged for future use.
Erm...i wont mind paying your dowry and obadiah's*polyandry tins* but una no do 'work' na.
Don't give in to d temptation of waking up to answer this!

^ Na lie, I must wake to answer. You know say your brother is always watching & praying na Abi person wey dey watch dey sleep? ^ Anyway, as per being charged in advance or future use, I have told you, I don't follow Torah o. Me & Torah don divorce tay-tay. Na Obadiah777 be man of the Torah. Okay, If you pay my dowry, na to start dey answer your surname or lastname be that o abi you wan pay two dowries together ni? I can guess your new surname be that o and those two surnames\lastnames will sometimes\mostly be at war\conflicts o....

^ Exactly the same I've been saying to folks here - When the read the Genesis to Malachi & Matthew to Revelation, what do they see? If you can't find Christ as the fulfillment of the Law & the prophets, then one is probably read literature. Maybe I will join you...by God's Grace to start revealing Christ in the Old Testament. I hope I have the time in His Grace!

^ Bros, abeg leaf Bidam alone o. Pepper abi Onions must rest na

ATMC: Bro goshen, thanks for d explanation but i find it very hard to accept dt i can sleep with my fiance just cos we'd concluded we will marry and we love each other without his paying my bride price. Most people in the bible paid bride price before dt happened.

I know say na so so dowry una woman dey shout or dey after . Maybe ne eim make that your other sister abi na brother eim be sef, Alwaystrue dey after me on this subject. Na who wan pay the man dowry na? If you dey cry for your own dowry? Anyway, like I said earlier, I'm divorced to the law of Moses and married to the law of Christ by the Spirit of Life. Under the Torah, the law of Moses, dowry is just an acceptance fee charged for pre-marital sexx. Turn the other side of the coin and what will you have? Will that mean that, if the man no chop the thing, will you also accept that he shouldn't\doesn't pay your dowry? .....anyway, that was just a joke.

Okay, come back to the matter at hand, you know say I like joke sometimes, no mind me o. The focus here is, if you both have sexx having gone through what I said in the explanation, will that mean fornication? Dowry or no dowry? That's the point we're focusing on. If it doesn't define it to be fornication, then there shouldn't be 'religious' guilt and condemnation whatsoever, after all, una wan live una lives together till death do you both apart.

Na your response na eim wake me up again o. Make I go sleep again,

Lastly, @ Okeyxyz and everyone,

I spoke with Okeyxyz outside of this discussion and I 'reasoned' with him that he went too far by what he said and I made him see that he went to far by extending this discussion to that fact that one doesn't need marriage to have sexx and that one can have sexx with 'anybody' as long as there is consent. I made him see to the true that fornication also extend by meaning to who.re.\prosti.tute. and having sexx with 'anybody' without love commitment going towards a happy marriage is actually being a who.re.\who.re.mon.ger(s) whether married or not. It is not only unmarried people that are who.re.\who.re.mon.gers. Okeyxyz accepted this truth and hopefully, he should reflect on that and withdraw all such statements and sayings making them null & void.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators (by word meaning in context it means - 1) a man who prostitutes his body to another's lust for hire; 2) a male prostitute & 3) a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator),

nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such WERE SOME OF YOU: BUT YE ARE WASHED, BUT YE ARE SANCTIFIED, BUT YE ARE JUSTIFIED in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, KJV

In other words, you cannot be called a Christian and at the same time still be called those names up there. God bless y'all. I don tire jare. It's sleep o'clock now.

The MIS-conception is, many over the ages defined fornication is 'sexx OUTSIDE of marriage'. Hmmmmm, as I re-visited this subject I asked myself, "what is the OUTSIDE in that definition"? This is where the error or MIS-CONCEPTION is ladies & gentlemen. Over the years, many carried the context of this "OUTSIDE"....of marriage to mean, when one is NOT married yet; that is the PRE...marital aspect. Brothers & Sisters, this definition is WRONG! and that's where the MIS-conception is. The propers context of "OUTSIDE"....of marriage 'should' be or is, AFTER one is ALREADY in a marriage - then sexx "OUTSIDE" that 'already' existing marriage will be fornication. Now, how on earth do we prove which one is right on the context of OUTSIDE....of marriage? We must have a reference from scripture to prove whether the "OUTSIDE"...of marriage is the PRE-marital or the AFTER-marital. Permit me to call one witness from scriptures, my Lord & Saviour and the greatest teacher that ever lived, Christ, the son of the Living God,

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. Matthew 19:9

Here, by Christ, it show that the woman in this context is 'already' married to a man and becomes a wife and she went OUTSIDE.....the bound of her marriage to have se.xual inter.course. Then Christ says she commits fornication. Christ places this sin of fornication AFTER, not PRE or BEFORE marriage. Therefore, we see that the correct meaning when people say fornication is sexx OUTSIDE of marriage to be correct, not PRE but AFTER one is already in a marriage. Yes, sexx OUTSIDE of marriage is fornication but in what context? PRE or AFTER? What defines the "OUTSIDE"? It is not we but Christ!

2. Now, fornication from word meaning simple means 'illicit sexual intercourse'. Now, there are many acts that is put under this definition that makes them to be called 'illicit or illegal or unlawful and went further to mean also, unNATURAL'. Therefore, for something to be said that one commits something illegal or illicit or unlawful, it must FIRST mean that one is doing something against an existing legal system or lawful system or one is doing something unNATURAL against nature. That's why Paul explained in Romans 5:13 (please read that scriptures) that BEFORE the law (of Moses), people sinned BUT there's existing NO LAW to call them a sinner yet because there is no existing law system to charge their offense against them - This same applies to man & woman BINDED together or JOINED together in marriage. This goes to say or mean that, when Christ says that 'wife' (already married woman, in Matthew 19:9) commits fornication, it means she went OUTSIDE of her marriage to do something AGAINST the already existing marriage, hereby making her sexx illegal, AFTER being bounded by marriage to a man. Hence, we understand that when folks say fornication is sexx OUTSIDE of marriage, it is NOT the PRE or BEFORE, it is AFTER the marriage exist; then going outside that marriage AFTER being JOINED is the proper context of "OUTSIDE" of the definition of sexx outside marriage not the BEFORE or the PRE, so called pre-marital sexx. The only time fornication (among many of its meanings) applies to sexxual immorality or illicit sexx is AFTER you're already married not what folks called PRE-marital as being defined as sexx OUTSIDE of marriage. We clearly see what Christ defined it to be - outside of marriage is AFTER, not the BEFORE or PRE of your marriage bound. Therefore, PRE\BEFORE-marriage sexx when defined as sexx 'outside' marriage is not fornication; it must be AFTER-marriage to be called fornication.

Now, Goshen, does that mean people should be sleeping around BEFORE marriage or before they marry? The answer is NO! A Christian must be responsible, faithful and committed to a man or woman. After all, many of you will say God reveal this man or this woman to you as your wife\husband . Well, I don't wanna go into that here. The point is, all those of you sleeping around from man to man or woman to woman are who.re.\who.re.mon.gers. A who.re. is someone who jumps from one man\woman to another while a prosti.tute is one who charges fee for sexx. Every prosti.tute is a who.re. but not every who.re. is a prosti.tute. So, don't think because you're not charging fee(s) (directly or indirectly, commercial or underneath, solo moves) that you're not a who.re....if you're jumping on any\every man\woman to give that thing. When you're not ready to marry, stop keeping boy friend or girl friend. I'm not talking about when you've reached a marriage age (everyone differs here, some wanna have early marriage and some don't); and you know you're ready, you will need time to have courtship & get to know about yourselves.

Back to all the points I've been saying, at this stage of time passed courtship, both have not decided to get married and both parents have known the sister or brother and both parents have accepted with their consent to both parties, if these Christians do have sexx at this kind of stage, there are not committing fornication as there is no binding yet for one of them to commit against. A binding must first exist before there can be a breaking against the binding in order for it to be said that one of them commits the sin of fornication as defined by Christ. These two Christians are commited to themselves, they are in love, they have kept to one partner with themselves, they have decided in their heart to live together as husband & wife, should they have sexx, that's not fornication.

Now, many have been saying or asking, what 'if' something happens and they both split and don't end up getting married? First, I say, we cannot use 'few' exceptional cases to judge the whole not to be true. Even in circular world, which is not our example though, few cases of slitted intended marriage that had reach the stage of decision to marry after a long courtship period, commitment, love, dedication and with approval of both parents; how much more people that is called Christians - we expect greater level of responsibility and integrity from such.

2. 'If' by chance, without leaving out some exceptional case, then I will say again, both of you, the brother & sister had been deceiving yourself. Goshen, how do you mean? The brother comes first to speak to the sister initially that God revealed you (sister) is gonna be my wife and you, sister said you gonna pray about it. You came back and said, YES, God told me to agree. Now, you're now splitting. So God is now the author of your confusion or deception or both of you deceiving y'self? .....perhaps, after sleeping with yourself? or at last minutes, brother or sister said I'm no more interested. What! Who did you said told you in the first place? And you sister, who did you said you prayed to in the first place? Therefore, when I said, time must have passed, commitments must have been made, God must have been involved, both parents must have been involved and accepted to both intending to marry, then I do not honestly see where such courtship should not end in marriage.

I'm tired typing joor. That's my submission.

Okay, @ Everyone,

This is gonna be a bit lengthy but it's very important to the matter at hand. Kindly read to the end please.

Like I promises I was gonna write a comprehensive explanation to 'where' I clearly see the MIS-conception & MIS-understanding coming from. But please, cool down and calm down to read to the end so you can 'fully' understand. Perhaps, we might clearly see where 'traditional' interpretation of the church had led us to believe what we believe as per the subject of discussion - fornication.

First, Lemme say boldly & clearly here by God's grace given to me to be a student of the word, I'm subject to my fellow Christians here and I have people I also submit to, spiritual authority less I make myself 'lord of all'. The way I reason & understand scriptures, I pray most of you will 'covet' such gift, not that I'm perfect but God's gift worketh in me to work out his Grace.

Two, I want everyone here to understand that, to clear my conscience and be very sure I'm not teaching or leading people into error, I still re-visit this topic often as we debate this subject. At least to be very sure or double sure.

Three, 'if' most of you are saying I fell into error on this subject. Permit me to say clearly that I do not 'sincerely' fell (by your consideration) into error, assuming you consider it as error on my part neither do I 'intentionally' wanna MIS-led people or folks in here. The reason being that, words are defined and have 'specific' meaning in 'every' context of the scripture - this I'm 100% sure with many proves. That's one word could mean different things depending how used in its context.

Many of you've saying I'm holding too much to Strong concordance and stuff like that. This is the main reason error had being handed down to us and nobody is examining it. This is not to mean I intend to re-write the scriptures as some falsely assume but to correct error - it might disturb our believes or theology though because we have held unto something for ages, I do understand that but please follow the 'reasoning' I'm about to present.

We, Christians & teachers do not have rights to make up the meaning of words by ourselves when we wanna teach something void of tradition of men - hence, the need for, (sometimes but not all the times) materials like Strongs concordance & dictionary. In 'everywhere' in scriptures the word 'fornication' is used, there is always a 'specific' meaning to it and the context of where it's used tells us what is intended, taking from the wide-range of meanings that fornication means.

Everyone one here will agree with me, that is, those familiar with Strong's concordance & dictionary will agree that in all the meaning of 'fornication', the phrase such is 'pre-marital se.x' or 'se.x outside of marriage' or se.x by two UNmarried people' DO NOT APPEAR IN THE MEANINGS EVERYWHERE FORNICATION IS DEFINED AND IN CONTEXT. If anyone finds such phrases in the concordance, kindly show it to us with link or prove and I will submit and declare this teaching as error on my part and also apologize to my fellow Christians here that I'm subject to you all as your humble servant.

Having said all that, lemme delve into where I clearly see the error of most who do not accept what I'm presenting to be true. But this time, I want you to free your mind without biased reading me or void your mind from whatever the 'religion' had formerly presented to you and I'm not asking you to accept it but try and 'reason' along with me as I present where the MIS-conception lies for ages.

---

to be continue below

OLAADEGBU: Why would I challenge your person? What I exposed is what your teachings here represents.

Okay, sorry I misunderstood you but go over the thread and understand what I said, I never said we are lawless now. Go through the whole thing I said and understand. The article is a bit lengthy but try read to the end. Thank.

OLAADEGBU: Do you realise that there is a word that describes your "condition"? It's called antinomianism.

Challenge what I presented, not my person o

OLAADEGBU: We should know that you are an antinomian by now.

Ola, be careful here o....read the whole article I presented and stop attacking my person please.

Enigma: lol bros

I was just joking that me I too dey fight or "combat" various people; in the past it was WoF dem, some time ago na evangelical atheists and latterly e come be like say na the Roman Catholics and their supporters.

No worry bro. Maybe you will change your view by the time I finish, I know you as a person will listen to reasonings than some folks here. Be ready to read a detailed explanation, okay.

bolaino: lol, yes boss, but what goshen's doing is not fair, cos there are lots of gullible christians who look up to him on nairalandz, and he's explaining the
scriptures from his own personal understanding and he's misleading lots of
christian folks, u guys should caution him, since he's your fellow broda
in christ; the consequences of adding or subtracting from the word of
God is grave.

Did you read the long article I posted at all? You just ranting here....I know you probably a man of the law of Moses.

obadiah777: YEAH COME BACK AND DEFEND YOUR HERESIES AM TELLING YOU GOSHEN YOU DONE LED MANY PEOPLE INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE. *SMDH*

Read the article I post before and understand it before I talk to you.