₦airaland Forum

ambrosini593: LOKOJA—Kogi State Police Command has paraded seven persons for allegedly posing as bishop, pastors and prophets during a revival programme in Lokoja, capital of Kogi State.

Those paraded include Bishop Bamidele Abraham of Eagle Kingdom Church, Lokoja and Pastors Chucks Ingalis Kelvin, Chinedu Okosisi, Samson Prince, Osita Chuckwu, Samuel Ike and Nnenanaya Anthony Ikechukwu. They were said to have come from Port Harcourt, Rivers State into Lokoja.

State Commissioner of Police, Muhammed Kastina who paraded the suspects said they were arrested while conducting ‘deliverance’ for people at a revival programme organised by one of them in Lokoja.

According to Muhammed, Bishop Bamidele who is the pastor-in-charge of Eagle Kingdom Church, Lokoja was said to have contacted Pastor Chuks from Port Har-court to help raise money for his book launch.

Sources said Chucks, who was an expert in such ventures came with members of his team, some of who acted like mermaid; deaf and dumb persons while others claimed to have been afflicted with other sicknesses during the revival to sway the sympathy of those in attendance.

However, a member of the congregation who felt uncomfortable with the way the pastors were conducting the deliverance, reported them to the police which moved in swiftly and arrested the suspects.

One of the suspects, Pastor Chuks, however defended his action saying, [size=20pt]“This is not robbery, its pure professionalism. Every profession has its own way of surviving. The police have their own way, the lawyers have their own way; even you journalists have your own way; what I did is pure business and survival instinct.’’[/size]

Also, Pastor Osita Chukwu who posed as mermaid said she was promised N16, 000 while leaving Port Harcout to Lokoja but they only got N1, 000 pending the conclusion of the botched revival programme.

Meanwhile, Lagos State Police Command Tuesday paraded a nine-man syndicate of suspected armed robbers, including a security guard and his two brothers. The gang allegedly stole exotic vehicles from the employer of the security guard and sold the vehicles for N10 million.

The vehicles, which have been recovered by the police were a Fortune SRS Jeep and four 2011 Toyota Camry cars, stolen from an Indian company in Lagos.

The state command’s spokesperson, DSP Ngozi Briade disclosed that the vehicles were recovered from Ikot-Ekpene, Akwa-Ibom State, by detectives attached to the Lagos State Anti-Robbery Squad, SARS, led by SP Abba Kyari.

According to her, the incident, which occurred on May 19, was reported at the Area ‘J’ Command, Lekki, by the management of the company before it was transferred to SARS.

Briade said the security guard, who allegedly masterminded the operation, connived with his brothers, who later co-opted others that stole the vehicles and disposed of them to a receiver in Akwa-Ibom State.

The police spokesperson, however, disclosed that the vehicles were recovered in batches following the confessional statements of the suspects, adding that the suspects were in police custody, except one who was currently receiving treatment in a hospital.

She said the suspects would be charged to court for robbery as soon as investigation was concluded.

However, Vidani, while expressing happiness over the outstanding performance of the Police, stated that he was amazed about how the police was able to recover the vehicles and arrest the suspects within a short time.

The Indian businessman observed that the Nigeria Police could do much more, if given the necessary support and logistics.


www.vanguardngr.com/2012/06/police-arrest-7-fake-pastors-over-sham-deliverance/

Image123: what is the difference between ceremonial and moral laws?

Image123: i hope this post would be read.

Well i find it needful to take some time to talk on this matter, seeing as my friend Goshen has said that we should prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good. i DO NOT proclaim this as the gospel of salvation pleaseeeeee,it's a teaching in sincerity and truth. i do not normally 'carry this on the head, or condemn anyone for wearing what they wear, anywhere. But if truth needs be told, and honesty need be our watchword, then i find it important to say a bit on what is known. As childen of God, we are sheep, please remember that. Sheep are not too strong or too intelligent, like dogs, or goats. We should not count ourselves intelligent, especially in spiritual things, and by all means, Deut 22v5 is spiritual thing.
Mat 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

i asked a question, and glaringly but shamefully noticed our pride in answering the question. Pride is of satan, and so also is dishonesty. And those may just be the motives God is looking at as we prove these lines of scripture.
DEUTERONOMY 22v5

(BBE) It is not right for a woman to be dressed in man's clothing, or for a man to put on a woman's robe: whoever does such things is disgusting to the Lord your God.

(CEV) Women must not pretend to be men, and men must not pretend to be women. The LORD your God is disgusted with people who do that.

(GNB) "Women are not to wear men's clothing, and men are not to wear women's clothing; the LORD your God hates people who do such things.

(KJV) The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

(WEB) A woman shall not wear men's clothing, neither shall a man put on women's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh your God.
For those of us used to the king james, pertain simply means to belong to. Trousers are not the only things, but it is the subject of the thread. It is obvious that trousers belong to men, from history and from scripture, without bias or dishonesty. Many questions arise from this thread.
1. Who do trousers belong to?
2. What is the significance of this command even at the time it was given?
3. Is it for us?

So, who do trousers really belong to?
From history, it belongs to men. Without prior research, many would rightly conclude that trousers belong to men. But for our many researchers and provers on this forum/thread, please kindly read on fashion, and on clothing, and on the history of the trousers, ans slacks, and skirts maybe.
- You would come across with sentences like In the west, trousers have been the standard lower body clothing item for males since the 16th century. It became prevalent by the late 20th century for females as well
Traditionally, they were first introduced by king Wu of Zhao in 375BC, who copied the custom from non chinese horsemen on his northern border
Trousers trace their ancestry to the individual hose worn by men in the 15th century

Also please read on transvestism, and on cross dressing.
History tells of the likes of
a) Amelia Bloomer (1818-94), American reformer. Amelia Jenks Bloomer was born in Homer, New York. Famous for her stand in favor of dress reform, she appeared at her lectures during the early 1850s wearing full trousers, gathered at the ankle, under a short skirt.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

b)Rosa Bonheur (1822-1899), French painter, born in Bordeaux. She was given governmental permission to cross-dress, and made animal studies in markets and fairs while dressed as a man. In 1894 she became the first woman to receive the Grand Cross of the French Legion of Honor.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

c) Joan of Arc (1412-1431)
d) Otzi the Iceman, 5000 year old male with trousers. An interesting read BTW.

These four and others plainly show that trousers were originally pertaining to men, except we want to erase history. Also, note the dates.

From scriptures, it's common to hear people say there are no trousers in scripture. But the keen observer would see that the men wore trousers, even with whatever else they wore. As far back as the Exodus, they knew what trousers were, not to mention Otzi the Iceman.
Exodus 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their unclothedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
The word 'breeches' is another word for trousers, and it appears five times in my word search on the kjv. It's rendered trousers in some other versions BTW. It puts paid to the ignorant assertion that they only wore skirts in the Bible.

Image123: So, What is the significance of this command even at the time it was given?
When God gave this command in Deuteronomy, what was the relevance to the Israelites, if truly they all wore the same thing? Is this command not for us, simply because it sounds senseless or purposeless? Was it of more purpose or sense in the time of Moses, than it is now? i do not think that the Word of God is ever irrelevant. Anywhere we want to throw it, it is the Word of God, Deut 22v5 is scripture. That should be established. Whether this scripture should be obeyed is another matter.
First matter, in line with Deuteronomy 22:5, trousers belong to men or pertain to men, and The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. . Another scripture similar to this and found in the new testament is
1Corinth 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

The word 'effeminate' as to do with a person dressing like or behaving like the opposite gender. It is the same Spirit, thought line and wisdom that wrote the two passages, and in which the two passages are written.
i don't think i would consider any christian serious who says/suggests/infers that the book of Deuteronomy is irrelevant or should be waved aside. Jesus Christ didn't wave it aside. Coincidentally, He(Jesus Christ) quoted on record, three times from the book of Deuteronomy when tempted by the devil. It sure must have been a very important book to Him.
1) Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Deu 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that[b] man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.[/b]
2) Mat 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Deu 6:16 Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.

3) Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Deu 10:20 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.

i'll say it again for emphasis. i do not know true followers of Jesus who would trifle with the book of Deuteronomy, or any book of the Bible for that matter. Jesus had utmost regard for all the commandments of the Lord, and so also did all the apostles. It's today we find men more godly than God, and more apostolic than the apostles, telling us that the Word of God is useless, playing religion, or is irrelevant.

So, Is it for us?
So is Deuteronomy 22v5 really for us. In one word, yes. The whole of scripture is for us. Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things (including Deuteronomy 22v5) were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.
The sincere question should be what am I learning from here, this verse. Or else, you've already concluded there is nothing to learn, It's OT drab, i'm of the NT blab.
Also, there is a point that should be made, that there is a significant import given to that Deuteronomy 22v5 verse that is conspicuously not given to the about 10verses surrounding it. It's unequal to compare them with each other. People love to quote them in order to discredit the verse. The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Not just to you an abomination, but an abomination to the Lord. How i can explain that now, i can't. i can't explain everything BTW, neither can you the reader.
Jesus was asked Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
The answer He gave proves that not all the law are equal in God's eyes. Leviticus 19v18 is a strong testament to that fact. It lies in the midst of what many will seemingly call irrelevancies. Same too is this Deut 22v5 passage. Deut 22v5 is in the class of;
Deu 18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
Deu 18:12 For all that do these things are an[b] abomination unto the LORD:[/b] and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

---

Deu 27:15 Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen.
Pro 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
Pro 6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
Pro 6:18 A heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
Pro 6:19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Pro 15:9 The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD: but he loveth him that followeth after righteousness.
Pro 11:1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.

i do not know of any of these other 'abominations to God' that have been revised in the New Testament, or that do not count as abominations to God again. An unjust balance is what many of us are getting into here BTW.

Apostle John had this to say,
1John3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
sin is the transgression of the law. Ever thought of that? Anytime you transgress the law, YOU SIN.
Apostle Paul said,

Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

He's not giving the gentiles an excuse to disobey the law, on the contrary, he is commending some gentiles who obey/do the things contained in the law. the problem with the OT is not the law or the commandments, they are good and holy, not were. The problem with OT believers is their marriage to the law. NT believers should be married to Christ, not to the law. With Christ, we can obey God's law. When married to God's law, we can't.
Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
If you paint wearing or not wearing trousers as a burden, then you need to paint NT laws. NT laws are impossible without God's grace. OT says don't kill, NT says don't even be angry. Agree with thine adversary quickly. OT says don't commit adultery, NT says don't even think about it. Which is easier? You don't even need to be a christian/jew to keep the Old testament. For the new testament, you can't even be a human being and keep it. What's with praying and blessing your enemies, not putting away your wife or husband, rejoicing in persecution, praying without ceasing and recompensing good for evil? That's all impossible but by God.
The real and main difference in the OT and NT is that the OT says do this and that, but will not help you one bit, but is to prove that you cannot fulfill it all. The NT says far more than do this and that, but you have a bridegroom who is willing to help you, and has been helping many like me. Forget all that story about OT is old and irrelevant.

ban master: thier is this pastor in our church, he preaches about fornication and he still call my girl friend at night, he doesnt know, i knew about it not untill one night he called nd i was the one that pick the call, he was shock so how will he fill in church next sunday he see me

haibe: I don't still understand how we got to the issue of denomination, lol, am only writing from my knowledge and then you say denomination. Well for ƔυƦ information i am not speaking what av been taught but what ℓ̊ know, about the issue of t.v, i have a t.v at home even though av come to understand it can endanger a christian life, about the education issue, maybe you should go back to the source who told you and stop carrying rumour, probably you are mistaking us with bokoharam and i tell you every church is not perfect, so i don't know why you are criticizing one if yours is not also perfect, i still find some things not necessary in my church even as i find in other churches. Just be sure of what you say not everything you hear is true, and about the girls in US wearing trousers what has that Got to do with me? Is it everyone going to church that are not hypocrites? Is every body in your church holy? If not, does that make your pastor a wrong person, That's a very bad conclusion from a bad inference.

Image123: Gosh, pls shut up about haibe's denomination and focus on the discussion please, it's starting to irritate. what's the denomination, ironically?

haibe: And what makes you think a jew can't be converted to a christian? So then he should forget those laws that are still vital to christianity? Let's assume am a jew but now a christian, what does my conversion to christianity has to do with a law like that of deut 22:5, there are other laws that can't just be applicable to a christian but there is nothing wrong in obeying a law like deut 22:5 and even some of the 10 commandments not as though you are bound to the law but obeying them because you know they are still applicable to christianity and that God has a reason for giving those laws, God understands that those law are essential for we humans and that's why he gave them, just imagine all the male start wearing skirts in nigeria and female trousers, does this sound normal to you?

haibe: Okay i get you, because the NT did not repeat deut 22:5 then its no longer a sin, let me ask you: is gambling a sin? Is inbreeding a sin? Is masturbatin a sin?

Phiozy: Out of d mouth of two, a matter is established. Ur only reference is deutronomy. Remember d old testament is a shadow of d new, nd sum relevant laws in the old were spoken abt again in d new testament, makin such matters established. Trouser wasn't one of dem, but we were told 2 b modest and decent in out dressin, and avoid doin tins dat wld make anoda sin. Like I said b4, Iv got frnds whom u wld rather dey put on trousies dan skirts cuz of ...... It is not a sin 2 me! Wonderin y no one's talkin abt collared shirts, face cap, shorts, slippers, headwarmers e.t.c. Since a man cnt wear blouse, bt ladies do wear shirts(wich is common among guys) like bankers, does dat mean its a sin? Modesty nd decency is the paramout tin.

haibe: Is the mosaic law spoken? How come it is subject to change? Please answer Is God now not an author of confusion by saying "don't obey all of those laws anymore". You agreed that the inner law will tell you not to kill but you fail to realise that the mosaic law stated that before the inner law came into existence, are you not now still obeying that law? Please answer. I tried to explain to you that the spirit of God helps you obey those commandments of God that you couldn't obey because of your carnal nature but you said No, we are not to obey the law, the truth is that you and i clearly know that some laws still apply to us (e.g thou shall not kill) and some do not because christ has made provisions and we are not to do anything anymore like killing of the lamb, now if i may ask why don't you kill even though we are to ignore the mosaic law that states we shouldn't kill? Please answer my questions. And just to inform you, God gave those laws to govern our lives, if it wasn't necessary he wouldn't have given us, if there was nothing wrong in stealing, if there was nothing wrong in a male wearing that pertains to a female, don't you think God will not bother telling us to obey? Answer please.

haibe: O.k goshen are you saying the inner law in the heart tells you that you shouldn't kill, commit adultery(all in the mosaic law) but doesn't tell you(if u're a girl) not to wear trouser?

honeyfave: @Goshen i willnt argue with u because i ve reasoned like u in the past.
But i thank God that HE revealed the right paths to me. I'm seriously praying that God should reveals himself to my lovely sisters too . Kingdom of God is not bread and butter.

fortran12: why only trousers?, why is it that they is the only part that ppl are talking about what about the other laws in the chapter of Deuteronomy? Ppl just pick what suits them and make laws out of them and put their personal opinions into the interpreting the bible. Lots of Christians in Nigeria are focusing on the less important things and leaving the wat actually matters

honeyfave: Based on [size=15pt]my experience[/size] i will say it's a sin.
I rarely put on skirt (i had just one casual skirt prior to my encounter). Behold in the month of May 2011, i had a dream in which i dressed in a pair of jean trouser and a blouse holding my Bible. A man was looking at me and my Bible shaking his head, he called me and told my that the way of my dressing does not glorify God, he later showed me the kind of clothes i need to put on(which are mainly skirts and shirts). i changed to one of the clothes d man showed me in the dream. And d man said that i can now go anywhere i want to go with my bible. Since that time i ve stopped putting on trousers.

haibe: This is the problem we christians are having. "Quick to judge", i know i never said "this is what my church taught" but you just assumed you were right even if you weren't sure. Let me just leave you and your assumption.

haibe: Back to the case, we christians have taken grace to mean another thing, that we should not border to obey Gods law in the bible again because it wasn't given to us. O.k i will agree with you that we should not obey the mosaic law again, we can now disobey them because it wasn't given to us. Please a christian sister will not continue to commit adultery and fornication because she knows its wrong before God. Learn to differentiate between a church goer and a christian.

haibe: What things do you think pertains to a man that a woman shouldn't wear? That's a question every TRUE believer should know but we just try to modernize everything up.

haibe: Please if there is any law we as christians are to ignore, it is the ceremonial laws and that's because Christ is the perfect sacrifice for sins and some other laws relating strictly to judaism as a result of the way God ruled them at that time.

haibe: You can't tell me God doesn't still want us to obey the ten commandments, that doesn't make sense, nine of the laws of the ten commandments are even repeated in the new testaments, same with some other laws. A law like that of deutronomy 22:5 can still be applicable to christians just like 9 of the 10 commandments, they are not laws we should forfeit. Just imagine a christian disobeying all the ten commandments, can you call him a christian? No because the holy spirit automatically helps you to obey those laws. Haven't you thought that God must have a reason for saying a male shouldn't wear a females wear. What makes you think that law can't be applicable to christians? Well let everyone believe what they believe, no hard feelings.

JeSoul: But your question comes in about a -1 on a scale of 1-10 in terms of relevance . Who wore trousers pants first? snr brother wetin be the point now?