₦airaland Forum

A number of charismatic churches today do not recite the Lord's Prayer. Personally I feel the Lord's Prayer came from Jesus Christ himself and should be used by christians but I've even heard it said by at least one devoted Christ Embassy member that christians should not say the Lord's Prayer for reasons I still do not understand.

Can any CEC member confirm if this is true and the reasoning behind it?

If you are in a church that does not use the Lord's Prayer can you tell me why?

^^ Thanks for the advice Enigma. But like I said earlier, I am not interested in educating you on what you should already know.

^^^

Saying so much without actually contributing anything to this thread.

For those who cannot bear the thought of reading anything outside the Bible, please press your back button now,

The Nag Hammadi Library refers to a collection of preserved early Christian texts found in the town on Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1945. Some of the texts refer to Melchizedek and claim that he is Jesus Christ Himself.
This claim has similarities with the statement in Hebrews 5 that Jesus Christ is a High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek.

Was Melchizedek an appearance of Jesus Christ in Abraham's time?
Or was Melchizedek a different person who established a divine order of High Priests of which Jesus Christ was amoungst?

Enigma:
BTW if Greybeard is still interested, I have a question: what was the decision taken at the Nicea Council (325) on the issue of the canon of the Bible?

Nope. I'm not interested in educating you on things every serious christian should already know.

This thread is about Melchizedek and it serves no interest high-jacking it with unrelated issues and leading questions. There are people reading this thread (including myself) who are interested in understanding more about Melchisedek so guys, lets stay on point.

Enigma:
This is a very serious misunderstanding that leads people into error! The catholic Church (deliberate small c as opposed to the C[/b]atholic Church aka The Roman Catholic Church) [b]means the ENTIRETY of the Church of Christ ---- or  simply The Church!

In this sense the catholic Church simply means the universal church.

So in choosing the canon, the catholic Church, the universal Church, the Body of Christ, the Church of Christ is NOT discredited!

I'm not quite sure how you drew this conclusion Enigma  
But I think you'll find that KunleOshob was referring to the Roman Catholic Church who canonised the Bible under the leadership of Emperor Constantine beginning with the Council of Nicea in 325 AD

My guy, facts are facts  

Adam and Eve were black.

http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/melchizedek.html

Happy Reading 

But back to "The Kingdom".
@Pastor AIO - if I may I would like to focus for a minute on one of the parables you mentioned and its relationship with the Kingdom of God within us:

Pastor AIO:
26And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground; 27And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how. 28For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear. 29But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come.

I believe there is much more to this parable than is immediately apparent.
In this parable, Jesus uses the analogy of a man, a seed, a known action (casting/planting), an unknown action (germination) and the eventual fruit & harvest to describe the Kingdom of God.

By far the most intriguing aspect of this parable is the unknown action which is outside the control of the man but is a kind of law of the earth:

"For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself".

In other words, when the seed is inside the earth, this phenomenon will occur. This unknown action indeed seems to be the essence of the parable because without it, every other action in the parable is futile.

However, if we examine what we know about this phenomenon it is obvious that a seed cast or planted in the earth must first die before a new plant can grow out of it. This is the phenomenon of germination. How it happens that new life comes from death is indeed the mystery here. But it seems that essentially what Jesus is telling us  is that essence of the Kingdom of God here on earth is in the mystery or the law of new life coming from death.

So my questions would be:
[list]
[li]For the Kingdom of God inside us to be fully manifest here on earth, are there things within us that must first die for this phenomenon to take place? (e.g. certain negative emotions and desires etc)[/li]
[li]Is this phenomenon somehow related to being "born again"? Must part of us die for us to be born? Again?[/li]
[li]Is Jesus' death and resurrection also a manifestation of the essence of the Kingdom of God here on earth?[/li]
[/list]

@Pastor AIO - Much food for thought there. I needed to take out some time to digest a lot of the things you said.

Pastor AIO:
It seems that the kind of faith this kingdom of Heaven requires is a bit harder than the faith that I was taught in sunday school.  There I was taught to sing and shout and profess at the top of my voice that Jesus is Lord.  That was such a sweet display of faith.

But this faith that requires me to cool down, to be meek and humble . . . when I have bills pending . . . when my mates have advanced stratosperically, leaving me behind . . . . when I'm a laughing stock . . . .   , this kind of faith is not so sweet.

Very true.

Pastor AIO:
25Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? 26Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? 27Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? 28And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 29And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? 31Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? 32(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. 33But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

34Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

True followership of Christ is not as glamorous as many would like it to be. In one sense, it is easy to let go of everything - your hopes, dreams, plans, ambitions, expectations etc and just lean on Christ. In another sense, it is probably one of the hardest things in life to do wholeheartedly.

Joagbaje:
@Greybeard
We can read any book , the book by Josephus gave some lights historically for example. But one has to be careful about books that are contrary to the bible.

I completely agree. Books that are contrary to the Bible are indeed contrary to Christianity. The Book of Enoch isn't one of them. An explanation of it is beyond the scope of this thread however, it is a fact that the book formed part of the old testament for hundreds of years and was subsequently removed by the catholic church for reasons that were in my opinion political but are really best known to them. Yet the Ethiopic Church (which existed long before the roman catholic church) so no reason to remove it from the Bible and so kept it in. This is why if you an Ethiopian Christian your Bible still contains the book.
Other books removed from the mainstream Bible by the catholic church include The Book of Tobit, The Books of Jubilees, Maccabees and others.

Snowwy:
Greybeard,
No need for argument. If the 66 books of the bible are not sufficiently inspired for you and you prefer to get your 'knowledge' from apocryphal books (not even accepted by the jews as they were entrusted with the very words of God-Romans 3:2), then its understandable how you even study the known bible. No need to relate it to a textbook as that is not the context of this discussion.
We understand why the bible (with no known quote from your 'literature') is no longer enough for you since you have become 'wiser' in your own sight.
I am inspired with the God-inspired books of the bible through the Holy Spirit and if that is what you call 'ignorance', so be it.

Snowwy, I think you are missing the point here. This thread is about information on Melchizedek. I never said that the current 66 books of the Bible are not sufficiently inspired and the Book of Enoch is not where "I get my knowledge" as you say. I refuse to be drawn into a debate with you over the validity of books whether they are in the mainstream Bible or not. You can do the research for yourself and find out about all manner of "Books" even ones that are mentioned in your Bible but are NOT in your Bible. So stop acting like I just waved a fetish stick at you and go get some knowledge.

Nuff Said!

Joagbaje:
It was a Jewish practice. We don't need the Olive oil nor palm oil. The sacrament we have to take is the communion

Perhaps we should be using Palm Wine for the holy communion then. I know many non-christians would get converted just to get a free taste every month 

Snowwy:
And to think one bothered to expound the scriptures to them. Now it is known where they get their 'logic' from.
It's better to be a zombie for the bible and the Holy Spirit than be a follower of your 'books'. I wonder why they even quote the bible at all?
Pity!

@Snowwy
What exactly are you trying to say here? Are you suggesting that any books outside of the Bible compilation is not to be read? If you are then that is ignorant on so many levels. If you think the Bible is the only book that can give you knowledge then that means you have never read a textbook in your life.

Besides, what do you know about the history of the books of the Bible? What do you know about the Book of Enoch and its relations with the other books of the Old Testament?
Do you even know who Enoch was?

"My People are dying from lack of knowledge"

tpiah!:
you're so anti-christian.

What makes you say that?

The scare references to Melchizedek in the Bible make it impossible to get anywhere near a proper understanding of who he was.

Anyone serious about finding out more details of Melchizedek will need to look into reliable sources outside the Bible and a good place to start is The Book of Enoch.

In The Book of Enoch we find references to who Melchizedek was and what it was that made him such a revered High Priest of God.

Although the Book of Enoch isn't in the mainstream Christian Bible, it has always formed part of some Bibles like the Ethiopic Bible and it revered as an "inspired" apocryphal book.

Just my 2 kobo   

@Deep sight

Well said!

Bishop Oyedepo Acquires Yet Another N4.5b Private Jet

And Our Lord Jesus rode a donkey.

Yes, He entered Jerusalem to meet the multitudes and crowds not on a thoroughbred stallion or on a horse-drawn carriage, not carried in a royal chamber or riding a chariot with horses, but on a simple DONKEY!!

Our Lord Jesus Christ preached against storing up worldly things for yourself. And he showed this with his own actions. No one can serve God and Mammon.

Please beware people. Use the mind God gave you and do not be blinded.

In this generation, some are Men of God, some are Men of Mammon and some are Men of Mammon [b]pretending [/b]to be Men of God.

And by their fruits you shall know them.

Please look at what you know about a Man of God and ask yourself this question: Are the fruits I am seeing fruits of God or fruits of Mammon?

He who has ears

aguiyi:
my dear,i can see you are creating double standard for yourself without knowing.

the pastor and the entrepreneur are both businessmen. my Pastor humorously said he is a businessman but in a different line from others. while a circular (permit me to use that word) businessman is in the business of buying,selling and rendering of services ,preachers are in the business of getting people to accept christ and avoid all forms of vice,in the end they all get paid

@aguiyi
God does not need business men or sales men. Here are words from the Master himself:

Matthew 6:19
"19. Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal,   24. No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other: or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."

jpworld:
God/Jesus please Forgive Satan and close hell fire.

I don laugh taya 

Well said! This has given me plenty of food for thought.  Thank you for posting this.

dot2002:
Lion of The Tribe of Ibo

That's just hilarious!

dot2002:
Anointed Prophet of the Most High God

Anointed by whom? 

dot2002:
Sanitize Living Churches through Suspension

What does this mean exactly??

Very Interesting!
God gave Moses the recipe for making the Holy Anointing Oil used by the High Priests to anoint Priests and Kings. This was the origin of the traditional Jewish Anointing Oil used to anoint King Saul, King David etc and used by Jesus Christ amoungst others.

Exodus 30:22-25
"Moreover, the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
Take also for yourself the finest of spices: of flowing myrrh five hundred shekels, and of fragrant cinnamon half as much, two hundred and fifty, and of fragrant cane two hundred and fifty, and of cassia five hundred, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, and of olive oil a hin.
You shall make of these a holy anointing oil, a perfume mixture, the work of a perfumer; it shall be a holy anointing oil. "

Fragrant cane in the passage above is translated from the Hebrew word קְנֵה-בֹשֶׂם (Kaneh-Bosem) which has been wrongly translated by some bible versions as Calamus. The fact is, this Hebrew word translates directly to Cannabis Hemp (Ben-Yehuda Hebrew-English / English-Hebrew dictionary) and is used a number of other times in the Bible.
If cannabis was indeed a major ingredient in the Anointing Oil, then that would explain a lot of things.

I'm not saying Jesus smoked weed. I'm just looking at the facts,

Pastor AIO:
explain your reasoning please.

The reasoning simply is to continue provoking open-minded discussion on this topic.

By definition, a Kingdom is a political or territorial unit ruled by a sovereign. In the context of what we are talking about,
it is the eternal spiritual sovereignty of God or Christ and the realm of this sovereignty.
As the Kingdom of God is deposited within us as Christ said then what is our role in relation to this. Is each of us:

- A custodian of this Kingdom or
- Solely a benefactor as a host of this Kingdom or
- A\The King of this Kingdom

Looking at the first two for a moment, it is difficult to see how the entirety of such a Kingdom would be bestowed on us simply
as a keepsake or for us to hold on to until we return. The parable of the Talents that Jesus spoke about allures to utilising
the power deposited within us to achieve things on earth. But the ability to achieve this in the context that Jesus spoke about denotes a much larger degree of control over this power than could be exercised by a simple custodian or benefactor.

If indeed we are the Kings of this Kingdom then one way of looking at it would be to understand that since God is ultimately
the King of the Kingdom of God, it is not us who are the Kings of the Kingdom within us, but the God within us who is the King
of that Kingdom. And to weld the power as the King of this Kingdom, we must first bring forth the true King
within us which is God in us all.

Until we do, we may always remain as custodians of the Kingdom of God and not Kings.

Your thoughts are welcome. 

@2buff - Apologies for cracking up earlier at the dream you wrote about. In one way, it was quite funny but after reading it again I can see it is very serious. So no vex my broda.

2buff:
The underlying message is Victory.

Congratulations 

I remember the last fight dream I had. I Was fighting this guy first with lightsabers and he was trying to lie to me and tell me he was my father.
I beat him then he changed into a guy with claws for hands. I held him back by his clawed hands and was speaking in tongues in my dream right to his face and he started getting combo'd by an invisible force.

It's a good feeling of victory when you wake up
To God be the Glory!

LOL! That is tooooooooooo funny. Either it is a joke or you've been watching to much Star Wars! 
Either way, I'll be laughing at the thought of this for days 

Anyway,  @mama-gee - Your spirit is trying to tell you something. IMHO, it seems you are fighting an internal battle with something. Probably from your past maybe? However, this struggle is being played out in your dream in the persons of yourself and your enemy. Afterall if your spirit is filled with joy and love you wouldn't be dreaming of fighting anyone in the first place. There must be some sort of internal struggle that you are facing in your life and this is the reason you are having this dream. It is something that you need to face head on and resolve in order to move on.

Think about it this way, if the fight with your enemy in your dream represents this internal struggle then it hasn't ended because in your dream you didn't defeat your enemy but only the hired thugs she sent. This means your enemy is still out there and can use another means to get at you again.

My advice would be to face whatever internal struggle is going on in your life as a christian in the spirit of love and reconciliation. When you fix that problem then there will be no more battles to dream about.

Pastor AIO:
The Kingdom of Heaven.
21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

If the Kingdom of Heaven is within you, that means you must be the King.

tpiah!:
we DO NOT KNOW  who the pharaoh was during moses' time.

You mean YOU don't know.

You've made it perfectly clear that you sprout rubbish without being able to back it up with any proof. You obviously don't know your stuff and depend on wikipedia (which is very often wrong because anyone can edit it). Frankly it's a waste of my time sharing information with you. There is evidently something blocking proper facts from getting through to your brain  So if you want to believe that the sky is purple - feel free, I'm done with you.

tpiah!:
as per rameses being the biblical pharaoh, that's an assumption, and at best, speculation.

On this I would agree. Ramses II is the nearest Pharaoh that Egyptologists can place around the estimated time of Moses' appearance. If it wasn't him then it was probably his father or his son. BUT the fact is, the man had 8 wives during that same period. That tells us that within the particular dynasty that existed when Moses was around, polygamy was commonly accepted amongst Pharaohs.

@tpiah: You know u really amaze me. You arguments are just really weak but you carry them out with such persistence. Look at the history of your posts on this subject. First u insisted Moses was not a MOG. Then you agreed he was. Next you said polygamous didn't exist at all in ancient Egypt royalty.  Then u changed it too the royalty were not noted for polygamy. And now you say you've checked various sources? What sources? Quote them here so that we can establish credibility.
You debate without facts or any real evidence. Did you look up the wives of Ramses or Khufu? Do u think a carving of pharaoh with his main wife means he only had one wife? Was Miriam Abacha the only wife of Sani?
I will say this one last time. Polygamy was very common in Egyptian royalty. Now prove me wrong or keep quiet.

@tpiah:
I don't want to bang on about the polygamy issue in ancient Egypt BUT  the facts need to be put straight.

tpiah!:
menkaure was thought to have had two wives.

still being debated.

we may be referring to different dynastic periods here, since ancient egypt spanned thousands of centuries.

in any case, ancient egypt wasnt noted for polygamy, in fact, it was the other way round.

Thought? By whom?? You?? And wikipedia?? What about Ramses, Khufu and all the other polygamous Pharaohs? Are you [i]thinking [/i]about them too? Mankaure commissioned a sulpture (see picture in my previous post) showing him with his two [/b]wives as goddeses and you are still [i][b]thinking [/i]and still [i]debating [/i]because you want history to agree with you.  My guy, go and do some proper research. I've provided visual and theoretical evidence that polygamy definately existed in ancient Egyptian royalty. Where is your evidence to the contrary??
And on the subject of dynasties, wasn't Ramses II the Pharaoh that Moses dealt with when taking the Israelites out of Egypt? And at that time did he not have at least eight wives?
So we can conclude here that at the time the Israelites where in Egypt, polygamy was common from the Pharaoh down. It was part of the culture. So if Moses did have two wives  it wasn't anything new to them at all.

@tpiah: My guy, here's the news: The picture in my earlier post shows Menkaure flanked by the Goddesses Hathor and Bat. These Goddesses represent his two wives Queen Khamerernebty II and Queen Rekhetre.

Besides, Menkaure wasn't the only Pharaoh to practise polygamy. The very first monarch of Egypt - Osiris had at least two wives, the famous Pharaoh Ramses II had at least eight wives, Pharaoh Khufu had at least 6, I could go on.

Believe me, I know this stuff. Polygamy was extremely common to royalty in ancient Egypt.

tpiah!:
@graybeard  can you also show me anywhere in the bible where moses is called a man of God.

Na wa for you tpiah. Are you trying to tell me that Moses who God spoke to on a regular basis one on one, who God used to create a civilisation and perform huge miracles like parting the Red Sea was not a Man of God?

tpiah!:
Grey beard    the egyptian ruling classes werent polygamous. Plz lets not turn the thread into a polygamy argument.  Just do your homework and let me know anywhere you find info supporting what you claim. In ancient egypt, the lower classes were the ones allowed four wives. The monarchy didnt practice the same.

Is that so? I think you better do your homework: