₦airaland Forum

OLAADEGBU: May God remember you like Noah, favour you like Moses, honour you like Mary, fight for you like the Israelites, prosper you like Isaac, promote you like Joseph, intervene for you like Esther, protect you like Daniel, use you like Paul, heal you like Naaman, answer you like Elijah, anoint you like David, keep you safe like Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego. That is my prayer for you this 2013. HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Goshen360: Great words bro. God bless you.

Goshen360: My dear brother, Ephesians 6:12 doesn't list the blood of Jesus among the weapons of our warfare. One thing I do in my study is that I ask question. I ask the Holy Spirit questions and if you do this often, you will be amazed how things will be revealed to you - try it. There is a always a reason for instructions. The blood of Christ, the bible says it was done ONCE and for all times. We are not the high priest but Christ. It is only the high priest that pleads the blood inside the tabernacle and Hebrews says Christ had entered the tabernacle and offered once and for all.

The foreshadow of this act in the OT is that, the OT priest offer and plead the blood repeatedly and yet, it doesn't do the things expected but in the case of Christ, it was done once and perfected forever.

Goshen360: i.chuka, thank you for bringing this up. When I was a baby Christian back then in Lagos. In the prayer warrior, we often use this verse, Revelation 12:11 and we repeatedly plead the blood. What Revelation 12:11 is saying is that we (Christian) walk in the victory that had been done by the blood. You will agree that this very verse is a future event and yet, it says we overCAME (already done). It is not we pleading it time and time again that gave the victory, it is the lamb of God and that was done. Satan is already defeated, we only walk in the victory that Christ obtained for us by the blood.

Second, If you don't agree with what am saying, it's okay but let's look at it from another angle. If I plead the blood yesterday by faith to defeat the devil and his angels, it will mean they should be defeated or they are defeated when I pleaded the blood yesterday. While pleading the blood again today and tomorrow if the one pleaded yesterday worked.

When Jesus resurrected he said, "ALL powers in heaven and on earth had been given to me"....Long story short, Satan, his cohorts and the evils of the world had already being defeated and we don't defeat them by ourselves but THROUGH Christ, that is, through the victory that Christ had already done for us. We exercise and walk in that victory!

English Standard Version (©2001)
For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. - I John 5:4

Our faith in what? - In the finished work and victory of Christ. Christ obtained everything on our behalf. We walk in it by faith and Apostle Paul says, "we walk by faith, not by sight".

English Standard Version (©2001)
But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. - I Corinthians 15:57

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
I write unto you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because you have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because you have known the Father. I John 2:13

Goshen360: Today, I begin a teaching in the series - "The End-Time Church With non-apostolic Practices". The early Apostle are men with the mandate to commence the church of Christ and hitherto spread the good news of the Kingdom of God. They laid the foundation for the Church and that foundation was rooted in Christ. Today, we (the end time church) cannot lay any other foundation other than what was laid by the Apostles. Our mission to the world is to build on the foundation that was already laid following the examples of the Apostles. However, the end time church had become so perverted and corrupted with many non-apostolic practices that one will begin to wonder what had happened to the church of Christ over the ages. Today, I present to you the gospel of power and the power of the gospel as I unveil some non-apostolic practices.

1. The Practice of Pleading the blood of Jesus.

New International Version (©1984)
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace - Ephesians 1:7

There are some Charismatic and Pentecostals that use the practice (now a cliché) of pleading the blood over people that are unsaved and things they want cleansed or delivered. Just about anything gets the blood pleaded over it. But this is an unbiblical practice; nowhere do we read of the apostles "pleading the Blood". We see no such practice by the apostles or instructions in the epistles to do any such sprinkling or pleading of Christ's blood on anyone (even those demon possessed).

In the Old Testament it was a physical act by the priest to put the blood on the altar, not moving it from one place to another. It is the same principle in the New Testament, one cannot move it on to those people or things for cleansing by speaking, (pleading it). The blood represents the life of the person; we cannot plead His life on others? Only the high priest handled the blood to go on the mercy seat for the forgiveness of sins, Jesus is the one who sprinkled His blood, not us. We can’t physically touch it today nor can we apply it somewhere else spiritually, since we are not the high priest, Jesus is.

He said this is my body pointing to the Passover lamb motif in the Old Testament as a type and shadow. He was given as a lamb on a specific day and time for a specific purpose. If it was done any other way or day it would not have been acceptable. Just as John the baptizer introduced him as "the LAMB that takes away the sins of the world". Christ fulfilled all the Old Testament types and shadow including the scapegoat but it was the Passover lamb that is of the most importance. He was judged instead of us, so he passed over our judgment and we go from death to life.

Hebrews 9:7-14 has a deep revelation on Christ sacrifices and his blood. Scripture makes it crystal clear the blood of Christ unlike the high priest type in the OT did was offered once and for all, not repeatedly like the OT. Hebrews 9:11-12. By His death He poured out His life and died for our sins we would be reconciled by it. This was done as a propitiation to the Father almost 2,000 years ago and is still effective today. The atonement was for man and unto God the Father. Propitiation for sins is always toward God, not toward man. The Father accepted His payment for our sins. We ourselves do not touch the blood, it is applied to our lives by the high priest who is Christ when we believe in faith to receive his Atonement. Eph.1:7; Col. 1:14 says "in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins". and Rev. 1:5: "To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood". This occurred almost 2,000 years ago.

Stop pleading the blood in a religious manner because the blood had already being pleaded and shed for the remission of sin. There is no magical power in an unending application of the blood of Jesus for the numerous uses it is applied for today. It was for our redemption, cleansing and forgiveness of sins only. To use it as such is to have a distorted view of its application today and an irreverent understanding of it being precious, incorruptible and holy.

...to be continue

chukwudi44: It is good to confess christ with your mouth and beleiving it with your heart but that is not the meaning of being born again.

Jesus christ essentially outlined the steps to been born again into 2

1.Being born of water

2.Being born of the spirit

Born of water here refers to baptism through which the adamic stain is washed off and which makes us new creatures.

Born of the spirit here refers to the reception of the holy spirit upon the faitful through laying of hands.

These are the major components of born againism.Verbal confession of faith without theses sacraments is not sufficient.That was why Jesus who did not even need baptism still had to get baptised just to show us the way

chukwudi44:

As a bible beleiving xtian .what portion of the bible can we find these testimonie?

Joagbaje: the ibo films also portray catbolic church as solutions

striktlymi: You allow your personal hatred for the mother of Jesus make you say things that are not true.

When you call someone a sinner, it implies that the person is sinful. What is your scriptural backing to this? If I call you a sinner, I bet you would be angry or if I call your mum a sinner, you would not take it lightly. You wouldn't even take it when someone call your pastor a sinner. But you dare address the mother of the one you call Lord and master in such a way? This is terrible indeed.

Because you have decided to allow your hatred for the mother of Jesus to cloud your better judgement, I will end my argument here in order not to encourage more blasphemies from you.

I bid you a lovely night's rest.

chukwudi44: Bros how does this verse answer my question?how on earth does it explain Jesus's descent from David's lineage?

striktlymi: Good morning Chuka, I trust u had a lovely night's rest.
I must say some part of ur post are quite funny. I have attempted to respond to some of ur concerns below:




Chuka the above information is not correct. What exactly do you call sin? If you disobey God you have sinned. Adam was never free from sin. Adam disobeyed God at the garden of Eden, hence the 'curse' placed on him: 'from the sweat of your brow, you shall eat'.



Your quote above shows that you might be aware of the Catholic position that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin i.e the sin of Adam and Eve. In other words Mary is the immaculate conception. This simply means that from the beginning, she was in a state of grace, sharing in God's own life, and that she was free from the sinful inclinations which have beset human nature after the fall of man. This is a dogma of the church I hold dear to my heart. Now the biblical basis:

There are two passages in Scripture which point us to this truth. We look first at Genesis 3.15, in which we see the parallel between Mary and Eve:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

The Jews saw this passage as referring to the struggle between Christ and Satan. However, we see in "the woman" a prophetic foreshadowing of the Virgin Mary.

If there is to be complete enmity between the woman and the serpent, then she never should have been in any way subject to him even briefly. This implies an Immaculate conception. This is not Mary's doing. God intended it from the very beginning when he said he would put enmity between the woman and the serpent.

We can also reason from the text of Lk 1:28, in which the angel calls her "full of grace".
Most versions of the bible today do not use that rendering, but greatly weaken it. Yet it is the correct translation.

The word used in the original version is "charis", which can mean either favour or grace. But if we translate by favour, we must keep firmly in mind that favour must not mean merely that God, as it were, sits there and smiles at someone, without giving anything. That would be Pelagian: salvation possible without grace. So for certain, God does give something, and that something is grace.




To suggest that Jesus' blood never mixed with Mary's is to suggest that Jesus had blood before he came to Earth. Jesus is God and God does not have blood. So the issue of Jesus' (God's) blood mixing with Mary's does not even arise. Everything human about Jesus was gotten from Mary. Mary does not share in the Divinity of Christ but she shared in his humanity. The reason why Christ had to accept humanity was made very clear in Hebrews 2: 14-15:

"Since the children, as he calls them, are people of flesh and blood, Jesus himself became like them and shared their human nature. He did this so that through his death he might destroy the Devil, who has the power over death, 15 and in this way set free those who were slaves all their lives because of their fear of death."

That is, Jesus took flesh and blood (i.e he became like us human's who have flesh and blood) when he came to Earth. He did not bring blood with him cause he had no blood before he became man in the womb of Mary.


Thank you!

striktlymi: Good morning Chuka, I trust u had a lovely night's rest.
I must say some part of ur post are quite funny. I have attempted to respond to some of ur concerns below:




Chuka the above information is not correct. What exactly do you call sin? If you disobey God you have sinned. Adam was never free from sin. Adam disobeyed God at the garden of Eden, hence the 'curse' placed on him: 'from the sweat of your brow, you shall eat'.



Your quote above shows that you might be aware of the Catholic position that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin i.e the sin of Adam and Eve. In other words Mary is the immaculate conception. This simply means that from the beginning, she was in a state of grace, sharing in God's own life, and that she was free from the sinful inclinations which have beset human nature after the fall of man. This is a dogma of the church I hold dear to my heart. Now the biblical basis:

There are two passages in Scripture which point us to this truth. We look first at Genesis 3.15, in which we see the parallel between Mary and Eve:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

The Jews saw this passage as referring to the struggle between Christ and Satan. However, we see in "the woman" a prophetic foreshadowing of the Virgin Mary.

If there is to be complete enmity between the woman and the serpent, then she never should have been in any way subject to him even briefly. This implies an Immaculate conception. This is not Mary's doing. God intended it from the very beginning when he said he would put enmity between the woman and the serpent.

We can also reason from the text of Lk 1:28, in which the angel calls her "full of grace".
Most versions of the bible today do not use that rendering, but greatly weaken it. Yet it is the correct translation.

The word used in the original version is "charis", which can mean either favour or grace. But if we translate by favour, we must keep firmly in mind that favour must not mean merely that God, as it were, sits there and smiles at someone, without giving anything. That would be Pelagian: salvation possible without grace. So for certain, God does give something, and that something is grace.




To suggest that Jesus' blood never mixed with Mary's is to suggest that Jesus had blood before he came to Earth. Jesus is God and God does not have blood. So the issue of Jesus' (God's) blood mixing with Mary's does not even arise. Everything human about Jesus was gotten from Mary. Mary does not share in the Divinity of Christ but she shared in his humanity. The reason why Christ had to accept humanity was made very clear in Hebrews 2: 14-15:

"Since the children, as he calls them, are people of flesh and blood, Jesus himself became like them and shared their human nature. He did this so that through his death he might destroy the Devil, who has the power over death, 15 and in this way set free those who were slaves all their lives because of their fear of death."

That is, Jesus took flesh and blood (i.e he became like us human's who have flesh and blood) when he came to Earth. He did not bring blood with him cause he had no blood before he became man in the womb of Mary.


Thank you!

chukwudi44: @ichuka

You are yet to answer my question.How did Jesus come to be a descendant of David according to the flesh as rightly described in rom 1:3

striktlymi: Good morning,

You still do not get it.
Every man, woman and child have flesh aand blood because God made it so. We do not pick up flesh and blood of our own accord. To deny that Christ never got his blood from Mary is to deny the very humanity of Christ. Note that the blood of Christ is not part of his divinity. When they say that Christ's blood reedeemed us, it actually means that Christ died to set us free.

Ther reedeeming power of Christ's blood has nothing to do with where he got it from. Note clearly that God is not man. He is a spirit and cannot die. In order for him to reedeem us, he needed to die, hence his decision to become mortal in order to be able to do this. Another reason why I think God made the choice of himself was that the sacrifice must be without blemish i.e the person who was to be sacrificed must be without the sin of Adam and Eve (originaal sin if u like) and also free from every personal sin. God achieved these in Jesus with the "fiat" of Mary.

It would be grossly incorrect to suggest that Christ's blood reedeemed us because his blood was not gotten from a human being. If Christ did not get his blood from a human being then you teach that he is not human. The teaching of Christ's humanity is central to all christendom. The reedeeming power of Christ's blood has to do with the "death of God". Like I said, God cannot die, hence the need for him to become ma, and as man he had everything a man has, including flesh and blood which he got from Mary by the power of the Holy spirit.

striktlymi: Good evening,
I have gone through your contribution and have deciphered 2 points from it. The first is about the question mark you raised about the sanctity of Mary while the second was about the humanity of Jesus. I will take these in turn.

* In the old testament, there was a story about how someone was struck dead because he handled the ark of the covenant when it was about to fall to the ground. The person's offence was simply that he tried to handle the ark without reverence. The ark was where God decided to reflect his presesnce with his people. The ark became sacred because of God. Holy means something sacred i.e something set aside for a special purpose. Jesus taught us the value of not putting old wine in new wine skin. If this is done, he warned that the skin would burst. New wine belongs to new wine skin. Jesus taught this, and you honestly believe that he who taught such would come into the world in a vessel that is less than worthy? The sanctity of Mary was brought about by God himself. Like I mentioned earlier, Mary is part of the devine plan, she was prepared specially by God for the task he had for her. God can never be in a place that is not holy. Remember that in the old testament moses had to take off his shoes because the ground he set foot on was a holy ground. Mary was set aside specially by God.

* Your post implied that Jesus did not come as a man. I have spoken about the incorrectness of this earlier on. Jesus have two natures. Divine and human. Before he took flesh, he was purely divine. To say that Mary gave Jesus flesh and not blood suggests that Jesus was never man. When sacred scriptures said the word took flesh and dwealth amongst us, what it means is that Jesus became man. Don't confuse the meaning of the word "flesh". No man is made of flesh alone. Without blood, man is not man. If Jesus got his blood from somewhere else, it only implies that he never became as we are. We are made of human blood and flesh. This would make Paul a liar cause he said the only difference between us and Christ was sin. If Jesus never took bloood as we did then that would make him God only not man. Jesus is both God and Man.