₦airaland Forum

kingxsamz:
In support of your god asking men to slaughter children and little babies?

Lol, see young Samuel forming all holy and good, yet hates that God should exist because he's nowhere near holy. Ask him about abortion and killing of millions of babies going on everyday now, he'll start to stammer. Ignorant hypocrite.

LordReed:
If you mention one I can find it so which one?

Find anyone, study Greek lol, then see the simple thing i have stated. The two verses are not connected but different paragraphs.

LordReed:
Can you show me which early Christians understood it this way?

Peter was a primary witness. That's how he understood it. Same goes for other Christians till date who still wait for the Lord's coming. Evidently, if they were told that the Lord would/must come in their lifetime, they would not be telling us that He would come after their death. Even John dismissed such misunderstandings

2 Peter 1:14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. 1:15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.


Here is John, the last disciple that was alive showing that Jesus was to come after he John had died, not necessarily before.

John 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

So like i said, none of the disciples thought Jesus Christ "second" coming must be in their lifetime. Only you or people like you think so, the people who were addressed never thought so and tried to correct such impressions. We see after the gospels up till Revelation telling us Jesus Christ was coming again and none of them made such teachings that He was to come before they died.

LordReed:
Which manuscript does this division?

Lol, which one do you have access to? BTW, i said ALSO in the division to chapters and verses(manuscripts are not divided into chapters and verses). It's a separate paragraph/line in the manuscripts.

RIP Boss

LordReed:
People will see it as a nepotism when it happens and not a divine move.

Those would be ignorant people. You have seen a bit of David Jnr, in your estimation, is he undeserving or unqualified to take over from his father? One may not easily say same for other children or even children of other popular pastors. People will always say, but it's possible and even seen in the Bible in some cases. Jesus's brothers also had a good part in the early church. Same with David's sons, Abraham's sons. But not compulsorily so, like we see in Elijah Elisha, Moses Joshua and co. In contemporary times, we also saw the likes of TL Osborn, Reinhardt Bonke, Kenneth Hagin, former GO of RCCG, hand over the baton/mantle to non-family. So either ways can happen.

LordReed:
LMFAO! The label sinner and fool doesn't affect the quality of my life. Gonna enjoy my stay here on earth the best way I can while also trying my best to be mindful of my fellow humans.

It's not meant to affect the quality of your life. It affects the quality of your eternity. The Bible accounts of sinners and "fools" living rich, prosperous and fulfilled lives here on earth. As you should have noticed, quality of life here on earth doesn't seem to be top priority in the Bible. i am not talking about prevalent prosperity gospel preaching though.

LordReed:
What I don't understand is how you people are now shifting his own words concerning his second coming to the transfiguration. He purportedly states it clearly that he is coming with angels but now you are saying no its the transfiguration he was talking about.

We're not shifting it, He Himself "shifted" it in the original. That was the way the disciples understood it, that was the way early Christians and most Bible scholars understood/understand it. You are one of the few that i have heard(maybe in recent times) attempting to mix it up. The one that is usually mixed up is the Matthew 24 about "this generation". This one of Transfiguration, has always been pretty clear in most quarters.

LordReed:
Verse 27 and 28 are in 2 separate paragraphs? How do you mean?

In the original manuscript/writing. Also in the division to chapters in Mark and Luke. They are two separate discussions/events. Verse 28 in Matthew is referring to the Transfiguration. Verse 27 is referring to the 2nd coming.

freshalien:
Real life?? You met Jesus in “real life” abi? Abeg shift make I see where put leg!

i don't really think you can put leg where my footprints are. Be content with your space.

LordReed:
Generally I encounter 3 types of religious people when it comes to attitude towards atheists. One set believe atheists are satanists, another think atheists want to destroy their religion or faith and the last set are like you who are happy to give atheists their space. The first 2 are the type of people you are referring to.

There are indeed "evangelical" atheists especially on social media whose comical aim is to rid the world of christianity or let's say religion. It's not all atheists. Also there are acclaimed atheists who are more of agnostic or haters of the true God. Many are found here. They can't all be painted with the same brush in that sense, although they are all sinners and biblically approved fools.

LordReed:
David Jnr is Canaanland resident pastor of course he will take over.

While it seems a big probability due to age and qualifications, it may not be. David Jnr has demonstrated good competence for his age. However Abioye remains second till tomorrow and David Jnr understands that. Nothing wrong with it. God can use anyone including your son. It's not a general kingdom principle but it happens both in the Bible and outside.

LordReed:
LMFAO! Na wa o! See Bible interpretation. Meanwhile Jesus said no man shall know the day of his coming so I guess he was talking about multiple comings since you people are still waiting for his coming. Bwahahahahaha!

You're both saying the same thing. A vision is not a literal coming. The coming of our Lord which is popularly called the second coming is well described in the Bible. It is not a secret coming, EVERY eye shall see Him. He'd be here for about a thousand years. Don't get it mixed up.

LordReed:
LMFAO! If I was the one who did something like this you'd be screaming that I am taking things out of context. LoLz

You are actually trying to take things out of context. Pick up any available manuscript you can lay hands on, the two verses are in two different/separate paragraphs.

LordReed:
27 For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He shall reward every man according to his works.

28 Verily I say unto you, there are some standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom.”

So how can it be the case that the transfiguration was what he was referring to if he says he is coming with angels and will be distributing rewards?

The two verses are rightly in two separate paragraphs in the manuscripts, and better yet later divided into two separate chapters. Clearly to the disciples, writers of the Bible and Bible scholars who printed the Bible and did the chapter and verses, they are clearly separate events. Lumping them together would confuse only you. Every normal Bible student knows and understands the passage. Check up most Bible versions, you should see the same division. There's something we call "rightly dividing" the Bible. Scriptures are not of private interpretation.

LordReed:
He purportedly said "standing here" so what other generation could it be, which other generation was standing there?

Livingchrist is confusing/mixing up your question with Matthew 24, you are referring to transfiguration Matthew 16 or is it 17.

LordReed:
So if he has come in his royal power then what coming are you waiting for again?

To/For His kingdom, not IN His kingdom. This was a promise clearly made much after the Transfiguration in John 14 up till Revelation. Transfiguration was just a glimpse as He promised them.

Mat 13:41 KJV The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

freshalien:
And your religion is based on what exactly, proof? You have been to hell/heaven and back or met someone that has; you have video or pictorial evidence of them right? You have met your so-called Jesus abi? Brainwashed fellows.

Based on life Mr. Real life.

LordReed:
So that was him coming in his kingdom? Just a show of special effects and some dead guys? I guess Tupac has come in his kingdom as well because they did the same with him and even a whole lot more than 3 people saw it. LoL.

Also why are you still waiting for him to come if that was the so called 2nd coming? He has come and gone by your own words.

Very correct, "kingdom" is another word for "royal power". So it's probably easier for you to read the Son of man coming in His royal power. He's not coming TO or FOR His kingdom, the verse talks about Him coming IN His kingdom. Coming in HIS power or splendor like Luke probably better puts it for you. And as Peter puts it when he calls Him a more sure Word, eyewitnesses of his majesty, honour and glory.
The transfiguration was a totally different picture of the Son of man that they knew from Galilee. They saw Him come in His true majesty, that was the essence of the whole transfiguration, duh.

freshalien:
Nope, I am not talking based on hearsay. I am talking based on the fact that the early missionaries just cooked up stories of heaven, hell, second coming, e.tc with no tangible proof of their existence while you and your likes just believed without asking any questions.

Y’all just believed a book they handed to you saying it was written by people who claimed to be under the influence of a God of whom there is no proof as well. That is why it is called “belief” because there is no single proof of what your religion is based upon. Just lies and inconsistencies and y’all just keep drinking it daily because it makes your sufferings easy and when you make mistakes or bad things happen to you, it must definitely be the “devil”. Chai! Indeed religion is the opium of the people. A really cool drug.

Another long list of hearsays, do you trade with them or something?

LordReed:
Just like how "some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” became 2000years. Really sure. LMFAO!

They saw Him transfigured in the next chapter, duh

ICEWIN:
Is God biaz?
am confuse how some people merit why some dont in there entire life

No, God is not biased. However, we should note that the earth is not balanced lol.

Psa 82:5 KJV They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

Ecc 9:11 KJV I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

LordReed:
It's more likely no god is orchestrating what happens to anyone that's why things are the way they are. If there is a god then the god is capricious and so cannot be expected to be fair.

Fortunately, we don't have to base our lives on this silly probabilities. We have a more sure Word of prophecy.

freshalien:
And you came to your conclusion and belief that they exist by visiting there yourself right?

I dare you, show me proof that they exist. Show me one person that has been there and back. Y’all just believe cooked up stories because the person tells you he is “man of God”.

Religion = loss of common sense

Good, you are talking based on hearsay. So now it's a tug of your hearsay is better than mine, lol. i listen to Jesus Christ, His words are enough for me.

Is this even a discussion? What's the importance of using or not using drums in the Christian pilgrimage?

LordReed:
You did not answer if you use the word other than in a religious context.

Pointlessness. He schooled you in plain English already, why are you taking it personal? The word "sin" is not limited to religious use, simple. It's meaning is beyond moral uprightness like he stated. Your inability to accept simple points to take due to your sly nature is your main undoing. Even the Bible itself refers to humans sinning against one another but as the pope's son, you want to disgrace yourself yet again.

liar Umaruuuu, lori iro. The traders didn't allow you to construct roads!!

LordReed:
In your day to day life do you use sin to denote that which is wrong or bad? For instance when a shop keeper gives you the wrong change? When you see trash littered about? The only time you use it is with reference to religion. That's what I mean, it's not about how long the word has been around but what use you put it to. You don't use it other than for religious purposes.

Silly silly excuses from a sly sinner.

freshalien:
Heaven nor hell does not exist, hope you know that?

And you came to this conclusion by hearsay, right?

MaxInDHouse:
Ògbéni, i wasn't talking to you so please maintain your lane, you and i have agreed that we are not serving the same God therefore face yours while face mine!

You're still an hypocrite and not a Christian nonetheless, know this and be free.

LordReed:
Why do we need a new word when wrong or bad is just fine?

"bad" first known use is 13th century.
"sin" first known use is before 12th century.
"wrong" first known use is before 12th century.

But sin is the new word for my comic relief Reed.

MaxInDHouse:
You said so! Luke 22:67

The truth makes you free friend, you are an hypocrite still.