₦airaland Forum

David0002:
∆ Thanks very much for the encouragement. But something deep inside of me tells me that the rapture may have taken place. And that the Holy Spirit has been taken away from the church. What is happening now is fake and counterfeit miracles from the so called fake pastors, prophets and bishops. This is the reason why I have stopped going to church. What do you think of it?

What you refer to as the church has always been a fake from its beginnings even before it was made official by the Roman government. You mistake is thinking that by taking the temperature of thins around that antichrist system, you can perceive that which is of the Kingdom of God. .

Again, if by rapture, you mean that religious idea pedaled by the churches whose foundation are built on that established by the Romans, then no, there is no such thing. The Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ is still very much here and will remain until even after the religious systems of the antichrist -- Christianity and all other religions which pretend to speak in the name of Jesus Christ and God of Israel -- are removed along with all the weeds in the Kingdom of God. After then, the godly people who are in the Kingdom of God will shine brighter than the sun in the Kingdom of their Father, a Kingdom which exists in and all around them. That is what Jesus Christ taught His followers in His Gospel --- what will happen.

KingNom:
∆ They're all there in the Bible and God proves the Bible to be true through the various signs and miracles that His children, the Christians especially Pastors do in our day!
Thank you for asking

But nothing you said corresponds with that infact written in Scripture. You merely regurgitated the script fed to you from the mouths of your religious leaders. What Scripture says is entirely different from all that religious nonsense. 🙄

Lasgidi90:
Stop feeding us with lies. I thought the demon offsprings all died with the flood.

What demon offspring? Rather, what is recorded is that their children who turned out mighty men at the time turned out no different from the rest of the people of the time... they were people, and people at that time were all wicked.

KingNom:
■ Kindly understand that 1. God had put the earth under man's control as per tenancy agreement (between the landlord; God & his tenant; man), hence there are principles He keeps concerning interference
2. The angels before their fall were entrusted with responsibilities by God as watchers over areas of the world and other things, hence they broke their trust and perverted much of God's creation

Stop propagating what are narratives born of lies. Again, look at what is written and compare it to the tales you spew... what fallen angels?

Nvestor02:
God should have handle the solution from the sources. How did so call fallen angels come to this world self... No he God plan? You people cannot think 🤔

What "fallen angels"?

KingNom:
■ The Question
Reading the Bible at times, you'd ask:
'if God is loving and kind, why did He instruct the Israelites to kill their enemies, women and children especially? Is this the trademark of a Merciful Loving God as Christians preach today?'
The Answer
From the Book of Genesis, we understand that the fallen angels took human ladies as wives with their offspring becoming giants and wicked people. This caused wickedness to spread so wide and deep on the earth that God destroyed everything with the flood except Noah and those with him in the ark. Genesis 6,7
After the flood, these evil angels and their offspring continued polluting the human race by marrying/sleeping with women, reason God set Abraham and his kids aside so as to preserve a pure human race through which the Saviour Jesus would come to save God's Creation. Genesis 12

I am afraid there is no real truth to pretty much your beginning statements there. Contrary to popular religious belief, there is no correlation in the passage below between the sons of God taking the daughters of men for wives and the proliferation of evil among the sons of men at that time.

1-4 The number of people on earth continued to increase. When these people had daughters, the sons of God saw how beautiful they were. So they chose the women they wanted. They married them, and the women had their children.
Then the Lord said, “People are only human. I will not let my Spirit be troubled by them forever. I will let them live only 120 years.”
During this time and also later, the Nephilim people lived in the land. They have been famous as powerful soldiers since ancient times.
5 The Lord saw that the people on the earth were very evil. He saw that they thought only about evil things all the time.
6 The Lord was sorry that he had made people on the earth. It made him very sad in his heart.
7 So the Lord said, “I will destroy all the people I created on the earth. I will destroy every person and every animal and everything that crawls on the earth. And I will destroy all the birds in the air, because I am sorry that I have made them.”
8 But Noah pleased the Lord. - Genesis 6 vs 1 - 8

Neither is there any direct connection made by God to suggest any such anywhere else in Scripture.

AbuTwins:
■ What manuscripts?
■ Consistency is that Jesus should be the same yesterday today and forever!
■ God shouldn't change! But God changed and became man! God doesn't accept human blood before. Then he had to kill his son!
Before God was fair and just as the sinners were punished themselves but later God send the sinless to be killed tfor the sins of others!

How are these consistent?

1. You tell me since you are the one attempting to make the argument for inconsistency here?

2. Jesus Christ shouldn't change? You mean like when He was born, he should not have grown from a baby into a man and so on -- that kind of change?

This is how you know someone who has never in fact read the book for himself but beats his chest in ignorance and arrogance pretending that he has it all figured out.

32 “The fig tree teaches us a lesson: When its branches become green and soft, and new leaves begin to grow, then you know that summer is very near.
33 In the same way, when you see all these things happening, you will know that the time is very near, already present.
34 I assure you that all these things will happen while some of the people of this time are still living.
35 The whole world, earth and sky, will be destroyed, but my words will last forever. - Matthew 24 vs 32 - 35

The Word of God — Jesus Christ(not the body of Jesus Christ) — is what is described as everlasting — the same yesterday, today, and forever. The Word of God is the Word out of God's Mouth — God's Law— and it is an eternal Law

29 Then Jesus told this story: “Look at all the trees. The fig tree is a good example. 30 When it turns green, you know that summer is very near. 31 In the same way, when you see all these things happening, you will know that God’s kingdom is very near.
32 “I assure you that all these things will happen while some of the people of this time are still living.
33 The whole world, earth and sky, will be destroyed, but my words will last forever. - Luke 21 vs 29 - 33

3. You mean the God of Israel — YHWH— changed and became Jesus Christ? But Jesus Christ made it abundantly clear that He is NOT YHWH— God of the Nation of Israel— so how did you come to conclude that YHWH who you are told in the Old Law is not a man changed into Jesus Christ who made clear that He is not YHWH?

I really would like to suggest at this point that you log off the internet and look to spending the bulk of your time reading through the book so you don't continue to make these kindergarten-level errors regarding what is contained in Scripture.

AbuTwins:
■ The dictionary defines while I did more than just definition!
■ Anything called scriptures must have been compiled by someone!
■ The OP is a church goer and this is obviously his thread which you hijacked the question I specifically asked him! If you didn't butt in there won't have been any arguments in the first place?
■ You comparing the dictionary to a scripture is illogical!
■ How did God breath into the scriptures?

1. I will pass on your definition since it makes no sense to me. Scripture predates your church fathers or whatever you call them.
2. Indeed! However, where you doubt the compilation, you can equally consult the information in the manuscript for yourself.

3. I am not the OP, and neither do I believe as the OP does, so generalizing your assumptions regarding the OP's beliefs is an error on your part.
4. Illogical in what sense? Your original claim was that the Bible(a collection of books) was inconsistent merely because all bibles did not contain the same number of books, and I asked you if you would make the same claim regarding a Dictionary(a collection of words, and their various definitions). What is illogical about that?

5. You tell me cause you are insisting now that God breathed into Scripture, something that sounds a lot different from what Paul is written to have said in his letter.

AbuTwins:
■ How do you define consistency? How is the Bible consistent when some verse can be here in the KJV and not in the NIV?
■ Is there anything consistent therein? God becoming man to save people He had been saving without human sacrifice but now with human sacrifice! What is consistent in the Bible? You tell me!

1. Am I to take it that your focus is not in fact on the details contained in the books but rather on the standardization of the translation process across the many different groups that undertake the project? I ask because if you really are interested in the verses... the manuscripts themselves have not changed in almost 2000 years and that should suffice. But it seems you are more interested in bickering over what one group of translators or another have done as though to suggest that there are standards they are to abide by suggested in the books when no such exists.

2. So, tell me, what exactly is inconsistent about God becoming man to save people? Who made this Law for God that He cannot do just that? Where you do get this idea of a human sacrifice because the books are clear that human sacrifices are against God. Are you sure you have ever actually read the book for yourself as it instead seems you confuse the lies fed to you by religiously ignorant folks like yourself with the actual contents of the books themselves?

mauriceju2:
You are deliver in Jesus name Jesus loves you and do not want you to perish Jesus is coming soon, are you ready for the coming of the lord? The blood of Jesus was shed for the forgiveness of your sin

Abeg get away!

AbuTwins:
■ My definition is correct. The dictionary states the old testament and the new testament. This were determined by the Church fathers! Who collated the scriptures as scriptures? Was it God?
■ You should ask your church going brothers why God reveals the scriptures through the holy spirit. In Timothy a verse exists that say every scripture is God-breathed... So which scripture is God-breathed? The 66 books Bible or the 73, 82,etc? Which authentic manuscripts do you suggest?
■ The dictionary is not God-breathed! So your analogy remains illogical. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

1. The dictionary does not indicate the existence of those whom you refer to your church fathers so definitely the idea that that which is Old and that which is New is determined by some group you refer to as your church fathers, is not accepted by all.

2. I don't ask in churchgoing brothers since there is no mention in Scripture that one must do any such which you claim before one can gain an understanding of the book and its contents. So again, these assertions of yours are born of a need to argue needlessly about that which is rightly no substance.

3. God-breathed is illogical? Interesting claim since the breath of God animates all living beings including all human beings implying that humans are inspired by God. Are humans by that equally illogical in their existence?

in·spired

1. of extraordinary quality, as if arising from some external creative impulse.
"they had to thank the goalie for some inspired saves"
2. (of air or another substance) that is breathed in.
"inspired air must be humidified"

All that Paul said in his letter to his friend Timothy is that Scripture is God-breath, aka inspired, so care to explain how that is illogical?

EreluRoz:
Sarah made Abraham sent Hagar away after having her own child and God instructed Abraham to do as Sarah said. Like I said earlier that rivalry is still on today but most people don't know. Sarah and Hagar are representing nations and their children Ishmael and Isaac are the fathers of this nations and this nations are still rivalring till today.

That is only as assumed by the religious folks out there. There is no direct link from Ishmael to all Arabs of the time of Abraham and even to this day. Before Mohammed showed up to claim a link existed, most Arabs did not claim descendants of the line of Ishmael, and rightly so.

ictplotter:
■ But initially you lied to me, that Ismael was not a legitimate son of Abraham because his mother was not a wife but a side chic and being illegitimate son
■ he can not be part of Abraham God promised blessings.
■ But now you have come up with same fake stories from ur pastors without biblical verses to mislead the gullible who are so lazy to read the Bible. I'm a Muslim and I read the whole Bible both old n new testament.

1. I lie to you? I don't remember having a conversation with you on this subject. Anyways, as regards Hagar, there is no question that she was little question that she was a concubine to Abraham. We can probably take a look at the example from Jacob's experience which is documented in the same book of Genesis.

1 Rachel saw that she was not giving Jacob any children. She became jealous of her sister Leah. So Rachel said to Jacob, “Give me children, or I will die!”
2 Jacob became angry with Rachel and said, “I am not God. He is the one who has caused you to not have children.”
3 Then Rachel said, “You can have my maid Bilhah. Sleep with her, and she will have a child for me. Then I can be a mother through her.”
4 So Rachel gave Bilhah to her husband Jacob. He had sexual relations with Bilhah.
5 She became pregnant and gave birth to a son for Jacob.
6 Rachel said, “God has listened to my prayer. He decided to give me a son.” So she named this son Dan.
7 Bilhah became pregnant again and gave Jacob a second son.
8 Rachel said, “I have fought hard to compete with my sister, and I have won.” So she named that son Naphtali.
9 Leah saw that she could have no more children. So she gave her slave girl Zilpah to Jacob.
10 Then Zilpah had a son.
11 Leah said, “I am lucky.” So she named the son Gad.
12 Zilpah gave birth to another son.
13 Leah said, “I am very happy! Now women will call me happy.” So she named that son Asher. - Genesis 30 vs 1 - 13

Sarah equally gave Hagar to Abraham so he could have a son with her that she would then accept as her own.

1. Sarai was Abram’s wife, but she did not have any children. She had an Egyptian slave named Hagar.
2 Sarai told Abram, “The Lord has not allowed me to have children, so sleep with my slave. Maybe she can have a son, and I will accept him as my own.” Abram did what Sarai said.
3 So after living ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai gave her Egyptian slave to Abram as a second wife.
4 Abram slept with Hagar, and she became pregnant. When Hagar realized this, she became very proud and began to feel that she was better than Sarai her owner.
5 Then Sarai said to Abram, “My slave girl now hates me, and I blame you for this. I gave her to you, and she became pregnant. Then she began to feel that she is better than I am. I want the Lord to judge which of us is right.” - Genesis 16 vs 1 - 5

Hagar was supposed to have a child on behalf of Sarah. But upon realizing she was pregnant, Hagar became arrogant and began feeling she was better than Sarai, her owner , and that is never a good idea.

However, the legitimacy of her son is not in question. Ishmael was Abraham's son.

2. Something I notice with almost all of the arguments regarding whom it was God promised what to, is that folks you keep missing out on the most important thing of all which is that the blessing from God was not given as a sort of replacement for an inheritance from Abraham himself to his children. If an inheritance from father to children is what is up for discussion here then definitely, all of Abraham's children, including Ishmael, Isaac, Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah, were entitled to their father's property, and it is recorded that Abraham did pass on an inheritance to all of them

1. Abraham married again. His new wife was named Keturah.
2 She gave birth to Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah.
3 Jokshan was the father of Sheba and Dedan. The people of Asshur,[a] Leum, and Letush were descendants of Dedan.
4 The sons of Midian were Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abida, and Eldaah. All these sons came from the marriage of Abraham and Keturah. 5-6 Before Abraham died, he gave some gifts to his sons who were from his slave women. He sent them to the East,[b] away from Isaac. Then Abraham gave everything he owned to Isaac. - Genesis 25 vs 1 - 6

God's blessings had nothing to do with the above at all. God's blessings on Abraham had instead to do with God's very own plan which He had designed to use Abraham for, and the particular son of Abraham, God chose to use in this plan of His — not Abraham's— was Isaac.

3. Huh? Are you certain you are not here to argue blindly?

EreluRoz:
∆ I have never believed he's an illegitimate child kos God cannot make his Prophet have an illegitimate child. I think he married her when Sarah couldn't conceive.
∆ Hagar is the mother of Arabians The rivalry between Sarah and Hagar is still on till today if you trace history back to the Bible

1. let's not start making things up abeg!
2. Where is it written that Hagar is the mother of Arabs? Even Arabs don't make such a claim.

ictplotter:
Hagar was given to Abraham as a legal wife not as side chic by his first wife called Sarah. Then Hagar took in and gave birth to Abraham first child called Ismael. So why the Christians telling lies that Ismael is an illegitimate son of Abraham because his mother Hagar was a side chic not Abraham wife.
Pls read Genesis 16 vs 3.

Here's a question. Does it really matter what the Christians says of Hagar given that ultimately you are unable to track your very lineage back to her son, and most importantly the promise that was given was bestowed by the God of Abraham on his descendant's from the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Something interesting to note is that all three of the men whose descendants were chosen by God are written to have attained Holiness and were eventually approved righteous by Him?

AbuTwins:
■ Your definition is deficient. Bible is a collection of books some sets of church fathers agreed upon as scriptures for the Christians some centuries after Christ! Consistency means: acting or done in the same way over time, especially so as to be fair or accurate. "the parents are being consistent and firm in their reactions"
2.(of an argument or set of ideas) not containing any logical contradictions. "a consistent explanation" How are Bibles having 66 , 73, 82, 83, etc books consistent? God is not the author of confusion! How many books did God authentically revealed through your holy spirit? Which Hebrew or Greek manuscript typically contains all the books of the Bible as it is today? No two manuscripts is the same! How many will I look? And is there any full manuscripts of the new testament carbon-dated to 300AD? I don't think so!
So which manuscripts do you suggest?
■ A dictionary doesn't come with a claim of consistency, being truthful whole and whole as the OP claimed! And a dictionary doesn't come with the claim to be he word of God! So this analogy is illogical.

Wait a minute... so rather than go with the generally accepted meaning, we instead argue on a meaning provided by your person? For realZ!!!

Let's stick to what is established abeg! I don't know who your particular fathers are in this but the Bible is a collection of scriptures as defined by the dictionary for all.

Bi·ble
/ˈbīb(ə)l/
1. the Christian scriptures, consisting of the Old and New Testaments.the Jewish scriptures, consisting of the Torah or Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa or Writings.
a copy of the Christian or Jewish scriptures.
2. INFORMAL a book regarded as authoritative in a particular sphere.

2. God reveals books through His Holy Spirit. Yikes! Where is this written for Pete's sake? Why would a manuscript have to contain All of the individual books, each written over periods some of which span decades? Why must a manuscript account for all of the books before it can be considered viable scripture? I am not exactly sure why you keep insisting the count of books much match when even in this day and age, dictionaries are not expected to have the same number of words and definition counts.

3. Whereabouts in all of Scripture then is this argument, that the dictionary does not make, made? How can it be illogical when you show that your premise remains illogical?

AbuTwins:
■ If you claim I am right then the OP is obviously wrong to have made such fallacious claims!
■God of Israel is consistent how? How is Jesus consistent? Show us objective proofs!

Same as you though. Your claim that the book is inconsistent merely based on the count of books in the Bible, a collection of books, is equally fallacious.

2. Objective proofs of what kind? What is it that you find inconsistent about the descriptions contained in the compendium of books regarding the God of Israel and Jesus Christ? I would first need to understand your meaning, wouldn't I?

The devil does not sin. There is no record of any sin filed against him. Scripture, instead has the devil as a worktool created by God to carry out the work of tempting men to sin against God. Scripture does not indicate that the devil is himself able to sin. Rather, the devil was born of lies from his creation and goes around tempting men into sinning against God.

AbuTwins:
■ All these can be said of many other religious books. Those opinions above are subjective. Do you have any objective opinions as to why the Bible is the word of God and how the Bible is consistent? Can you brief us on how the Bible came to be what it is today? Some Bible has 66 books, some 73, some 82, 83 books etc. Explain how it is consistent?
■ In the preface to RSV, the 50 scholars of Divinity that wrote it accaimed that the KJV has great defects and that's what necessitates the RSV. And KJV is the most popular and the most translated to other languages! So tell me how can the Bible contain any truth when even the Christian scholars/writers admit great defects in it!

A Bible is merely a collection of books that are considered scripture. The collection can be of either 66 or even 4 or more. Why does the consistency of the information in the books need to be dependent on the number of books in the collection? I don't follow!

Additionally, if you do not like any of the translations available out there, you are free to consult the Hebrew or Greek collections for your self. It just seems time-wasting to have to argue inconsistency based on the number of books in a collection — a bible.

Is a dictionary — a library/collection of words and definitions— inconsistent on the basis that it does not contain the same # of words and definitions as another dictionary out there?

AbuTwins:
Just give verifiable proofs inside and outside the Bible!

You are right that the Bible isn't the word of God since the contents of the book instead point to Jesus Christ being the Word of God, and not the books themselves. That said, can you please expand on the request you have made above? Verifiable proof inside and outside of the Bible of what exactly? That God of Israel is consistent? That Jesus Christ is consistent? What?

mysticwarrior:
■ The devil who is responsible for causing humans to sin has been left to roam the earth, while humans are being made to face punishment by death for their sins since the beginning of their existence.
■ According to the Bible the earth was flooded with water just because God wants to get rid of sinners, after the flood humans still continued to sin, again Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed for their sins and again people still continue to sin even till this day.
■ In the quest of putting and end to a problem, it is required to deal with the root cause of the problem to prevent that same problem from reoccurring. Now my question is, why has the devil and his agents who are the architect of sin not being destroyed as a final solution to completely get rid of sin? is he an immortal being that cannot be destroyed by the "creator of all things"?

1. The only one responsible for humans sinning is humans. The devil or Satan instead is merely a workman doing the job for which he was created which is to tempt men into doing evil. There is no indication that the devil is capable of evil himself. Throughout scripture, there is no entry to be found of the devil sinning against God. Rather, he is capable of tempting men to do evil. The option is left to men whether or do to do evil.

2. God did not flood the world to rid the world of evil. After all, scripture does not indicate that all of Noah's family members on the boat with him were without sin. So, the idea that God did it to rid the world of sin makes no sense. An argument could instead be made that the proportion of evil at the time was overwhelming and so God flooded the world to curb the population of evil at that time.

3. Your initial premise is shown to be wrong. This means that this assertion of yours fails. God created Satan to carry out His work, and satan has no hand in the committing of evil. Rather, men are responsible for the choices they make. That is what Scripture reveals.

Glimpsetv:
■ Lol. Yes, I filmed it because I wanted to share it with us. Also, to find out if there are Akara and Pap lovers like me here, or if it's just me being too weird with unusual cravings.

Akara and pap lovers who would not make it themselves but would rather others, unpaid, do the work, right?

mauriceju2:
TESTIMONIES OF FORMER AGENT OF SATAN
The attache

Rubbish claims!

Homoviator:
■ Does God really judge men by their occupation? I was discussing with a brother, and he told me of a friend who runs Miracle centre, and is highly active in church activities. He concluded that he can't run such business because it doesn't tally with Christian virtues, that it promotes examination malpractice. Before then, I never thought such business as being ungodly. I need contributions. Thanks.

Jesus Christ instead decreed that those who belong to Him are those who no longer work for bread that perishes; His followers instead work for food that endures to eternity. None of your worldly occupations or professions meet that stipulation. So, your friend and his so-called ministry equally have nothing to do with God.

Glimpsetv:
■ I don't understand. What is exactly your point, sir?🤔

The video says you didn't make it yourself (you instead filmed the making). That's my early morning beef with this.

Glimpsetv:
■What we do for love 🤭 ■The pap was made at home, bro.

In 2024, your video says you had your woman make it for you, yet you call that love?

Did your woman equally have to spend her time making that one as well? Was she equally not allowed to source the pre-made products from outside as well? Anyway, I have not had my morning coffee yet. Maybe that is why I am a bit snappy right now.

It seemed your woman had lots of time on her hand for this.

The pap was not homemade?

Tourist42:
■ If Satan was after Jesus' life, wat was now
■ the wrong of Peter as he was trying to prevent the arrest of Jesus?
■ Why would he be called "*Satan" as he wanted to stop Jesus arrest due to his care for Christ at this point?

1. Satan was not after Jesus Christ's life. This is because:
▶ Jesus Christ Himself announced several times to His followers that He had to die and then be raised from the dead
▶ The Prophets announced this would be the case with the Messiah
▶ Satan was aware of who Jesus Christ was and must have known that Jesus Christ's death was not a big deal given what Jesus Christ Himself said in John 10 vs 7-18

2. Peter's violated Matthew 5 vs 38 - 48 & Luke 6 vs 27 - 36. He attacked a man and that is sin against God.

3. Peter was rather referred to as "Satan" by Jesus Christ when he, Peter, allowed Satan to use him as a tool to tempt Jesus Christ to go against the decreed by His Father.

22 Peter took Jesus away from the other followers to talk to him alone. He began to criticize him. He said, “God save you from those sufferings, Lord! That will never happen to you!”
23 Then Jesus said to Peter, “Get away from me, Satan! You are not helping me! You don’t care about the same things God does. You care only about things that people think are important.”
24 Then Jesus said to his followers, “If any of you want to be my follower, you must stop thinking about yourself and what you want. You must be willing to carry the cross that is given to you for following me. - Matthew 16 vs 22 - 24

Peter pretty much said that what God had ordained would not happen and then he insisted that God is the one who would also not allow that which He decreed to take place.

Tourist42:
∆ The point is Peter(*used by Satan) wanted to stop Christ from going to the Cross, which was against God's plan of Jesus going to the Cross.
∆ Buh in the case of Judas and even Peter(*also used by Satan to betray Christ), you would notice that this action facilitated Christ going to the Cross.
∆ Did Satan change is mind or what? Or are they two different Satan here? Was he taking two sides or what? ∆ How do u reconcile this two different workings with the fact that Satan is seen as a transgressor of God's plan?

1. Maybe I am having an off day or something cause I still don't get you..

Satan tried to use Peter to tempt Jesus Christ into changing His mind about submitting to that which was already written about Him in the prophets but Jesus Christ refused. For this reason, Jesus Christ called Peter, Satan, given he, Peter, was being used at that point by the tempter --- no evil committed though !

Satan tempted Judas into selling Jesus Christ for 30 pieces of silver to the Pharisees who wanted Him, Jesus Christ, killed, and Judas fell for Satan's temptation. He actually acted in sin -- evil --- against Jesus Christ.

2. . When Peter in fact sinned against Jesus Christ by denying Him, Peter did sin against Jesus Christ but other than fulfilling what Jesus Christ had earlier said to Peter would happen, I fail to see how that act facilitated Christ's going to the cross.

3. Change his mind about what exactly? Tempting men into doing that which is against God's Law or what exactly? Satan tempts everyone as he will, why assume there exists different Satan's because his plan for all is not the same?

4. Again, Satan's primary goal is to cause men to disobey God's Law/will. The way he goes about it is different in each case but the ultimate goal is to cause men who are under Law to disobey God's Law. Of course, it would be expected that even in his opposition of God's Law, Satan's acts will be used by God to accomplish His will; that's a no-brainer since Satan is afterall a servant under God and hence used by God.

Sapasenator:
■Kobo let me tell you something. My MIL once enrolled for the pastoral training at RCCG. You need to pass through this to be ordained in the church. During the final exam, lots of them were cheating.

How very Christian of them too!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Sapasenator:
■ Lots of them must have lied on their Visa application to the UK, use fake bank accounts while applying, overstayed e.t.c Nigerian Christian my black ass* Why cant they return to their country destroyed by religion and tribalism.

To the average Christian out there, none of these you mentioned are sins. Even their GO Daddies are in on most of these things including rigging of elections in Nigeria.

Tourist42:
■ Thumbs up, I wanted someone to say sth in line with wat I wrote up there... How do you reconcile the whole thing? Or am I wrong in my inference? Because it doesn't seem to make logical sense.

I would rather ask that you visit the book and what is written rather than give credence to the claims of Christianity in this. The information contained in the book is quite logical if you reason it.