₦airaland Forum

vooks:
You are clinging to hot air, you want to catch me in error so I can back off from pointing out your unintelligent lies. Post all my posts her but I wil not back off. You need to realize that you are dealing with a man not a kid and am least intimidated by your private curses nor fickle attempts at blackmail. You have fatally failed with your double ascension theory and now you are onto the blood of Jesus. Keep digging puny brains
You adduce evidence NOT by paraphrasing off your rear end but by posting the very post I made or a quote of the same. That way others reading this thread can refer to the quote for themselves instead of trusting the memory of a goD before whole Christ must kneel and beg to take home.

Save the super story. I quoted your post verbatim- there was no paraphrasing. Let that "non-puny brain" of yours get to work by proof-reading one of the posts I directed at you. Your post is there. If you also have any iota of honesty you would apologize for belaboring the questions you have asked me knowing that I had responded to them since yesterday.

vooks:
Mbaemeko,
I demand you provide proof of your claims that I posted or insinuated that Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia and not Antioch as recorded in Galatians 2 failure to which I demand an unconditional apology.

Failure to this, it will be clear before all that you are a serial liar, who the father of all lies is,and I will not hesitate to remind you this as long as I run into you on this site. You also stand condemned before God for LYING

Bla bla bla. You are my groupie that's what you are. Any day you don't mention me on NL you have failed in your duties as one. Don't feel jilted. The privilege is afforded to an exclusive preserve.

Don't forget to call me a calvinist too. I will like to see your friends publicly rebuke you for that.

vooks:
How many seconds would it take you to dig up your own post on this thread that's barely 72 hours?
You are shamelessly dishonest. You won't pull the thread because it is nonexistent and unlike the hacking phoney story, this is inexcusable. Grown ups take responsibility for their words. You are everything but that

Mr "there-is-nothing-like-without-shedding-of-blood-there-is-no-forgiveness-of-sins" I made a post to you on the matter and I showed you your quote. So save the theatrics for the employees you have and beat it!

vooks:
Post your quote of my post before editing and grow up and learn to tell decent lies. It don't matter what everyone thinks of here, what matters is the contents you post here. They range from stupid to heretical. You are just good at regurgitating Oyaks nonsense without thinking.

*ignored*

vooks:
Post your quote of my post BEFORE editing. Or you edited that too? You are an overgrown baby, a Christ Embassy extremist who would gladly lie and kill for your goD

Don't inject Christ ascension here and thereby catch many by 'surprise' Christ ascended to heaven 40 days AFTER resurrection. The Sunday ascension is hare-brained attempt at theology

*Ignored*

vooks:
goD mbaemeka,
So all we have are your MEMORY? How convenient! And that you took all this long to recall that! Puny brained goD

Who is this child? Go through my posts from the get-go. I have been saying it since. You who claims to "comprehend things and read the words instead of the spaces with his non-puny brain" should be shamefaced that you are just grasping it. Those who know me in person will almost unanimously vote me as the least likely with a puny brain. I am putting this out to you since we are in the season of telling people we are millionaires or employers of labor.

vooks:
kiddo,
mbaemeka claimed that I had posted that Paul corrected Peter in Galatia. When I challenged him to back up his claim, he dithered. That is a MINOR mistake but I never did it and he used it to paint me as scripture-illiterate. Is this some self defence stuff you are taught at Christ Embassy, maligning your opponents?

I gave you your quote and you asked me for the link to it probably because you edited the post forgetting that I had already quoted you before you did so. I even gave you a lifeline by telling you to claim that was not what you meant by your post. I didn't use any one post to paint you as a scripture illiterate. You have done so consistently through your posts. You foolhardily claimed that Jesus didn't take his blood to the Most holy place in heaven and when I showed you the scriptures in Hebrews you termed it a "pentecostal heresy". The same person who said "remission of sins had nothing to do with the shedding of blood". You are painting your scriptural incapacitations all on your own.

Gombs:
Oh Please! Spare me the baloney!
Now you want to look good about it, right? Leading exposer huh? SMH

You don't seem to understand what is going on bro. The sore loser isn't denying the accusations- he is asking for the link. Why? because the link got lost when NL was hacked. If he claims he never made the statements then we need not wait for the devil himself- the father of lies, for he is fully manifest in anyone who can make such barefaced lies. We can ask Bidam and I believe even Trustman was on the said thread. If my memory serves me well Trustman tried to correct him to no avail. In the other WOF thread or so, Bidam challenged him with the same fact and the "thing" corrected him by saying "I didn't say Eve slept with Satan" he meant "the serpent" and he even thanked me for properly quoting him. Now challenged with his crimes against the scriptures in front of his friends, he wants to deny the rank heresies he spewed thinking it made him a maverick. Hopeless joke.

Candour:
I too have some form of 'first fruit' practice if we can call it that. What i won't do is say it is in obedience to a biblical mandate to christians like some preachers do. That to me is ignorance at best or lying at worst.

^^^This should have been the topic clincher.

If he did on the pulpit or in his other books after writing Midas Touch, he'll correctly be labelled as lying.

I didn't say he preached it as a christian doctrine. I said he practiced it. I have heard Tunde Bakare say the same things about Firstfruits and tithes too. And by "heard" I mean I heard him live not that I read a particular link or thread.

However, It is purely Mosaic in form and practice. There is no scripture to support the notion that Abel gave first fruits offering or that Abraham was giving first fruits offering when he laid Isaac on the altar (infact churches prefer to use this to preach giving your all -mainly money and other material resources- to God).

Nope @ the emboldened. Every instance I mentioned carried the principle of firstfruits giving long before the Mosaic law. Recall I said firstfruits referred to the first and probably the best. That's the allusion given to the term all through the scriptures- old and new.

Genesis 4:4Amplified Bible (AMP)
4 And Abel brought of the firstborn of his flock and of the fat portions. And the Lord had respect and regard for Abel and for his offering

Genesis 22:2Amplified Bible (AMP)
2 [God] said, Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I will tell you.

Also on the issue of King Mesha, i'm sure you remember he was the pagan king of a pagan Moab who were worshipping Molech?

True but the principle is what he expressed. What he did was akin to what God asked Abraham to do. Recall that the Moabites grew up under the tutelage of the Israelites somewhat. They must have learned this principle from them.

are you saying he did human sacrifice to God as first fruits offerings and God accepted it and stopped his chosen people from utterly defeating the moabites?

God respected the man's offering. I believe the bible gives strong indications as to that regard or is it easier to believe that God told the Israelites something but then the "deity" of the Moabites upturned God's word/prophecy? God said he would successfully "deliver the Moabites also into their hands" but after the man's sacrifice the same scriptures state that "there was great indignation against Israel and the people were forced to go back to their land". This means the Moabites weren't delivered to Israel's hands again and I strongly believe that only God almighty could have done that for them.

Also, are you saying God gave us first fruits offering? We are talking of first fruits offering, not just any first fruits. My first child is obviously the first fruits from my loins. The first salary i received when i started work is the first fruits of my working career. i have other first fruits as well but we are not talking of those.

God sacrificed his firstfruit, Jesus his son. He "offered" his son FOR us and not TO us. If you for example, dedicated/offered your first child for the work of God, that is a form of firstfruit offerings. You would be following the principle. That's exactly what I meant and that is why some people give their first salary to the work of God.

vooks:
Sir,
With all due respect, Hagin went further than mentioning it; he denounced it, otherwise it would be hard to rationalize the man teaching ANY form of Firstfruits where all he mentions about them is AGAINST. If he sought to correct the application OR administration of the doctrine like he does to some extent on tithing, I would have expected some form of formation of the same

If you could read you would have seen it.

BabaGnoni:
mbaemeka, now it is confirmed that you are a fat-headed good for nothing/worthless person

On top of been a drama queen, you are hearing impaired - it was nora544 and Lobeez first who added videos on the thread until others responded will follow ups and more details

You're so gormless, you really don't have a clue.
Keep on making statements but not doing it in verbatim, and be basking in the thoughtless praises of those hoodwinked and caught up in your misrepresentations and deceitfulness.

You have a psychological problem mbaemeka, no doubt as your paranoia with IDs or monickers are very well known.
You're clutching at straws about anyone deactivating accounts, and lying through your teeth making unfounded allegations

You're playing to the gallery because you're nothing than an attention-seeking, distracting, desperate sad person who will try anything, say anything, no matter how unlikely, how untrue, just to massage that over-bloated ego of yours that needs a good old deflating

You have nothing on me. Suck it up. Loser.

OK man. It sure does hurt to be exposed as an intellectual fugazi. If you had the chance I am sure you would rush to edit the 'not-too-wise' claim you made about Galileo and Columbus.

Let me let you heal from the pain. No need to strike a thing when he is down.

vooks:
Enter the Mother of conjectures.
ANYTHING you do to 'merge' I can easily with scriptures disprove. Jerome was here before you but unlike you, he bowed to common sense. He thought Peter was not the same Cephas who denied Christ thrice! You merge related events not Pentecost and circumcision of Jesus Christ.

You may try and merge resurrection appearances and watch your double ascension theory fall flat. I highly recommend a book, The Easter Enigma. It will prevent your puny brains from overheating trying to work it out all by yourself

You make me laugh. I can take you to places in your bible that you have read for days and spin you with them. As per 'puny brains' let me join you laughing hard to that joke

I'd leave it there for now since it seems you are indeed a newbie.

Let me help you out a little. Look for a thread called "the Falsehoods of Paul" and see how my ability to merge Acts and Galatians helped enlighten a few people whose brains although puny, will make yours appear microscopic if juxtaposed.

Gombs:
I understand perfectly, I nearly gave it to some folks here, we just have to restrain ourselves, so that folks can clearly differentiate those who are uncultured.

Good councel bro. I heed.

Candour:
Ok. Actually, No new testament scripture talks about first fruits in relation to material giving to God or anybody. (i stand to be corrected)



at the bolded, do you have any scripture in the NT to confirm that? If you decide to apply the Mosaic law and Solomon's admonition on first fruits to yourself, it's very well within your rights after all, there are a lot of practices from Mosaic law and the OT which some people have picked personal doctrines from which i trust you and i would agree has no relevance to a Christian. What i can't find a support for is first fruit as a doctrine for a Christians.

If Hagin affirms that first fruits has nothing to do with financial giving or money in the NT, then if i agree with you that he still went ahead to give first fruits, in what form then did he give the first fruits?





@the bolded, that's not the only thing he said. see the full statement ''[size=16pt]The concept of firstfruits is not used in the New Testament in reference to financial giving. There is not even the vaguest hint of it by any New Testament writer in reference to money or the support of ministers.[/size]''

Hagin is saying ''Nothing in the new testament talks about first fruits as a form of financial giving, support for ministers or even money at all''

I'm not against folks deciding to practice it. What i rebel against is preaching it from the pulpit as a christian doctrine. It is Mosaic in form and practice. It will be much better if Christians are told this truth and i trust that's what Hagin said in the book.

Certainly you and Hagin are right in the sense that there was not a mention of the word firstfruits as related to money or financial givings in the NT. But the word (or compound word as the case maybe) 'firstfruits' actually means the 'first' from both NT and OT accounts alike and that is the PRINCIPLE (not doctrine) that some of us applied to Proverbs 3:9.

Also I believe Hagin gave money as his firstfruits but he didn't teach it as a doctrine like one will teach Baptisms or Laying on of hands. He probably practiced giving firstfruits with the same mentality those that give 90% of their incomes have I.e he practiced it based on his convictions about giving and not because any law said so.

Also, I disagree with the idea of it being taught as a doctrine when it clearly isn't even as I disagree with the notion that it is Mosaic in form and practice. Abel gave firstfruits to God. God asked Abraham for his 'firstfruits' of some sorts (Isaac), Jesus was God's firstfruit, King Mesha gave his firstfruit (his son) to God and it was honoured. I believe it is just a principle like when people give gifts to their parents even if the said Parents are far richer than their kids.

That's my take.

vooks:
I think like other physical faculties, thinking is unevenly distributed and I have prize evidence here

You are just kicking the can further down the road. What is the basis for ASSUMING that 'other Jews' MUST mean Jews sent from Jerusalem? We're there not Jews in Antioch together with Paul?

Now, you are fantasizing about imaginary letters from James and claiming the same letter to be what Paul and Barnbas were entrusted with in Acts 15? I think if there is a goD in Nigeria it must be Oyaks and you would kill for him not just lie.

Acts 15:25 (KJV)
It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul

Verse 27
(KJV) We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth

Verse 30-34
(KJV) So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: 31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation. 32 And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them. 33 And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles. 34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still. 35 Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

Can you explain to me how and why with evidence (and Rhapsodies/Oyaks BS don't count) you believe Paul got to Anioch AHEAD of the VERY letter he was commissioned to deliver there? If 'certain came from James' are those sent to deliver the epistle,why would Paul regard himself as not part of that delegation yet Acts 15:25 is clear he was part of it?

Am still waiting for you to apologize and withdraw the false allegations against the person of vooks regarding the claim that I said Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia. But you are exempted if Naija goDs don't apologize to mortals

Ask politely and I would teach you. Luke wrote Acts and Paul wrote Galatians. To get thr full picture of the whole occurrence we would need to merge both accounts. I know you are not well versed in the scriptures because if you were you would have known that. I can show you many instances between both books that if one doesn't merge them properly each story will look like a contradiction. Let me show the one concerning what is being discussed.

Read Galatians 2 from verse 1-14 and take note of when the meeting in Jerusalem ended. I think it was around verse 5-9 or so. You would see that whilst Paul verbally narrated the minutes of the meeting to the church in Antioch, Silas and Judas came with a written letter which they read out (Acts 15). You would tell from Paul's account in Galatians 2 that the sent men from James like Silas and co could have only come well after he and Barnabas did and also well after Peter arrived.

Don't be incorrigible. Learn to study properly before posting.

vooks:
Repeat, who said Eve had sex with the serpent? Where is that?
Unlike you I read lines not empty spaces between them.
If you must know, am fully circumcised but that's nothing

You can paste my post here where I said thus. The only reason you haven't done so is because you sought to deflect from your Oyaks stupid theories by FALSELY accusing me of an error.

Jesus ascended ONCE after resurrection. The rest is fiction. We can get to that but first paste my thread where I said Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia. You are a dirty dishonest negro fit only for regurgitating Christ Embassy manuals

I am ignoring this post because I don't want to spend today apologising to God. Let me just chip in at this juncture that I am very sure you read the spaces in between words and nothing more. Maybe someone with more patience than me will answer the question on the serpent and your post which I already showed to you. As per how many times Jesus resurrected tell that to Mary.

Gombs:


Haba mba! Was this necessary? Calm down, it's not worth following his footsteps of insults.

I regretted sending it right after. Some of these guys can make one make posts that would cause one to end up apologizing to God for.

Candour:
Luke 14:13, 14
But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: And thou shalt be blessed:for they cannot recompense thee:for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.

There's nothing about first fruits from the Luke reference you gave as can be seen from the text above. you might want to check again

Also if Hagin said the below



What then is the basis you used to draw your conclusion that he gave first fruits? If in his own words, first fruits HAS NO RELATIONSHIP WITH FINANCIAL GIVING IN THE NEW TESTATMENT? Also if we want to assume that he did, did he continue it after writing this book and saying all he said about first fruits? Also remember he admitted preaching the false '100-fold return' doctrine before he was told it was a false doctrine.

I copied that verse et al from the AMP version of the app on my phone. I probably didn't cross check the verses placed on the margins.

Concerning Hagin and what he stood for I have read a handful of his books even to revised editions and I have read a couple of his son's till date. On these basis I can say he gave firstfruits. Besides, the verse I posted said one could honor God with the firstfruits of his income so in that light the 'firstfruits' as described in the NT (meaning the first and the best) can be applied to my income hence why some people give their first salaries, the increase from a promotion or a profit as their firstfruit.

I personally believe Hagins grouse was with Ministers who claimed (like the tithes) that the firstfruits belonged to them. I believe he said firstfruits weren't written in the NT in relation to financial givings in SUPPORT FOR MINISTERS. In other words, this isn't like when people give gifts to bless their pastors or what not.

I believe he was positing that like the tithe, the firstfruits belonged to the church and was to be used for only the needs of the church (and Gospel) and not for the Pastor's personal needs. That's what I think. I stand corrected.

BabaGnoni:
I didn't know you were this dense. You're an unredeemable numbskull.

You need to shed off the area/garage boy excess baggage nonsense in you, maybe then you will see that it was nora544 and Lobeez that posted/pasted videos related to Hagin and Leroy on prosperity that Hagin touched in the book

25 years ago, tithing was a no-no subject to talk about but now, not anymore
The Church had taught that the world was flat and unnecessarily hounded Galilleo for his discoveries.
If not for Christopher Columbus that sailed across the Atlantic to prove that the Earth was round and not flat...

I am not joining or following you there, so please roll in the gutter and wallow in your narcissism and egotistical preoccupation with self

If this is the action you are putting to the threat you made earlier then you are not only a failure as a reasoner as i suspected. Your idiocy encompasses your entire being and livelihood. How else can we explain how you were warned repeatedly to keep your stu.pid videos off this thread but you failed to oblige? Now you are trying to whip sentiments because your lunacy pushed a lady to assert that she would slap Belzeebub away from your spirit when you made cretinous statements on the other thread.

Talking about Galileo and his discoveries I could not help but SMH. I can write a book and even give simpler interpretations of the theories and formulaes he employed while making his discoveries. The one thing any Physicist, Astrophysicist, Historian and even Engineers will tell you is that Christopher Columbus sailing across the Atlantic had nothing to do with Galileos discoveries that were to come years later. So I wonder how an event that occured years before Galileo helped him to prove the discoveries he made years later to the world. I mean Columbus was born in 1450s and Galileo in 1670s yet Columbus (resurrected from the grave) and helped Galileo prove his discoveries which even gets funnier when we consider that Columbus died before Galileo was born! But why am I not surprised you would make such a nauseatingly ignorant statement when you are in the camp of ignoramuses that speak before they think or know.

Now take my advice and never mention my moniker again on NL or I would make you deactivate this handle to come up with a new one (as you are known for). Irredeemable oaf.

Proverbs 3:9 AMP

Honor the Lord with your capital and sufficiency [from righteous labors] and with the firstfruits of all your income; [Deut. 26:2; Mal. 3:10; Luke 14:13, 14.]

That's my stance. Besides, Hagin gave firstfruits and his son teaches it in his books till date so I wager that some of the folks quoting him thinking they are raising new information do not understand him. I even found it ridiculous that they are picking and choosing what aspect to believe and endorse from the same book. Anyone can do that even to the bible hence the so much confusion and bitterness. Is that clear enough?

nannymcphee:
Gombs, I haven't forgotten about the questions I asked about CE. I just want you to be done here before I pick that up again
mbaemeka, Image123, I want to know your stance on firstfruit taught by Hagin?

BabaGnoni:
^^^
I don't know why this uncouth self confessed "My location is where the money is" mbaemeka WoF hooligan is obsessed with repeatedly derailing this thread.

The demons that possessed you the other day when you were raining curses on vooks are on standby, about to jump on to your shoulders again

Your tittle-tattle is well known and legendary. Don’t fear the facts. If you have the stomach for it Mr chief inquisitor, why not go and open up another thread instead of dragging up topics or issues in here that aren't related nor relevant to this thread.

If your skull was protecting anything at all you would take a cursory look at this thread again and see how you left the prosperity aspect of the book being discussed to start posting videos that had nothing to do with the thread. Now you have been served by your own dish and you don't like the taste. I know what is annoying you is that you cleaned the egg off your face all alone. The only cheerleader you thought you had absconded as soon as the heat was on. Ma bi nu si mi oooo.

As per my location, yes, money always is around me most times chasing me even when I am not running. It is part of the Abrahamic blessings and I am very conscious of it. Some other folks here have only two things chasing them (albeit sluggishly): Goodness and Mercy . Some of us have graduated from that level and we beseech you to "come up tither" because if you are not Calvin Harris or say David Guetta as a DJ. You don't have much to talk about. (Oh how I pray this doesn't walk past you).

vooks:
Utter unnecessary verbiage

Galatians 2:12-14King James Version (KJV)

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?


The question is,
How do you read THEM ALL in verse 14 to means the Jews from Jerusalem of verse 12?

THEM is a pronoun referring to some plural noun mentioned earlier. What leap of Christ Embassy grammar or logic do you employ to IGNORE the most obvious reference to the immediate THEY of the same verse, skip the OTHER JEWS of verse 13 and land at CERTAIN THAT CAME FROM JAMES in verse 12, while ignoring ALL other plural nouns of the verse namely, Gentiles and THEM of Circumcision?


Am still waiting for you to paste a link not a paraphrase of where I said Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia. But of course you have a policy of not naming names so am sure you won't. I have evidence of your claims to immortality should you deny Jesus consent to take you home. I quoted you lest you go back and correct yourself. Please reciprocate.

goD mbaemeka, you are a highly intelligent primate unlike you know who and you know how to steer clear of controversies. I have observed your loud silence on Hagin's position on Firstfruits. You don't want to contradict and confuse your dumb church-mate with facts, don't want to break ranks . But you are not honest enough to admit you are wrong and your mentor, Spirit baptized or not is also wrong in their 'private-rebuke-before-leaders' theory. This is not supported by grammar nor logic but is a mere convenient doctrine to shield these men from scrutiny,rebuke and criticism. You don't need PhD in Koine Greek to understand verse 12-14. You don't even need to appeal to and recite the entire Acts or church history to see the obvious. You don't even need spiritual discernment or revelation; it is PLAIN and CLEAR to all. All you need to buy your theory is to arm yourself with tons of presumption and then read this into the text. You are embarrassing yourself

This takes the cake for cow dung of the year!!! You have what it takes to give Kevin Hart a run for his money. How you couldn't understand Verse 14 from 13-12 clearly shows how bereft of pure reasoning you are. And to think of the fact that you're an employer of labour. Hmmmmmm, God is a good God.

Mr Man the 'they that walked not uprightly ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH' in V14 referred to the Other Jews in V13 as well as Barnabas and the same lot were described as certain that came from James in V12. How can we tell? Because according to Paul a) they knew the truth already since they attended the meeting in Jerusalem b) they brought the letter to the church in Antioch c) they pretended in public but in secret still held unto their pharasical beliefs d) they were JEWS like Peter so his antics swayed them. So what are you on about? Paul corrected them all not just Peter. The reason he singled Peter out in his letter was to show the Galatians how that even someone as "important" as Peter was once guilty of the same error that 'men from James' were guilty of.

It seems you have nothing else to say. So you are trying to clutch to save face. You can also choose to engage me without injecting CEC or any names into the post or I'd just ignore you.

vooks:
You are the mother and father of all conjectures. Can't point to a thread on Eve-had-sex-with-the-serpent yet you label anti-WOFers as hypocritical for NOT rebuking one of 'their own' who claimed such. But Winsomex was spot on. It is a last resort when you are cornered. I never knew hallucinations could be a defense mechanism

And while at it, point where and when I said Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia or be a man for once and apologize for this false accusation against vooks

Who is this uncircumcised Philistine? Didn't you see the person in question concede (albeit subtly) that he made such statements? Didn't you see Bidam even go as far as mentioning that Trustman even tried to call the accused to order in the said thread? How ignorant can you really be.

And as per the quote, I already made it. What's left for you to do is to claim it means something else and then let it rest. You have nothing to say save conjectures. I am sure you have now accepted the "pentecostal heresy" that Jesus went to the Holiest place in heaven with his blood. The last time we discussed, you blurted some incoherent nonsense out and even your clique were forced to leave you shamefaced and alone.

nlMediator:
Either your ignorance is oozing out or you're talking utter rubbish. WOF is not against medicine. What is wrong in God using pagan doctors? He uses pagan taxi drivers, bankers, lawyers, techies, etc. to help His children. What's different about the doctor that would make us reject him while accepting the rest?

He takes only after drumb with his conjectures. He will raise a notion by himself and tag it as a WOF belief then criticise the notion and begin to gloat.

BabaGnoni:
You and mbaemeka take after your father, you both are the devil's handiwork
The devil has kept you both busy on the thread
mbaemeka admitted derailing the thread further but you're unable to resist dragging the serpent on to this thread
and still bent on derailing the thread

Know when to get to stepping tramp!

BabaGnoni:
OK, now that yall have earned your brownie points, and successfully managed to drag serpents on to this thread, can we now go back to the thread?
We can wait for the next thread you will bring it up on again
Gombs moderate this thread and/or rein in any further wayward adolescent or adult
Thank you

Finally!!!

I resign from derailing the thread further. Over to you Bro Gombs.

BabaGnoni:

You still don't get it, STOP DERAILING THE THREAD.
Stop fibbing on who was or was not there
you have no backbone, once a weasel, also a weasel
You and mbaemeka squealing like pigs that got its head stuck in the fence
You both suit each other, your deceitfulnes are legendary.

This is coming from the scripturally incapacitated liar? The same one Nanny threatened to slap? With the multiple IDs like some of your brethren here suffering from the same multiple personality disorder? You have got jokes man. I give it to you.

WinsomeX:
He has done so time without number. It is you and Bidam that have become hard of hearing. Just provide the said quote or allow us to rest.

Very soon you people will be crying foul, saying someone is derailing a Hagin thread with WoF discusses. When you people introduce Eve and serpent to such a thread, one cannot call it DERAILing anymore. It is DELUSION.

He has done what? I dare him to retract his claims now. Along with the one that when Jesus said "Greater works than these shall ye [those who believe in me] do" he was referring to "advancements in medicine and technology" as though satanists and atheists are not part of the scientists who have helped in the said advancements and when Nannymcphee called him out he began to throw infantile fits. He did not deny any of such claims and if he claims so then he is a liar. He only corrected Bidam for saying Eve slept with Satan. In other words he said "the serpent" and not satan. He even thanked me for using the right word. And you the chief delusional hypocrite did not rebuke him publicly because he is in your camp where any conjectures and fabrications thrive".

vooks:
goD mbaemeka,
Start by showing WHEN/WHERE I said Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia. Paste it

If you have anything on my debunking of your 'private rebuke infont of leaders' nonsensical and obviously regurgitated theory please respond to that post.

Posted verbatim. They told me repetition is for emphasis

Read slowly, you would learn a few things. Acts 2 the AMP version.

22 Then the apostles and the elders, together with the whole church, resolved to select men from among their number and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, [both] leading men among the brethren, and sent them.

Question, if the men were sent with Paul and Barnabas did they actually travel with both men? NO

23 With [them they sent] the following letter: The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings:

They sent them with a letter that was to be read in front of all the brethren in ANTIOCH, Syria and Cilicia.

30 So when [the messengers] were sent off, they went down to Antioch; and having assembled the congregation, they delivered the letter.

Proof that indeed the letter was delivered and in the presence of all- no skirmishes recorded thus far.

31 And when they read it, the people rejoiced at the consolation and encouragement [it brought them].

Virtually everyone knew about the letter in Antioch.

So how do we factor in Galatians 2? We can do so by establishing the following facts:

1. Peter must have arrived at Antioch before those sent by James. b) those sent by James got into Antioch after Paul and Barnabas had arrived there- they didn't travel together.
2. These men must have been leaders because James sent only leaders from the entire congregation in Jerusalem.
3. This must have happened after the Acts 15 encounter because Paul called them hypocrites seeing that THEY HAD ESTABLISHED CONVICTIONS from the meeting in Jerusalem only for them to arrive at Antioch and act contrary to what was agreed.
4. The circumcision party and men from James are one and the same.

11 But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I protested and opposed him to his face [concerning his conduct there], for he was blameable and stood condemned.
12 For up to the time that certain persons came from James, he ate his meals with the Gentile [converts]; but when the men [from Jerusalem] arrived, he withdrew and held himself aloof from the Gentiles and [ate] separately for fear of those of the circumcision [party].

Peter knew about the agreement in Jerusalem and he conducted himself rightly till the sent men came.

13 And the rest of the Jews along with him also concealed their true convictions and acted insincerely, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy (their example of insincerity and pretense).

What were their true convictions? The agreement in Jerusalem. The same one's they had read out to the WHOLE CONGREGATION according to Acts 15.

14 But as soon as I saw that they were not straightforward and were not living up to the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas (Peter) before everybody present, If you, though born a Jew, can live [as you have been living] like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how do you dare now to urge and practically force the Gentiles to [comply with the ritual of Judaism and] live like Jews?

They had just delivered the letter to the church but then behind the scenes they acted otherwise. Paul saw the hypocrisy and corrected the chief culprit in front of EVERYBODY PRESENT- proving it was not to all and sundry.

Pray tell me, how could the rebuke have been to the hearing of the whole church or gentiles or what not when according to Acts 15 the letter was delivered to the whole church already? And if the letter was delivered to the whole church when did the men from James and Peter have the time to act hypocritically in their presence? If they did not act hypocritically in their presence (presence of the whole church), then that leaves us to conclude that the group present when Paul spoke to Peter were the leaders sent from James and this makes sense because they were the one's to bring the agreement to the church (Acts 15) only to act otherwise (Gal 2:11-14).

So kindly tell me what you are trying to say. Is it that you cannot comprehend how that the people who joined Peter in the hypocrisy were the same men that came from James as well as Barnabas (Paul's companion)? Or can you show us how

1. All the Jews in Antioch
2. Gentiles
3. James men
4. The circumcision (Outright nonsense! for the circumcision referred to the same men from James)
5. the whole church in Antioch factored into the them all. And if you cannot do it, can we also conclude that you have made another brain fart by attempting to gloat over an issue that you clearly do not understand?

As per the evidence that you said Paul corrected Peter in front of the Galatian commoners I will show it to you and expect you to apologize for either poorly phrasing your words or simply mistyping. Here is:

Does it bother you that Paul had no qualms publicizing this event long after it occurred to the Galatia commoners?

I believe a better way of putting what you meant is "Does it bother you that Paul had no qualms publicizing this event to the Galatia commoners long after it occurred in Antioch".

WinsomeX:
Don't mind them o. It is Bidam's invention which he uses to accuse BabaGnoni when he runs out of gas to prosecute his position on any thread. He has been asked time without number to provide the said quote and he has not been able to.

Unfortunately, mbaemeka has caught the bug.

No need to play the devil's advocate. Let the culprit deny the "accusations" if they are unsubstantiated along with the one about the Tower of Babel being mythical and many other out-of-thought gaffs and goofs.

[quote author=Gombs post=27468762][/quote]If they're different people I will be greatly surprised. I have been on NL since the 2007s albeit as a guest. Both men have the same stories and facts almost to the Tee. I know what I'm saying

vooks:
goD mbaemeka before whom Christ must kneel and BEG to take home lest he lives forever,
Using your heightened spiritual gifts, please discern vooks
Who said Eve had sex with the serpent?
And I noted you could not withstand my wisdom in dividing Galatians 2:14. May be like Jehovah's witnesses you can consult with your higher-ups. That is their last line of defense when cornered.

My dear, it is the same sweeping delusion all around. Those who see past their noses let the issue rest. The one's with the all too often dumb points kept clutching and I kept wondering if they could actually read. How do I explain the "Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia" to "Yes, I meant Antioch but he wrote it to the Galatians" to "Paul rebuked Peter in front of them all" (them all meaning a drove of people) and when spotted out it mutates to "Paul rebuked Peter in front of Jewish leaders" as though that was not the point that I had been trying to communicate with my very post on the issue. What even makes it worse is that he had the temerity to ask me for my source when I basically summarised Acts 10-15.

If there is a point you want to pass with the Galatians 2:14 reference please be vivid with it while we compare it with all you started with and what I have said all through. Maybe you would finally learn something.