₦airaland Forum

vooks:
Shake off,brush off...am indifferent, the snake's grip was casual/light. A bite can't be brushed off, so thank you for THINKING and demolishing your own argument
Now study this image
https://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/modern/29432d1299766411t-pilot-lands-plane-rogue-snake-hand-black-racer.jpg
That snake is HANGING from his hand. Is it biting?

OMG. You're dafter than I thought. Luke said the snake was hanging ON his hand.

Now you have brought up "the snakes grip was light". Hahahahaha.

vooks:
And am sure you would soon claim that Paul shut the snake mouth by reciting Rhapsodies

Clutching. At least now you know the Maltans didn't think they saw the snake hanging on his hand. They actually did see it.

vooks:
Dumbo,

Refer to the first image I shared.

Acts 28:4 (Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible - YL)
4 And when the foreigners saw the beast hanging from his hand, they said unto one another,

The snake was hanging

Daft and ignorant. I should be showing you the verse. How did the snake hang? By wrapping itself? BTW the words shake off in greek also mean to brush off.

The Maltans saw the snake HANG on Paul's hand and then he brushed it off and FELT no harm.

Acts 28:4 KJV

And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.

They saw the venomous beast HANG on Paul's hand. I am sure you would soon claim the beast wasn't venomous.

^^^^

How do you shake or brush off something that is firmly fastened around you? Keep deriding yourself. Luke said after the snake fastened itself on Paul he FELT no harm and not that the snake DID no harm. Why would he feel any harm if the snake didn't do something that would elicit the harm?

Your problem is reasoning.

vooks:
Excellent admission.
So it is down to Christ Embassy hallucinations once again.
Let's study WHY THE SNAKE HAD TO HAVE BITTEN. We have jumped from fastening being equivalent to biting to even more dumb theories.
1. Why the snake reacted tells you NOTHING
2. If the islanders THOUGHT Paul was bitten, they would have reacted with the same shock just as if they had seen him bitten. So their reaction tells you nothing. Think disciples seeing Jesus and freaking thinking it was a ghost, would they not have been EQUALLY scared if it was a ghost?
3. There is nothing like 'ordinary man' people especially women panic at the very sight of a rat while some Chinese would grab it.
4. The Maltans are not CE mumu, they know snake bites are lethal and that snakes bite at close range. They can see a snake they know to be highly venomous coiled on a man's hand and they naturally EXPECT a bite and reaction namely swelling,paralysis and death.
5.The point is there is NO recorded biting. And let's argue from silence. Luke given to all the details can capture all this and leave the miraculous climax of a bite out? For what reasons? So that this kid can hallucinate it?

1. Don't be a dolt. How would the threatened snake react? By wrapping itself around Paul's hands? That's a dumber theory.

2. The Maltans that have seen such snakes bites couldn't have been misled to see otherwise. They know what they saw. The bible did not say they thought he was bitten.

3. Lame point.

4. The Maltans knew what to expect because they had seen something similar happen to others before. They could never have been misled into thinking things. It would take more illogic to suggest so.

5. Another hopelessly daft point. What did Luke mean by hostile fitting? When joints are fastened does it not even allude to a fixing by a nail or screw?

vooks:
The highlighted.
Nobody aksd you to fall sick BECAUSE Paul was sick.
You can't flash INSTANT healing by apostles as evidence of your theory and when I point to their persistent sicknesses or delayed healings you dismiss that as not for you.

If you stick to Jesus example, I will have to ask you to walk on water,multiply loaves and fish to feed 5,000. Go the whole yard. You can't grab INSTANT aspect of His miracles and ignore the rest

How have you added to the scriptures, am not here to babysit you kid, go back to the first time you attempted a dumb Christ Embassy commentary on Peter's healing the lame and my FIRST reply to your shenanigans

Rubbish. Your incorrigibility is on record here. Even your confused cheerleader absconds every now and then. I made no theory of anything. A confused person claimed there was nothing like an instant harvest or getting results instantly and I put her in her place. That's why I was puzzled that you were referring me to your so-called delayed healings. And when you couldn't stand up to your hollow claims you began throwing sovereignty everywhere as if the meaning of that word was initiated by you.

Your last paragraph was lame especially as I quoted scriptures verbatim including correcting your extrabiblical talks of the lame man laying down at the beautiful gate and now that Paul wasn't bitten. If I am to be generous to you, I would say straightfaced that you are more confused than winx and if you know what that means, you would get a life.

Gombs:
you for obvious reason did not quote the whole of Srong Concordance, why did remove the word [size=20pt] Hostilely [/size] from the concordance?

ok, you did not see it shey? Ok o

The bible explains why the snake had to have bitten Paul. It was reacting to the heat from the fire that Paul was stoking with the wood he was fetching. The Maltan's watching saw what transpired: If Paul wasn't bitten then there would have been no reason to expect him to swell and die. There would have been no reason to conclude he was an extraordinary man. Any ordinary man will knee-jerkly shake a rope off let alone snake, if it accidentally drops on him. So the reaction of the Maltan's is the answer to it all.

nannymcphee:
I was of the opinion before that he was bit but studying it again, it wasn’t expressly written. This act could be similar to that of Daniel in the den, the lion’s mouth was shut

The bible says Paul shook the snake off, if truly the viper fastend his fang on his hand, will it just take a shaking to pull if off?

Either way, at the end of the day, this scripture was fulfilled

Mar 16:18

They shall take up serpents and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover


[size=13pt]John Gill Exposition on the Bible[/size]

and fastened on his hand; or wrapped itself about his hand: the Syriac and Arabic versions render it, "bit his hand"; but that does not seem so likely, since he felt no harm by it; the Ethiopic version, "hung upon his hand"; which agrees with what follows; nor is it inconsistent with its wrapping itself about his hand, which is the more proper signification of the word used.

[size=13pt]Albert Barnes Note on the bible[/size]

And fastened on his hand - καθῆψεν kathēpsen. This word properly means to join oneself to; to touch; to adhere to. It might have been by coiling around his hand and arm, or by fastening its fangs in his hand. It is not expressly affirmed that Paul was bitten by the viper, yet it is evidently implied; and it is wholly incredible that a viper, unless miraculously prevented, should fasten himself to the hand without biting.

The problem they are now having is that he felt no harm which should have been the norm. Ha ha ha ha. So the Maltans who had seen vipers for days didn't know why they expected Paul to die?

Ha ha ha ha

vooks:
So now FASTEN is BITING?

[url]https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Acts%2028:3[/url]


FASTENING ON. I thought snakes bite hands not bite ON hands, but with CE hooligans, they never admit wrong. And I forgot to mention you can't possibly beat them on hallucinations
https://lifecoachontheradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/snake-in-hand-web-200x300.jpg

Jesus is lord!!!!!! This is what he means by fastening? This is what binding, laying hold of, fitting means?

Wooooooaw. You are to be quarantined for possessing a depressingly low IQ.

Gombs:
Stop making yourself even more sillier.

get a study bible, read verse 5. It gave two references Mark 16:18, Luke 10:19

any reason(s)?

no that i expect you to reason well now, but for viewers sake. If you think he was bitten, fine.

How does a viper "fit" and "lay hold of" of anything? By constricting it? (word to the NATGEO crew)

This is supposed to be from someone who does not have comprehension issues. So the Maltans who saw the snake fasten itself on Paul were blind but Winx and Fooks who are omniscient saw it?

Image123:
Hahahahahahahahahaha, comedian.

Multiple Personality Disorder. Anybody? I thought I said this before? Did y'all think I was mocking him?

vooks:
Paul was NEVER warned against going to Jerusalem, Holy Spirit just revealed the the dangers. In case you missed the memo, Jesus Christ revealed to him of the many things he would suffer for His name. You need to study Acts 21 without Oyaks shades and sense will light up your dark soul. Here is Paul's resolve;

Acts 21:13-14 (ESV)
13 Then Paul answered, “What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be imprisoned but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” 14 And since he would not be persuaded, we ceased and said, “Let the will of the Lord be done.”
Long and short of it is warnings was on looming danger ahead not against going. Paul NEVER defied Holy Spirit and am sorry if this is your best shot at poking holes on his character you have to try again. You are free to dig into Discarded epistles because nothing on NT supports your moronic conclusions.


Am very careful not to assist Holy Spirit with His finished work of inspiration. Am not a member of the Godhead unlike you. So I reserve artistic license in my meditation of the Word

1. Isaac NEVER sowed in famine
2. Jesus NEVER ascended twice
3. Paul was NEVER bitten by a snake
4. There is NEVER remission of sins without shedding blood
5. You can NEVER curse what God has blessed you shameless witch

Hahahahahaha besides Point 4 was not your claim. Your claim was there is nothing like shedding of blood in relation to remission of sins, to which I pointed you to Hebrews. I make bold to belabor my assertion that a child gets his blood from the father and not from the mother- explaining Jesus' divine blood. You even claimed Jesus blood was human but you retracted your claims when your friends steered clear from such cretinism.

Now you have added Paul was never bitten by a snake and you think by screaming the never you would all of a sudden become right? hahaha. Please tell us what the word fastened as used there portrays? When you make a mess of it, I would be here to put you in your place like I did the other bucolic churl that spoke with the same whim as you.

As per Paul and going to Jerusalem, you are a late comer. Some of your friends will tell you what they learnt on the lost WOF thread. I would have taken my time to show it to you in clear words again, and then pray in tongues for an hour hoping you would get a brain and a life, but you are not worth it. Let me see you wriggle your way from this recent goof.

Gombs:
You have acute problems with reading and comprehnsion.

3 As Paul gathered an armful of sticks and was laying them on the fire, a poisonous snake, driven out by the heat, [size=20pt]bit him on the hand[/size] .

Oya, run to your sewer, call your board members, go to your Wof thread and declare Wof wrote NLT and MSG translations.


you should be ashamed for saying Paul was not bitten.... Shame on you and Vooks

There's really no shame bro. Unwise men say unwise things. It is expected.

Gombs:
This is a confirmation then. I wonder when reading and comprehension became a herculean task for some of you. Let's read that Acts 28 in the Message translation

Paul pitched in and helped. He had gathered up a bundle of sticks, but when he put it on the fire, a venomous snake, roused from its torpor by the heat, [size=20pt]struck his hand[/size] and held on

Now, I know English is a bit difficult for some of you to understand, let's leave the above enlarged aside for a minute,

V6
They kept expecting him to drop dead, but when it was obvious he wasn't going to, they jumped to the conclusion that he was a god!

Are you saying folks there did not see Peter being bitten by the snake, yet, they expected him to drop dead? They actually kept expecting . But in your mammoth scriptural ineptitude, you said they assumed he was bitten, and kept expecting him to die.

I actually prayed for God to turn your counsel yo folly. See how you all keep embarrassing yourselves. Snake and Eve, Paul and Galatia, now this?

This is a good sign. It would have been a big problem if they understood the words but were resigned to be deceitful. Now this proves that they do not even understand the words to begin with.

vooks:
Good question,
Election vs Responsibility.
Is it God's will that everybody be saved? Start with Judas Escariot

I should be asking you the question. If God only does his will then everyone should be saved.

vooks:
What's cheaper is promising utopia Divine Health and Instant Healing bliss. God does not pay for what He never ordered. You negro and your fickle brains are all alone and you can't grow a single strand of hair to nobody. I pity your fans, Gombs and other like-minded simpletons. If eternity is all about eating pan-fried Oyaks vomit, trust me you'd be all alone there for you beat everyone hands down

The only prayers God answers are those according to His will. For whatever reasons, He never willed Paul to recover from the thorn-in-the-flesh or Timothy's frequent ailments. And don't you split hairs over ailments and diseases, you can barely construct a sentence in Koine Greek

If I put you on the spot now I'd start hearing CE this and that. And that you feel good to call people more intelligent than the summation of your entire clan simpletons fully places the joke on you.

If God only answers a prayer asked in accordance with his will then there really is no need praying since God will eventually do his own will. Now factor it into Peter and John healing the man at the beautiful gate. Why didn't they ask God if it was his will to heal the man? While you are at it, please show me just one place where God told us to ask him according to his will or else he would not do it.

I will wait.

vooks:
These people had the same teachings of Jesus you had, same Spirit and that God entrusted them with inspiration and you with just bloviating on NL means a lot don't you think?
Do you suppose their sicknesses point to some deficiency in applying Jesus words? You have already said as much, just confirm it for the record

Show me which scriptures record Paul surviving a snake bite.

I perceive you are vengeful and you have been trying to catch me in error so we can be even keep trying kid
vooks is a mere mortal not a godess like you and since I don't owe allegiance to Oyaks, am not obligated to eat his vomit unlike you. Am a free thinker while you are shackled. Your marriage to Christ Embassy blinds you to the Truth. Your little puny brain can barely stretch outside Rhapsodies. That's double tragedy

Your constant references to puny brains and being a CEO just shows your true insecurities. You would wish everyone on here is as unintelligent as you. When you cannot defend your heresies CE or the most senior Pastor's name flies out of your small mind. You have gone from dangling the scriptures to the law and now to logic, 3 areas that should never be attached to your person and personality. You definitely take the cake for delusions of grandeur and importance. Me, vengeful and trying to catch you in error? What are you? Virtually all Your posts on this thread have been from one level of olodoism to another. You are doing a fine job exposing yourself.

BTW, their sicknesses point to what? Maybe we should ask Demas why he abandoned Paul considering he had the same revelation and Holy Spirit with Paul. Or Maybe Paul should tell us why he still went to Jerusalem against the Holy Spirit's warning if the above conditions you listed meant that everyone in the early church functioned with a special revelation that gave them ministry gifts that caused them to heal sick people but remain sick in their own cases.

You have nothing to say. You will debate clear scriptures to hold on to your ignorance and religious bondage. Yes, I am shackled. I am very proud of it. I have restricted my thinking to ONLY the word of God and nothing else. You should feel free to think out of the box. That's all it is- a feel. In reality, you're in shackles to think the way mere men think and of course, progress your thinking as they correct their own mistakes. Maybe then and just then you would understand what Jesus did with his blood in heaven, the role of shedding blood for the remission of sins, that Isaac sowed in a Famine and that Paul was bitten by a Viper but he felt no harm (as he was fulfilling scriptures). But how would you know? I wager you didn't even know it was a sign that the christian ought to be impervious to poison of any sort. Or maybe you did know but decided to think freely away from it.

You are a sorry case. A hopeless one.

vooks:
Where is it written that the snake bit him?
The villagers THOUGHT he had been bitten and he would swell up and drop dead...THEY THOUGHT he had been bitten. Snakes don't bite anything they come into contact with..NatGeo 101

See how ridiculous your pride is letting you look. And you are the guy who trolls about charging people to think and questioning their comprehension skills. Pray tell me, what does 'fastened itself on him' mean as used by the scriptures and where did the bible say they thought he was bitten?

I have to bring myself to understand that you have an alternate account that you used to like this post otherwise it means there's another NLder that we might need to quarantine for having an IQ equal to the atomic weight of Helium because I don't believe some of your allies will endorse this brain fart of an idea.

vooks:
He told the man to rise and he raised him by the hand. Very simple.
The rest are Negroid fantasies that least interest me.
How sure are you he couldn't have stood if he was not supported?
If the man refused to rise, he'd still have been healed. Standing never healed him, it is Peter's word. Standing was a mere testimony of wht had been done ALREADY just like Cornelius speaking in tongues was.
If God's character and glory of sovereignty is an escape route, so be it. It is a strange concept to the primitive Christians but Holy Spirit has revealed this to mbaemeka. The same Holy Spirit who preserved records of instant healing preserved records of no healing or prolonged healing. Forget everything else I have said and remember that

Everything in the scriptures are for learning. Not all (including from NT) are benchmarks for other christians, only Jesus is. So when you keep shifting the rules of the game to accomodate yourself then you probably do not know anything to begin with but are simply learning on the go.

I am not in the camp of those who delve head first into verses they haven't studied properly- which is your stock in trade. And you may end up not learning anything because you are strongly deluded. If you weren't using a bungalow head (as there's nothing upstairs) you would have simply seen the same connections you have refused to see all through this thread. And what is most risible is the fact that you think you are disproving anything. You are simply exposing yourself further. First I was accused of adding to the scriptures. Now I have quoted the scriptures and he is questioning my interpretation. Ask the Holy Spirit why he had to tell us that it was when Peter pulled him up that his feet and ankles received strength. Ask the Holy Spirit why he had to use 2 different words for leaping in vs 8 and subsequently when the man began leaping and praising God. Also ask him why he didn't say his sovereignty healed the man but that Peters faith in Jesus name did.

You have a lot to learn. The sooner you realize it the better for you.

vooks:
Paul was NEVER bitten by a snake, that's another Pentecostal urban legend.

If Jesus is your yardstick, are you sinless as He was? Do you walk on water? How many dead have you raised?
Are you implying there are some truths these primitive Christians who gave you NT missed but the Spirit revealed to you?
Their diseases are not telling mbaemeka to be sick or anything, just that their health stands in stark contrast to the truth you purport to have, the folly of Divine Health or INSTANT healing

Nobody is discounting the value of faith, what has been clearly proved beyond doubt is the illogic behind leaping from FAITH to Divine Health or INSTANT healing/miracles. Between a first century apostle Paul or Timothy and a 2014 Negro, I'd rather the apostle ANY time

Quickly quoted you so as to archive this massive blunder. Paul wasn't bitten? Pentecostal lengend? Hahahahaha.

As per the early church, if you cannot see how the truths they believed in kept progressing then you have a lot of studying to do. This is an aside from all the senseless questions you asked me. I don't know how my experience should be the yardstick for weighing the verisimilitude of the scriptures. Just take Jesus words for what they are. God is not a liar.

vooks:
The sequence is VERY clear and none of what you are projecting here
1. Man seated/lying looks up to them in the epic words of Coolio 'with a tin in his hand and gleam in his eye'
2. Peter talks to him and commands him to rise in Jesus name, something he has never done
3. Peter takes him by his right hand and raises him
4. The man leaps up,standing and begins to walk

Your factual errors and additions to Holy Spirit
1. Peter NEVER TRIED to raise him, he raised him.
2. He never stretched his hand like he was offering something because he had already told him he had nothing


You had insinuated that between Peter's word and the mn rising there was some faith in his leaping but that's far from the truth. You were busy constructing a narrative to include the man's faith into the equation because in your world,healing requires minimal faith on the recipient. Repeat. The man was looking for money, he received healing WITHOUT believing nothing.

This is a public place, your words are here, he who has ears, let them wat h you justify yourself shamelessly

The same errant nonsense that Pride won't let you accept even in the face of very clear scriptures showing the sequence of events.

1. Peter and John didn't walk up to the man. The man SAT constantly at the beautiful gate begging for alms.

2. On entering the Gate heading for prayers they met him.

3. He as usual asked for money.

4. They asked him to look at them and then they offered him a healing instead of money.

5. They asked him to rise up and walk (compare with Paul's case at Lystra. As soon as he said rise up and walk the man did) but in this case, the man didn't rise up and walk.

6. Peter stretched forth his hands to lift the man.

7. As he did the man's feet and ankle bones RECEIVED STRENGTH.

8. The man 'leaping up', stood.

I asked you a question. When Peter stretched forth his hands to raise the man if the man refused to get up would he have? If you cannot answer the question then the issue in view is beyond you.

All that sovereignty caveat is just an escape route. Peter and John didn't pray to God for the man's healing. They applied their FAITH in the name of Jesus and the man also responded with some faith. He didn't tell them 'sirs, I cannot walk'. He gave them his hand and when they lifted him, he leaped in response. Period.

vooks:
If only scriptural examples got through to your spirit and not vook's words
1. Paul
2. Epphroditus
3. Trophimus
4. Timothy
If only these men shared a fraction of your insight, they would never have to battle with sicknesses....IF ONLY.
It is waste of time and space to flash instant healings as if anybody is disputing that. The existence in scriptures of instant healings and delayed or no healings is the entire Wisdom on healing we need. You cling to one and you do injustice to the other.

It is equally a waste of time to flash the above names to me seeing that they're not Jesus himself- who ought to be the standard. Besides, I have done justice on the so-called illnesses of the names above and you could refer to the WOF thread to understand a few things.

You will quickly flash me names of Paul and co when you think it suits your view point then quickly reject the same names when I use them to show you mine. For e.g, Paul was bitten by a snake but he felt no harm. If I say it belongs to all Christians, you would ask me if I am Paul and quickly even brush aside the very words of Jesus himself.

As per healings and whether instant or not. The underlying factor is FAITH and the greater it is the better. That's what the bible says ad nauseam. Now that I have reechoed the very words of the bible why won't you just believe it?

nlMediator:
You do realize one can be healed by another's faith, e.g. a preacher's (or an apostle's) faith? In which case, it is still faith, not your sovereignty escape route. Jesus said the disciples could not heal the kid in Mark 9 because the disciples lacked sufficient faith.

Gbam.

vooks:
Thank you sir,
That is what we mean by God's sovereignty.God has mercy on whom He will. He healed a Syrian of leprosy and left all the Jewish lepers

The moment you realize that it is all up to Him, you don't make some of the arrogant statements we hear from WOFers. They hate the word mercy because it exposes their place as mere mortals and not goDs, they are used to ordering Jesus like he is their small bro. This is blasphemy. It is quite possible the reason WOFers don't achieve as many miracles is because God resists their pride.

Your talk is cheap because you are merely mouthing off what you 'think' is true. Sovereignty falls flat in any instance where God was asked for the healing (in this case). I told you before that Mercy was God's response to the faith shown by Paul and co in praying for Epaphroditus. But you lot will not understand it with your one-size-fit-all approach to biblical issues that are way above your pay grade. I have asked you a question before and you evaded it. Can a man go to Obama in the name of Obama? So what is all this nonsense and lies about commanding God?

vooks:
Salvation and healing are as different as day and night. Here is why
1. Before a man can fall down on his knees in repentance, the Holy Spirit MUST have drawn him to Christ and convicted him of his sins. So God's work in a man does not start in repentance, that's a culmination. Why would God draw you to him and then keep you in your sinful state?

2. From Peter's experience at Cornelius house, we see that even a prayer of repentance is unnecessary, they received the gift reserved for those who repent just from hearing. This just confirms how God is more than eager adopt us

3. There are incidences of healing not procured instantly but NO slightest hint of delayed acceptance of repenting sinners. Epaphroditus fell sick and approached death before God had mercy. His healing was not instant. Timothy had frequent ailments and regardless of how you translate the word ailment, it was something God could have dealt with there and then but he didn't. Instead, Paul hit the naturopathy route. Trophimus,Paul's co-worker was too sick to travel with him.

4. So you have two options, explain away these three instances as lack of faith or revise your false belief in INSTANT. Paul's thorn in the flesh I omitted for obvious reasons; you have nothing to say about it

Does the fact that they never received healing instantly void Jesus promise of responding to their faith? Nope, it just points to sovereignty. Faith, prayers and scriptures don't suspend God's sovereignty contrary to your fantasies, it is still up to God and that's why Paul says God had mercy on Epaphroditus.

So you can name ANY man of faith you can think of and I can show you a string of not-so-instant prayers answered or not answered according to his petition

Only if you understood what you posted above. God has already done what he needed to do about healings by sending Jesus to die for the sicknesses and diseases of the world amongst other things. So in the same token God is not going to raise the 'sovereignty-stick' in dishing out the healing. But guess why people have so much faith for their salvation from sins and not for their health? Because we have people like you who tell them that God employs the sovereignty caveat when it comes to healings so such people don't have the required faith to LAMBANO healing as it should be. And they're forcedto concede that if God wills he will heal them and if he doesn't he won't. Meanwhile, God almighty is more willing to heal anyone who is ill than the person is in being healed.

The secret all lies in one's convictions about the truth. A Jewish leader begged Jesus to come to his house to heal his daughter and before Jesus got there the girl had died. Bless Jesus, he raised her back to life after sending all the scoffers out of the place. Later on a Gentile wanted a healing for his servant but he told Jesus that coming to his house was unnecessary. He knew that Jesus word would have sufficed. Jesus praised the Gentile for it by calling his convictions "Great faith" and that very moment the servant was healed compared to the case of the Jewish leader where the girl even died first.

vooks:
Please don't call rubbish the Word of God. Read this verse under any translation and you will find that you are adding to the scriptures. There is a warning against adding to the Word.

Let's read together

Acts 3:4-7 (ESV)
4 And Peter directed his gaze at him, as did John, and said, “Look at us.” 5 And he fixed his attention on them, expecting to receive something from them. 6 But Peter said, “I have no silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk!” 7 And he took him by the right hand and raised him up, and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong.

The man did not try to stand up on his own in response to Peter's command. That's an invention. Peter took his hand and raised him up.
Please don't add to scriptures. You may wish me death by car crash or suicide by poisoning but don't add to the Scriptures. That's depravity

Besides, Peter raised up Dorcas and Paul raised Eutychus. These two were impervious to faith since they were dead. How much faith did their corpses muster?

Sometimes I wish you know who you are talking to because if you did, you'd probably read the stories slowly before replying. Alot of you that say some of the things you do only do so because you think this is some Book club or something and most of you don't believe the words enough to put it to the test.

Now go back and read the story again and quote the verse that says "and the man, LEAPING up stood". Now pause for a moment and visualize what actually transpired there. See Peter and John stretch out their hands as though they were going to offer the man something. The man stretches out his hand expectant but then Peter yells 'in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk'. Now the bible clearly states that after saying that, Peter and John took him by the hand and tried to raise him up. Pause again, why? Because the man did not get up. Now as they pulled him up the bible shows that that was when the man's feet and ankle bones RECEIVED STRENGTH and as a result the man LEAPING UP stood and began to walk.

Now have you ever tried to raise someone up from the ground who didn't want to get up? Pray tell me, how easy will it be except the person in question leaps up?

The man's response to their pulling him up was his LEAPING UP. I tell you without flinching that if he had told them he could not walk. He would not have walked (considering the man had never walked in his life before)

Now tell me what I have added or removed from the scriptures

trustman:
And has Mbaemeka always received 100% all he asked as a 'faith' man?
If so maybe the Boko Haram request is apropos.

Let's factor God's sovereignty into salvation. If a man believes the gospel with all his heart and he declares it with his mouth does he have to wait to see if God in all his sovereignty will accept the man's request for salvation? If not then why was this faith certain to receive and how does this faith differ from the faith to get healed?

Hebrews 11:6 KJV

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

nannymcphee:
In other words, the man who doesn't receive does not have faith?

Let me tell you a secret. Always say a prayer to God with these words "Father, may only your words convince me not my even my experiences. In the name of the lord Jesus. Amen"

As soon as you do that you would understand this verse above.

nannymcphee:
Mr librarian, what I mean by that is this, that you have great faith doesn't mean God will grant it to you, it's will & sovereignty is the deciding choice

Do you think David didn't have faith when he prayed that God should spare the life of his child? Yet the child still died

When God revealed to Paul that no life will be lost excerpt the properties in the ship, why didnt he change it, after all pastor has said when God reveals something, then you can change it, if he doesn't reveal it you can't change it

Bottom line:ITS GODS SOVERIEGNITY THAT COUNTS

Nonsense. God always had his sovereignty even before he mentioned faith. Yet his words tell us that faith is what causes him to react. Because you saw someone ask doesn't mean he did it in faith after all we can see people even on NL who claim that they ask God and accept anything that comes their way as his response yet James said that is not faith. How can we tell that someone asked in faith? He will receive because faith always receives. So the question about not changing the situation should be directed at Paul and not NL. We saw God reveal Hezekiah's death to him, we saw God reveal the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah to Abraham etc. In both situations God showed a willingness to change his mind.

vooks:
Digression. The man at the gate is a terrible example especially for WOFers
1. The man received instant healing WITHOUT any faith from his side. How often do you do that or don't you attribute your failures at playing Divinity to the recipient's faith?
2. The man was not a Christian

Back to the subject, why did Paul's no-resurrection scenario paint Christians as the most pitiable yet they had access to Divine health,Divine Wealth, Happiness and Longevity? Please explain this verse to us

1. Rubbish. They told him to get up and walk and what did he do? He responded by trying to get up and then they took him by the hand and lifted him up and then he saw he could walk. His response to their instruction is called faith no matter how little it was.

2. As though being a christian makes the receiving any less possible.

Paul's scenario in the book of Corinthians never painted Christians as pitiable you. . .He said if our hope in Jesus was ONLY in this life then we would be pitiable. Please read up.

nannymcphee:
Sit down I said, his petition was heard but at the point he was told he will received, he the. Doubted!! Why then did he still receive??
When the church was praying for Peter, when the girl said Peter was at the door, they said maybe it was his ghost!!
Isn't that unbelief, here they were praying or his release & they are now being told that he was at the door, they conclude it was his ghost
If they truly believed that their prayers were truly heard why did they offer that explanation ?
Yet God pulled through in all

I am seated thank you. Zechariah had little faith. Did you miss that aspect? Little faith believes God will respond but many times projects it into the future or subjects it to time. If I have faith that I can get a car and immediately someone calls me and says "Come and take a car" and I say "wow, I don't believe that", does it negate the fact that I have received? Does this not already prove that God already responded to Zechariah when he first asked? Same way with the church and Peter situation.

Again I repeat: If God does something without being asked, it is sovereignty at work but if we ask him for it then we are required to ask in faith or else we would not receive.