₦airaland Forum

Jumbojax:
I don't do research cause I don't need any research to understand God's word. Faith takes God at His word instead of doing mental gymnastics to make it say what you want it to say.
I'm not gonna regard your half assed work cause you only delivered half of what was asked and 50% pass is fail to most people.
The NKJV has scores of verses omited and you won't agree that was done for sinister reasons, so no point in that.

Back to the main reason I mentioned you.
It may not be that she was an unmarried non-virgin that Jesus instructed her not to touch him, it may be she was just menstruating. And a menstruating woman is unclean according to the law.
Leviticus 15:19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

Jesus needing to obey the whole law for all who would believe in Him alone for heaven, couldn't be found wanting especially before presenting His perfect sacrifice to the Father.
That's why even the woman with the issue of blood only touched the hem of His garments, and He still felt power leave Him. If she touched His body that would have been enough to fail the mission He came to do on earth. As I said before, we don't condemn non-virgin unmarried women but their are consequences in THIS life for Sins and if she's a believer she cannot go to hell for her sins

😂 How come the woman with the issue of blood touched Jesus, but He didn't burn that cloth? Using your logic, maybe He didn't have another one. Assumptions on top of assumptions just to defend a weak point. Though I tend to avoid arguing in person, I'm very comfortable with my keyboard, and when I see things like this online, especially misogyny, I jump in because I truly hate it and the harm it does to people.

It is clear you are yet to fully understand or grasp Jesus or His mission. Though, this convo has worn me out. I will give it one last shot.

The Bible was translated from Greek to English by humans, not angels. Errors happen. It is okay to fix a translation that needs fixing, as long as it stays true to the original apostolic manuscripts.

Do some research so you don't keep spreading misinformation. The Bible encourages seeking truth. God won't send you to hell for asking questions or seeking answers. He's not some angry monster. He is a loving Father who welcomes honest questions. Hezekiah asked for a sign, Jonah was mad at God, and many did similar. God doesn't often just dish out judgment; He often gives grace before judgement.

The NKJV didn't remove verses from the KJV. At least compare them side by side before concluding. They come from the same manuscript family. NKJV just corrected interpretation mistakes and updated the language for modern readers without changing the content. But clearly, you're fixed in your view.

Where are you getting your information from? Who is actually feeding you this kind of ugly logic? How can you even imagine that the woman with the issue of blood was only "allowed" to touch Jesus' garment, or else it would have ruined His mission? Do you take Jesus for someone powerless, scared, mute person, or a liar? If touching Him really defiled or jeopardized His purpose, He would have said so Himself. But instead, He allowed many others to touch Him. Jesus replied to the woman and said, "Daughter, your faith has made you well" (Mark 5:34). No rebuke. No mention of impurity. Just mercy.

Jesus is holiness. Nothing can touch Him and pollute Him. In fact, anything He touches becomes clean.

What is an issue of blood compared to leprosy? Jesus touched a leper (Matthew 8:2-3); something strictly forbidden under Mosaic law. Did that ruin His mission? No. He made the leper clean. That's real power.

Even a sinful woman washed His feet with her tears and hair (Luke 7:36-50). She didn't just touch His garment; she touched His feet intimately, passionately, and without shame. And Jesus affirmed her act. Imagine that.

Jesus doesn't rebuke people; He rebukes demons. Anything truly unworthy runs from Him, just like the man with legions. Demons dare not come near Him.

Jesus made it clear: He came for the unclean, the broken; not the perfect. He welcomed tax collectors, sinners, and women considered outcasts. He let them be near Him, touch Him, eat with Him, and follow Him.


1. (Proverbs 15:14) A wise person actively seeks knowledge instead of accepting everything without question.

2. (1 Thessalonians 5:21) We are commanded to test all things and hold onto what is good; not just blindly accept everything.

3. (1 John 4:1) Believers are warned not to believe every spirit but to test whether they are truly from God.

4. (Luke 1:3) Luke, in writing his Gospel, carefully investigated everything before presenting it; he did research rather than just assuming.

5. (Ecclesiastes 1:13) Solomon intentionally applied his mind to seek and explore wisdom about all that happens under Heaven.

6. (Malachi 3:10) God invites us to test Him; to try and find out if His promises hold true.

7. (James 3:14-16) Wisdom that comes from envy and selfish ambition is earthly and destructive; true wisdom is sought and tested.

nnamdi640:
I understand your emphasis on grace and restoration, but I believe your approach downplays an important reality — sin, especially sexual sin, carries lasting earthly consequences even after forgiveness. Yes, God restores fully in terms of relationship with Him, but Scripture is also clear that certain sins have deeper impacts on our lives, testimonies, and the church community (1 Corinthians 6:18). That’s why sexual purity is often addressed strongly — not because other sins don’t matter, but because this one uniquely affects the body, marriage, and generations to come.

The fact that pride, lies, and hypocrisy are also sins doesn’t mean all sins are equal in consequence. Some destroy trust, some destroy reputations, and some destroy the temple of the Holy Spirit in ways that take time and effort to heal even after repentance.

As for the focus on women, I agree it’s wrong to target one gender. God’s standard of purity applies equally to men and women, and where the church fails to enforce this balance, it should be corrected. But removing strong preaching on sexual purity altogether — or softening it because of cultural discomfort — would be failing to warn people of danger.

Christ came with both grace and truth, yes. But truth sometimes means giving uncomfortable warnings, calling sin by its name, and reminding people that while God forgives instantly, the damage sin causes can take a lifetime to repair. Grace doesn’t erase the seriousness of sin; it gives us the strength to walk away from it.

Sure, sexual sin carries lasting earthly consequences; but so do many other sins. Pride can destroy marriages. Bitterness can poison generations. Dishonesty can ruin reputations. Every sin leaves a mark. So if the real concern is the impact of sin, let's speak honestly about all the sins that cause damage; not just the ones that fit an agenda.

Why is your emphasis so much on virginity? Sexual sin is not ranked above other sins. Jesus even rebuked hypocrisy far more often than sexual sin. And pride is also singled out in Scripture as something God hates (Proverbs 6)

1 Corinthians 6:18 was an instruction, not a weapon. Paul didn't single out sexual sin to rank it above other sins, and he wasn't giving us license to elevate sexual sinners above others in guilt or shame. If anything, he was pleading with believers to remember that their bodies are sacred and worth honouring, not to degrade those who had previously failed.

If you are going to emphasize this verse, then be consistent. Preach all of God's warnings as well; not just the ones that align with cultural discomfort or personal bias.

And Paul never said healing was impossible. In fact, in the very same chapter, he listed several sins; including sexual sin and then said, "And such were some of you. But you were washed, sanctified, and justified..." (v11)

Full healing and holiness is not just possible; they are promised in Christ. If we use Scripture to shame people instead of helping them heal, we are misusing Scripture.

There's a difference between downplaying sin and refusing to weaponize it.

Truth matters; but so does how we deliver it. Jesus confronted sin, yes, but He also defended the woman caught in adultery; and then told her to sin no more. That's the balance the Church needs: grace and truth. Correction should lift people toward righteousness, not push them deeper into shame.

I believe in purity. I believe in repentance. I believe in truth. But I do not believe in using those things to shame, isolate, or degrade people. That's not biblical correction; that's spiritual arrogance.

The story of the prodigal son says it all. It shows us the true character of the Father. When the prodigal son returned, he wasn't rebuked or interrogated; he was immediately embraced and celebrated. And the father restored him fully, not halfway. That is the true Gospel. That is the heart of grace. And that's what I stand on.

I have said what needs to be said. So, I'm done with this conversation. Case closed!

nnamdi640:
I agree that love must be shown with compassion and humility — but compassion does not mean downplaying or softening God’s standards. Christ never condoned sin to avoid “hurting feelings”; instead, He coupled mercy with a clear call to repentance.

Yes, God’s command for purity applies to **both** men and women, and the Church should be consistent in teaching this. The double standard where women carry more shame than men is indeed wrong — but that’s a flaw in human application, not in God’s Word. The answer is not to downplay virginity or purity, but to call *everyone* — male and female — to the same standard without hypocrisy.

It’s true that a non-virgin who repents is forgiven and can walk in purity going forward — but that doesn’t erase the fact that God calls sexual immorality a sin, and that virginity before marriage remains a virtue worth teaching. If we stop talking about it for fear of offending, we risk raising a generation that sees no value in chastity at all.

Pointing people to righteousness is not the same as condemning them. The Bible commands us to **warn** the unruly (1 Thessalonians 5:14) and to **rebuke sin** (Titus 2:15), because silence can be as deadly as arrogance. A Christian who never speaks about sin in fear of “judging” is like a doctor who refuses to mention a disease to avoid upsetting the patient.

Yes, arrogance, slander, and self-righteousness are sins — but so is sexual immorality. We cannot preach against one while staying silent on the other. God looks at the heart, but Jesus also said, **“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God”** — and purity of heart is meant to reflect in purity of life.

True love tells the truth. Mercy forgives, but holiness calls us higher. The Church must do both — comfort the broken and challenge the wayward — because that is the way of Christ.

I fully agree that God does not condone sin or lower His standard, but He absolutely accepts and restores sinners without condemnation. That is the heart of the Gospel.

The story of the prodigal son shows us that when someone turns back to God, nothing is held back. Restoration isn't partial; it's complete.

Why is "purity" almost always reduced to virginity; and why is it mostly aimed at women? Sexual immorality is a sin. But so is pride. So is lies. So is hypocrisy. So is failing to keep the Sabbath holy. Why is it that some sins are shouted by you people while others are barely whispered?

If you truly believe that all of God's commands matter, why don't we hear more sermons from you on the Ten Commandments, or on Jesus' teachings against anger, greed, and hypocrisy?

Yes, if someone is a virgin, they should remain one until marriage. That's Biblical. But if someone isn't, repentance doesn't make them "less than." God doesn't offer second-class restoration. His grace doesn't reset at 70%; it resets at 100%. Once forgiven, that person is fully called to walk in purity, just like anyone else.

Correction is Biblical. Condemnation is not. There's a difference.

I sometimes fall short of keeping the Sabbath day holy. If my pastor came to me and said, "You haven't been keeping the Sabbath holy," and he lovingly challenged me to repent; even if he raised his voice or gave a stern rebuke; I could receive that as correction. But if he condemned me, acted like I was beyond grace, or implied that God would still punish me even after I repented; that's not correction. That's condemnation.

Yes, the Church should call people to live righteously. But let's be consistent. Let's preach all of God's standard, not just the parts that align with cultural expectations or religious tradition.

Christ came full of grace and truth; not one without the other. The Church should reflect the same.

nnamdi640:
I understand the call for compassion and grace, but the message you’ve shared risks distorting the balance of truth and love that the Bible teaches.
Yes, Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery — but He also told her, **“Go, and sin no more”** (John 8:11). Forgiveness in Christ never means condoning sin; it means giving the sinner a chance to turn away from it.

Virginity is not a “weapon,” but it is a **virtue** and a form of obedience to God’s word (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5). Honoring purity is not about shaming others; it’s about upholding what God calls holy, even if the world mocks it. Dismissing it as mere “culture” is unfair when Scripture itself speaks of keeping ourselves pure in body and spirit.

As for morality and health issues like HIV/AIDS — yes, they are medical matters, but sexual immorality does increase vulnerability, and warning against it is part of loving our neighbor. The Bible repeatedly warns about fleeing sexual sin, not because God is obsessed with controlling bodies, but because He cares about protecting lives, souls, and futures.

Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and visiting the sick are indeed commands of Christ — but so is calling people to repentance (Luke 24:47). The Great Commission is not *only* about meeting physical needs; it’s also about addressing spiritual needs. If we feed a person’s body but ignore their soul, we have only done half the work.

Grace is beautiful, but grace without truth is sentimentality. Truth without grace is harshness. Jesus embodied **both**.
So yes — let us be compassionate, but let us also be courageous in upholding God’s standards. Love does not rejoice in wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth (1 Corinthians 13:6).

Exactly, that's the point. Love does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but neither does it rejoice in condemnation. True correction; the kind modeled by Christ is done with compassion and humility, not with pride, superiority, or shame.

Why is the obsession always with female virginity? God's command for purity applies to both men and women. Yet somehow, women carry the weight of shame, while men are excused or even praised. That double standard isn't Biblical; it's cultural. And it's deeply harmful.

And just to be clear; I don't have a problem if someone wants to uphold and teach virginity as a cultural value. I respect culture, and there are certain cultural values I also uphold. But let's not confuse culture with Scripture, or use culture as an excuse to shame and belittle others. What might seem like a joke or just an opinion to us might actually take a toll on someone else. There are actually people carrying real wounds.

Did you partake in the suffering of Christ on the cross? What gives us that audacity and authority to judge others? What is really wrong with people? So many souls have been driven away from God; not by their sin, but by ignorance and harsh judgment.

Condemn the sin, not the sinner. I would rather say "fornication is a sin" than say "virgins are more valuable than non-virgins" or "God only loves virgins." Saying that would mean I've already judged and condemned non-virgins because they can't undo the past or become virgins again.

Forgiveness and purity are not tied to physical status. A non-virgin can still choose purity, repentance, and obedience from the heart; and that journey deserves respect, not ridicule.

The issue isn't about whether virginity is a virtue. The issue is how it's being discussed. Is it being upheld in love, or weaponized to shame and belittle others? Because once it becomes a measure of someone's worth, it's no longer about God's standard; it's about human pride.

Being a virgin doesn't make someone pure if their heart is filled with cruelty and superiority. And a non-virgin is not impure if they have turned to God in repentance. God looks at the heart.

Fornication is a sin; but so is arrogance, slander, self-righteousness, and judging someone based on their past. No one is beyond redemption; except the one too proud to admit they need it.

Jumbojax:
Well, you have clearly done your research which anyone can do, you have gone deep translationally but you are still shallow in understanding according to Spirit of the text, it is not something I can explain to you cause you have already taken an antagonistic stance. My point of view is what you will see if you want to see it, if not then you won't. You probably checked the NASB and saw no rendering of Matt 17:21 and instead of being genuine in your awe that your version is hiding something from you, you doubled down to defend your aforementioned point. I welcome debates like this because the scriptures declared that for faith that can actually save and change lives, you need to be persuaded. That's why you won't convince of your translational rendering cause I have always been of the opinion that dissecting the Greek to Garner meaning is like dissecting a word into letters to gain the meaning. The whole verse from the kjv if believed and accepted renders a more coherent meaning in line with the whole story, and that's the fact, though at the end of the day. I trust my kjv you trust your research and much reading. More power to your elbow. I'll leave you with this

Ecclesiastes 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

😂Sure, anyone can do research; just like anyone can walk into a gym. But that doesn't mean they're able to lift anything.

So, why didn't you?

🤣Don't confuse dodging accountability with defending the truth. They are two very different things.

Now that you know Matthew 17:21 is right there in the NKJV, you are still dancing around instead of just owning your mistake.

You challenged both the NASB and NKJV, but to avoid unnecessary back-and-forth; especially considering your surface-level grasp of these issues; I deliberately focused on the NKJV. It shares the same manuscript base as the KJV, so there's no excuse, no confusion.

🤣Now you're just diverting and nitpicking, hoping I'll get tangled in a translation argument you clearly can't handle.

Proverbs 1:5 A wise man will hear and increase learning,
And a man of understanding will attain wise counsel

Proverbs 18:15 The heart of the prudent acquires knowledge,
And the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.

nnamdi640:
Jesus love non virgin doesn't mean you as a single lady should go and give your body to a man that has not paid anything on your head, beside there are lot of advantages when virginity are appreciated and encouraged and one is to reduce spreading of hiv/aid

Virginity is not a weapon. It is not a badge to shame others or a license to look down on anyone. If you truly believe in Jesus, then remember how He defended the woman caught in adultery; while religious men stood ready to stone her. Also remember how the prodigal son was welcomed with open arms, not judged by his past mistakes.

As for HIV/AIDS, it doesn't care whether you're male or female; it's a medical issue, not a moral punishment for women. Conversations about HIV/AIDS belong to Aproko Doctor and other qualified health experts; not keyboard Pharisees posing as moral police.

If you're passionate about culture and tradition, it's fine. Just don't disguise it as "God’s standard" when it's really the gods of your land you're echoing. God doesn't crave or drink hymen blood. God cares more about love, repentance, and truth than about social pride dressed up as holiness.

Christianity is not about controlling people's bodies. It's about revealing Christ's love. So if your entire principle is just about who's sleeping with who, then you would be needing a serious reality check.

My virginity is not my ticket to Heaven. It is just a part of my personal dedication to Christ; not the source of my salvation. If I fall tomorrow, He'll still accept me. Not because I am worthy, but because He is. That's what grace looks like.

Before you point fingers, ask yourself: when was the last time you clothed the naked, fed the hungry, or visited the sick?

Have you ever considered that the "promiscuous" woman or the "prostitute" on your street might just be trying to survive hunger or hardship? Have you tried to feed or clothe her, all you know how to do is judge, judge, and judge.

Self-righteousness will lead many to hell.

Matthew 25:41-46
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

He didn't say, "I was immoral and you didn't corrected me."
He said, "I was hungry, thirsty, and sick; and you ignored Me."

Stop using my father's name as a front for your culture and traditions.

Enough of the wickedness.

Christianity is more than judgment; it's about compassion, grace, and humanity.

Focus on what truly matters.

Don't be the noise in the temple; be light in the world.

Jumbojax:
I clearly said He did not come to condemn anyone. I'm saying it clearer now He did not come to condemn anyone TO HELL. HELL is the real condemnation that the cross saves us from, but even after believing that if you steal in the market Jesus would not save you from the jungle justice that will kill you, but He will deliver you from HELL. He saved Mary Magdalene from Hell but her flesh still impure from her non-virgin unmarried status would contaminate the perfect atonement for Sins that His flesh accomplished through his death, burial and resurrection.
And those other translations are always going to be falsehoods, cause most of the scriptures you posted proves my point, they were written to massage the egos of unbelievers who couldn't accept the truths that the kjv stated plainly. In fact, here's an exercise for you, post Matthew 17:21 from the NASB or NKJV. if e sure you. You can't, cause they removed it. Because that verse would help cast out the demons that blind people from accepting the truths that only the kjv which is the only word of God that should be trusted.

I've done extensive research, so I can confidently say that much of what you're claiming is simply not correct. I've even studied the actual Greek manuscripts behind the Bible translations and translated many verses word by word myself.

From our short dialogue, it's already clear that your understanding of these issues is surface-level. I won't go deeper, because it might only confuse or overwhelm you; and that's not my goal.

Let's stick to NKJV, since it is essentially the same as KJV in term of manuscript base. The NKJV was created to update the language of the KJV, while providing more precise translation and improved clarity while still respecting the same manuscript tradition (Textus Receptus).

The NKJV does include Matthew 17:21:

New King James Version (NKJV)
21 [a]However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.”

So your claim that it was "removed" from the NKJV is false. It's right there, word for word.

In John 20:17, Jesus says to Mary Magdalene:

μή μου ἅπτου

While the King James Version translates this as "Touch me not," this rendering is not precise when examined in the original Greek.

Grammatical Breakdown:

μή = "do not" (used with non-indicative moods to form prohibitions)

μου = "me" (genitive pronoun required by the verb)

ἅπτου = present imperative, 2nd person singular, middle/passive of ἅπτομαι ("to touch," "to cling to," or "to hold on to" )

The verb ἅπτου is in the present imperative, which in Greek conveys an instruction regarding continuous or ongoing action. When used with μή, it usually implies:

A prohibition against starting a continuous action, or

A command to stop something already happening.

So, Jesus is not forbidding a single, momentary touch. Instead, He is more likely saying something like:

"Stop clinging to me," or

"Do not hold on to me."

If Jesus had intended to prohibit even a single instance of touching, He would have likely used the aorist tense, such as μή μου ἅψῃς, which would express a prohibition of a simple or momentary action.

Understanding the verb tense and aspect is crucial for accurate translation. It impacts interpretation: Jesus is not objecting to being touched per se, but likely making a statement about the change in relationship after His resurrection; that Mary should not try to hold on to His physical presence, as His mission is moving forward.

Translation requires an understanding of Greek grammar and verb aspect; not just blind loyalty to tradition or a particular English version.

A more contextually and grammatically accurate rendering would be:

"Do not hold on to me,"

"Stop clinging to me,"

or, less idiomatically, "Do not be touching me."

These reflect the Greek aspect more faithfully than the KJV's "Touch me not."

Mary Magdalene did not threaten Jesus' atonement by her presence or past. The idea that touching Him could somehow defile His redemptive work misrepresents both who Jesus is and the nature of grace.

The gospel is not about what we've done; it's about what He has done.

Your illustrations are incorrect as well. God gives grace, mercy, and favour as He wills; no one can calculate or predict God's evaluation. Jesus already took the punishment for sin on the cross over 2,000 years ago; fully and finally. His sacrifice was not vulnerable to contamination.

What we have now is grace. No one earns salvation or purity by works, behaviour, or personal merit.

Jumbojax:
First of all, any translation asides kjv is a lie.
Second, why would he allow a doubtful touch even the hole of His nail wounds and not a woman.
The answer is simple, principle. Even Jesus said a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, a little contamination has the ability to contaminate the perfect sacrifice of himself to the Father. And what is that is contamination her impure status a.k.a non-virgin and unmarried.
He did not condemn her, He did not come condemn anyone, but he rebuked the impure when purity was needed

You are mistaken; the KJV is not the only reliable Bible translation.

The KJV is historically significant, but it does have limitations in translation accuracy and readability. That's why the New King James Version (NKJV) was created; to update the language and improve clarity while still respecting the same manuscript tradition.

New American Standard Bible (NASB) is another highly respected translation, it is even widely recognized among pastors and scholars as one of the most accurate word-for-word English translations available today. It is based on earlier and more reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, whereas the KJV relied on later manuscripts that lacked many of the textual discoveries now available to modern translators.

John 20:16-17 showcased a deep moment. Do you realize that the interaction between Jesus and Mary Magdalene in John 20:16-17 is emotionally and theologically rich?

NASB:
16 Jesus *said to her, “Mary!” She turned and *said to Him in [a]Hebrew, “Rabboni!” (which means, Teacher). 17 Jesus *said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’”

NKJV:
16 Jesus said to her, “Mary!”

She turned and said to [a]Him, “Rabboni!” (which is to say, Teacher).

17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ ”

Jesus did not reject or rebuke Mary; He simply redirected her focus. She was already clinging to Him, and He lovingly told her not to hold on in that way because He was about to ascend. It marked a shift in how His followers would relate to Him; no longer by physical presence, but by faith in the risen and ascended Christ.

What you're suggesting even goes against the central message of the Gospel; that Jesus' death on the cross fully atoned for all sin. Scripture is clear:

"By one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified."
(Hebrews 10:14)

To claim that Jesus rebuked Mary because of impurity implies that His sacrifice wasn't sufficient to forgive certain sins; or that His atonement was incomplete or in vain. You are simply undermining the very power of the cross.

aoshea18:
Have you actually read the bible? Your comments show you haven't. I suggest you do deeper research into the subject before responding to every comment here that contradicts your frankly myopic point of view. The interesting thing is that a lot of Nigerian girls in their 20s, 30s and 40s are actually keeping their virginity for their husbands. You mentioned "non-virgins driving Lamborghinis" in one of your comments, it's obvious you think acquiring meaningless material things somehow makes up for your lack of morals.

Virginity would always have GREAT value in our society and before God. It's a shame a lot of ladies lost theirs in dirty hovels surrounded by filth and disease.

A quick bible lesson just to cap this all off, Elijah said to God that he was the only one serving him and that they were after his life, God reminded him that he has reserved 7,000 who were still serving God. It might look like all you see on social media are morally decadent girls selling their bodies in the name of content but that is just an algorithm social media uses. Have you ever wondered why you keep seeing videos from the same accounts you've been watching online even when you're not following them or actively engaging with them?

Start using your internet access for sensible topics and your world view would change. The algorithm is designed to show you more of what you interact with. And please, Jesus loves you virgin or not but decide TODAY to just stop sleeping around.

Reno is 100% right on this one and with a little research into the scriptures, with the HOLY Spirit, you might learn a thing or two.

Pharisees and Sadducees of our time; you are loud in judgment, quiet in mercy. Please, repent of your self-righteousness before the return of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom you claim to serve but clearly do not emulate.

Jesus is not impressed by your culture, your traditions, or your purity checklists; especially the ones obsessively focused on female virginity, as if righteousness only exists in one gender or one condition.

Jesus loves virgins. Jesus loves non-virgins. He calls everyone to repentance.

Heaven rejoices more over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine people who are righteous.

MrIcredible:
Waste!
If you like, reply and fight all the men in support of this fact on this thread, it won't change anything. You'll only continue to live in your delusions and regrets

Next life in case.... Try to live a decent and modest life.
If you want men to place high value on your, don't let yourself loose...

This one is your community rhyme, it doesn't work real life.

Bloodwritter:
What's stopping you?🤷

Same thing that stops a chef from eating every dish; patience and standard😂

MrIcredible:
Lol
Keeping wailing and deceiving yourself

This topic always trigger people like you.
People wey dem don use do table tennis...
You will never see a girl of good morals, a girl that has kept herself well and chaste crying over this.
You go dey alright

Just make sure you don't allow your seeds follow the same path.

It's only in your little community that women with morals are too scared to speak facts; because they rely on your approval to feel 'worthy.'

Your approval isn't needed, wanted, or relevant. I don't roll at people's feet or tremble at their voice for validation.

Delusion isn't a legacy to pass down.

So, instead of obsessing over my seeds, focus on your own legacy😂

Jumbojax:
She was the first yes, but her non-virgin status was punished by Him not allowing her to touch him. Even Thomas that doubted could touch him, but she couldn't. An unmarried non-virgin woman is more unclean than a sane man. Facts
John 20:17-18 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her

Absolutely not, Jesus forgives and takes away sin completely, He doesn't discriminate. You can't be in Christ and be condemned. If anyone be in Christ...

Why are you using baseless assumptions to disagree? Many of you twist anything just to discredit women; you twist history, the Bible, or anything at all.

You ignored the many Bible translations that say "Do not cling to me" or "Do not hold on to me" and focus only on the one that says "Do not touch me"; just to push a biased interpretation.

The actual Greek phrase Jesus used in the passage literally means "Stop clinging to me." Though, it can also be translated as "Do not touch me" or "Do not hold on to me."

The statement "stop clinging to me" reveals that Mary Magdalene was holding on to Jesus, possibly out of joy or not wanting to lose Him again. But Jesus was gently telling her that things were changing; He was returning to the Father, and from then on, people would relate to Him in a new, Spiritual way, not through physical presence.

If you keep holding on to your ideology, you're indirectly claiming that Jesus lied; because He gave a reason that is not related to your assumptions. He clearly stated: "I have not yet ascended to the Father."

Do you think the same Jesus who clearly told Peter, "Get behind me, Satan," wouldn't plainly tell Mary Magdalene she was unworthy to touch Him because she wasn't a virgin?

luminouz:
Lmaooooo

See wetin you write?

God didn't not choose Mary because she be virgin but as an olosho abi? It's called the virgin birth of Jesus for God's sake.

Virginity and DNA test are two things that drive you coo-coo and I love it.

He wasn't rewarding her, it was simply to sent Jesus into the world in a miraculous way.

That is why it is called the virgin birth of Jesus for God's sake, not the miraculous delivery experience of Mary😂

Gabrielshow24:
Thanks, ChatGpt for such enunciations but still she didn't explain the concept properly to you. Her logic was flawed, once again, women in 144,000 have encapsulated the singular—Be it symbolic or not. Also, she has drawn straws as I am not fixated nor projecting—she is!

I have in no way said all the shallow things she imputed as my own! She projected such faulty logic onto me; logic that can only be found in little children. Obviously, virginity isn't the sole factor for a reward! As well, virginity/purity is rewarded as exemplified in Revelation. This fact is what bothers her as she doesn't fit such a categorization, which I am not bothered about!

Anyone sensible can go through the write up. Her case can be likened to saying there is no verse for rewarding Benjamin when such verses exists in multiple places for Israel! —I suppose her conclusion is that the 144,000 do not contain woman!🤔

Anyway, keep your dissuasions to yourself! Virginity is not the yardstick but it also has its rewards! —that's a biblical fact!

I don't know how someone can be so disinclined to look for personal reward for women alone, based on virginity when the generic term encapsulates it. Pls, woman. Don't be bitter. I'm less concerned if you are, you came on strong implying that "virginity doesn't have rewards"! Which is false!

No logic survives a contradiction! As that simple verse, be it symbolic or not, negates that. The only way to go about this is to negate the inclusion of women in such😂. Thanks, bye as I don't have time for redundant conversations!

Bro, dismissing things emotionally doesn't make them any less valid. I get it; my reasoning hit hard, so the easiest way to reject it is to project that it was artificially generated. Nice try😂

Anyway, case closed. No point going back and forth when you're clearly unwilling to submit to facts.

Emeskhalifa:
So why was non virgin not chosen to carry the child of God?

It wasn't about virgin or non-virgin; it was about Jesus. The virgin birth was a specific condition for Jesus coming into the world, not a way to elevate or favour a virgin or virgins. Mary was simply the kind of vessel that could fulfil that condition.

Lezzlie:
Mary was chosen for her virginity, same with Sarah. Remember why God made sure Sarah was not defiled all through their journey?


The greatest miracle on Earth is Jesus' virgin birth because God knows women retain the DNA of a man who got them pregnant.

Before you project your limited knowledge and repugnant ideas, get educated.

Wow, so Mary wasn't chosen to fulfill prophecy? Jesus' birth was a reward for her virginity? What about other virgins; when will they receive their own miraculous birth?😂

Remember, Mary Magdalene😂

Yes, the greatest miracle, Jesus birth; was the fulfillment of prophecy, not because God was looking for a virgin to specially bless just for being a virgin.

MrIcredible:
You just contradicted yourself by mentioning Mary. Complete contradiction and nonsense.
Why did you think God didn't pick a non virgin to birth Jesus?
Because God care about purity and chastity and morals.

There's no where in the world a man of value with common sense will pick a girl that has been ran through over a virgin.
Stop deceiving yourself.

The scriptor even said,
BEHOLD, A VIRGIN...

I knew it; Trump, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, high-class celebrities home and abroad, politicians everywhere, almost all high-value men in Nigeria and across the world are women in disguise. Because why else would they have so much value, money, and options... yet still go after women who are not virgins? Why not untouched ladies? Why is it only broke and average guys that are obsessed with virginity 😂🤣

Mary's virginity fulfilled Isaiah 7:14 as a prophetic sign, to highlight the miracle of Jesus' birth; not because God avoids "non-virgins". Scripture never teaches that sexual history disqualifies anyone from being chosen or honoured by God.

If virginity were the standard, then why did God use Rahab, Tamar, Bathsheba, Mary Magdalene and even Gomer (unfaithful wife) and many other women that were not recorded as virgins?

It is very clear God doesn't view women through the shallow lens of "body count." He honours faith, humility, obedience, and repentance; not sexual history.

Reducing a woman's worth to virginity isn't Biblical; it's just cultural pride masquerading as morality.

Your virginity concept is just your own personal obsession 😂

MrIcredible:
Dey der dey deceive yourself.
Bride price is NOT ABOUT THE AMOUNT.
Get that into your thick skull and digest.

It's only about the value. EVEN IS DEM SET YOUR BRIDE PRICE FOR N10, I'LL NEVER PAY IT IF YOU'RE NOT A V.
AND I'LL MAKE IT VERY CLEAR AND PUBLIC THAT I WON'T PAY IT BECAUSE OF THAT REASON.

Okay... tell this to your boo.

Bloodwritter:
Why are you pained?
Did someone ask you to lose your virginty before marriage?


Even you wish you are a virgin 🤣🤣🤣🤣
The gilt is still inside you. You knew you have made a big mistake in your life.

Answer this "would you want you daughters to marry as virgins or they should be fvcked before the get married?"

Because I'm a virgin, but it is the non-virgins that are driving Lamborghinis😂🤣🤣

jmoore:
You just dey mix things upside down. The op didn't talk about reward in the question he asked. He simply asked why God chose a virgin named Mary to give birth to Jesus.

Inasmuch you attempted to answer the question by saying it was prophecy, you still missed the main point.

Main point: There was no way God would allow Jesus grow up in a body used for fornication. God circumvented the transmission of the sin nature.

True, the OP didn't use the word "reward," but the structure of the question; 'If virginity was not important, why did God choose Mary?'; implies that her virginity was an absolute qualification that influenced God's choice. That's why I addressed the underlying assumption that Jesus birth was a reward for Mary's virginity.

Mary's virginity simply fulfilled Isaiah 7:14 and highlighted the miraculous nature of Jesus' birth; it wasn't about God avoiding a "used" body. Scripture never teaches that sexual history defiles someone to the point where God can't use them.

Gabrielshow24:
Stop repeating yourself, I understand what you meant and I have addressed it earlier.

It's also termed an inaccuracy because you failed to account for the 144,000 that inherently included women . I believe women there encapsulates whatsoever personal reward ploy you aim to use for the singular. This aside, it's nice having a conversation with you, seeing you took the op's question as "degrading" 😂—indeed it's your insecurities at work!

You had hoped to achieve a sentiment "that no woman was rewarded for virginity and you argue that you are not concerned with shared reward"? This is awful because 144,000, if women are indeed there faults your analogy. Each woman there was rewarded for their purity among other things—that's why they get to follow Jesus around and learn a new song!

Invariably that verse solely negates your allusions. Bodily purity is also rewarded by God! I know yours is lost but you still have hope, because in that same chapter there were multitudes of tongues and nations which you are included in—all things being equal 👀—although, they do not meet this criteria but are present with God because they believed in him!

Once again, don't dissuade those that have taken purity as an oath👀!

So because I don't think like the gullible virgins you're used to meeting on the street, I couldn't possibly be one myself? I get it now; you're confused by the idea that a woman can have sense and self-control. Wild concept, right? 😂🤣

If only you realized; I'm not some 18 year old being swayed by fairy tales or wrong information. I'm a grown woman, doing well for myself, and I have absolutely no reason to be obsessed with virginity, let alone fake anything about it.

Neither I nor the people around me are that shallow, impressionable, or fixated on that topic. You might be used to women who are, but don’t project that onto me.

No, clearly you don't understand. If you did, you'd realize that the mention of the 144,000 has no relevance here. Since comprehension is still pending, let me explain again; this time in layman's terms:

My comment specifically addressed the overemphasis on female virginity. I was referring to women. Not both genders or men. I wasn't talking about a symbolic or shared reward. I said nothing of the sort.

I referred to a personal reward for women alone, based solely on virginity.

That was the entire point. But somehow, you took a detour; into wild assumptions and personal projections.

Gabrielshow24:
In what way have I said all these😂. Your point of assertion has been disproved and you have gone into some straw man... Although it was fun when I used it—appeal to the extremes—but yours is just rather plain misrepresentation. I have in no way said all these you have imputed upon me🤨. I think it's you that's projecting your insecurities because you seem to infer that I was insisting that only virgins will 'make it'. That was not my intention.

I have made my intention clear that I came to correct the inaccuracy of your assertion; nothing more, nothing less. The rest of my responses were me just having fun🤔—something you have taken personally 😂 and become worked up about. With the fact, that you started talking off point, 🤨bringing stuffs such as "virginity isn't the yardstick" —this also wasn't even my argument 🤔 at all.

Lady, once again, I am catching cruise. I also didn't say all these fuzzy-logic you wrote up there. Your cognitive bias inferred this!

Don't mind me 😂; we don't cruise like that in my circle, so I couldn't tell it was a joke. All I saw was passive-aggressive shade with a grin, aimed at degrading women. It was giving frustrated and insecure.

You mean you wrote those shady essays just to 'catch cruise'? That kind of energy only works in your own circle, but in public, it's not impressive, it could even be seen as a disorder.

Why is that so hard to grasp? I was clearly responding to someone who was overemphasizing female virginity. Your attempt to twist that only shows you're more interested in assumptions than actually reading what was said.

Where exactly is the inaccuracy you claim to be correcting? How do you 'correct' a clear fact? There isn't a single verse in the Bible where God rewarded a woman simply for being a virgin? Let me believe comprehension is still the issue here and break it down again: I specifically singled out women in my statement. I wasn't talking about men, or both men and women. I said nothing about a shared or symbolic reward; I was referring to a personal reward for women alone, based solely on virginity. That's it.

Gabrielshow24:
Lovely sentiments, it's solely to address your logic. I see you are already using the parable of Jesus 😮‍💨👀—what can you learn from that🤔...For me there was one particular emphasis 🤧👀. Also, my aim wasn't to show it's a criteria for holiness 😂 at least not in that sense👀but it's a criteria for bodily purity 😁. You don't need to tell us why you are a proponent for this stance with such feline veracity👀—We don't judge, We listen! We all are aware that many waters has passed under the bridge 😁.

Pls, don't dismiss the little children by causing them to sin🤔, that's un-Christlike🤨.

Oh my God; did you really just use the word 'sentiment'? Bro, why do you enjoy throwing around words without fully grasping their meaning?🤣

Be honest with yourself; who's really being sentimental here?

I was simply correcting someone who was biasedly emphasizing female virginity, but you got frustrated and worked up, jumped in, and started spewing nonsense and offering silly logic.

How many virgins did Jesus specifically highlight during His ministry on earth? Jesus came for everyone; especially the sinful. He even praised a particular woman just because of her devotion to Him and explicitly placed her story in history.

So, what exactly is your point? Be clearer.

Are you trying to say non-virgins can't repent? Or that virgins are more favoured by God? Which is it?

You can keep projecting if you want, but the truth is, you're arguing with a virgin who's wise enough to know that virginity alone isn't a qualification for righteousness.

Gabrielshow24:
Nope, just extending your logic to the extreme 😁.

Wow, it's interesting that you find my logic faulty, while you're the one actually expressing a flawed idea. Is virginity really a standalone qualification for holiness?

Ask yourself; are there only 144,000 Christian virgins in the whole world, both male and female?

Also, why would Jesus have referred to some virgins as foolish in one of His parables if simply being a virgin automatically meant complete righteousness or qualification for salvation?

Being a virgin doesn't guarantee holiness or salvation; it's about faithfulness and readiness.

Gabrielshow24:
So your logic is that the 144,000 doesn't include women😂?
Wow, is that how you see your kind—well given history🤔, I think it's really plausible. All in all, you have condemned your kind as ... What word am I looking for here...filthy?.. not quite... Probably befitting will be unchaste—Yeah this will do🤤.

What are all these silly projections you added? Does every lady remind you of your sisters or something?😂🤣🤣

Gabrielshow24:
So your logic is that the 144,000 doesn't include women😂?
Wow, is that how you see your kind—well given history🤔, I think it's really plausible. All in all, you have condemned your kind as ... What word am I looking for here...filthy?.. not quite... Probably befitting will be unchaste—Yeah this will do🤤.

🙄Let me break down and simplify my English: women are included, but not women alone; rather, both women and men are involved.

To better understand what I'm driving at, you should probably take a close look at the question that led to this and try to grasp it first.

Gabrielshow24:
Women are inherently included except you wish to argue otherwise👀, although given modern standards I'm not surprised at such😅.

Just women meaning only women.

Let me repeat it:
There isn't a single verse in the Bible where God rewarded a woman simply for being a virgin.

😂🤣🤣 Bride price can't even cover groceries for a month, yet some people be emphasizing it like it's a big lottery win.

Bride price is not that deep; it's just tradition. Some families even collect it and hand it right back.

Gabrielshow24:
That's flawed, in revelation some were honored because of their high purity—The 144,000 comes to mind. Indeed, there's a crown for virgins! Apart from these, I agree with whatever else you chimed in.

Was the 'some' referring to just women?

In Scripture, women were treated with dignity; Jesus Himself uplifted and respected women regardless of their past. There isn't a single verse in the Bible where God rewarded a woman simply for being a virgin.

Mary being chosen wasn't a reward for her virginity; it was to fulfill prophecy, align with the lineage of David, and emphasize a miraculous birth.

If your logic held, Mary Magdalene wouldn't have been the first to witness the risen Christ. Virginity has never been presented as a qualification to be valued, blessed, or favoured by God.