₦airaland Forum

narrowpathy:
Look at how "preachers of love" and light bringers are throwing around dirty hateful insults at each other...
this is disappointing and shameful. I can't believe this

This is what happens when you neglect to patent against copyright infrigement and unauthorised use of your idea(s)

The devil when here, in disbelief, shrieked at the thread, saying:
"Oh dear... look at all these competitions
At this rate, I'll soon be out of business earlier than imagined"

Ranchhoddas:
The thread appears to have taken a different turn.

The demons seems to be, all in here,
hmm, no wonder "hell" is empty

Chubhie:
Won't some of the miracles Jesus did pass as sorcery?

analice107:
Mention 1 that could pass as sorcery.

Chubhie:
Alagba, what happened in John 9:6?

analice107:
What happened in John 9:6?

butterflylion:
So spitting into mud and using it to heal is now sorcery?
Lmao
Perhaps Mathew 17:27 was also sorcery
Or what happened in Mathew 9: 20-22 was also sorcery ba?

Chubhie:
What could be the possible explanation on what transpired?
Attempt a defence.

butterflylion:
Have you bothered to check the culture of the romans and how they perceived the blind? Or how their methods of healing blindness was implemented?
I am sure if you do check this out you would understand why Jesus had to deliberately do what he did not need to do at that time.
He did not need to do that before the blind man would receive his sight but he did.
I give that to you as an assignment. Go and check and thank me later.
Also often times faith of the one who is to be healed needs to be attached to something.
You do the math

analice107:
Pls Post it here and tell me what you think it is, then we will take it from there

Chubhie:
We have to call it a day.The Pleiadians beckons.

First of all, what if you're told, there is negative "sorcery" and there is positive "sorcery"

Now, there is a sharp distinction, which is very simple, between each

That is, negative "sorcery" is any activity that bypasses God’s wisdom and power
and the source is usually attributed to mytical gods and/or Satan instead.
Also most purveyors of this brand of sorcery have no great pride in Yeshua Ha Maisaich aka Jesus Christ
or hardly have any pleasure in acknowledging His divinity

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
- Genesis 2:7

Then the LORD God formed the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman and brought her to the man.
- Genesis 2:22

"House of Israel, can I not treat you as this potter treats his clay?"--this is the LORD's declaration.
"Just like clay in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, house of Israel.
- Jeremiah 18:6

Chubhie, about John 9:6
well, that was more of a re-enactment activity rather than sorcery per se
Spitting into mud and using it, was God going through a moment from the past again
God, was reliving a moment
That spitting into clay and using it, was a process of creation, re-created
It also was a testament that Yeshua Ha Maisaich aka Jesus Christ is God

Billyonaire:
Your definitions of magic, and when I say 'your' I mean plural for all those who think of magic as purely negatives are wrong.
The erroneous perception that Magic is a negative path is where you are having the confusion.
Jesus, in the allegory turned water into wine, that was magic.
I love magic and many people love magic, but alluding that Magic is negative is what scares the shiit out of people.
If your Magic heals and invents, then it is positive. But if your magic destroys and kills, then it is negative.
It is the User Agent, that decides how to browse the Universe and how the cookies crumble.

Magic is transmutation of Universal Energies to achieve desired intentions. The outcome and expectation is yours to decide if its positve or native. Magic is not a negative action, neither is it purely positive. It is a naturally neutral action in nature that is conjured to work as you desire.

May we prosper even as we use the Laws of Nature for the good of the all Creation.

¹Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king,
magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem,
²saying, ‘Where is He who has been born King of the Jews?
For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.”
- Matthew 2:1-2

"Belteshazzar, (i.e. Daniel) chief of the magicians,
because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in you,
and no secret troubles you,
tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and its interpretation
- Daniel 4:9

I want to believe you have now, seen I am not lying
and you are honorable enough to retract that statement suggesting I am

PastorAIO:
The subject that we are discussing is not the character (half or full) of Yahweh.
We are discussing the name.

Ose ooo meaning thank you ooo
Same way I wasnt asking about your character when I typed:
I know quite a few, for a start, know sarassin and know what sarassin's ID or name means
I know you too, know what your Nairaland ID handle or name is
but what does the PastorAIO ID name mean and do you live up to it?

PastorAIO:
You are twisting so hard that you want to destroy the whole edifice of the English language as well.
Yahweh, not I did reveal unto them"

You are trying so hard and dont want to accept that Exodus 6:3 wast originally written in English

PastorAIO:
Now tell me, is that even grammatically correct English.
Stop embarrassing yourself

You are committed to misunderstanding me
No matter how carefully I present or choose my words, they'll always end up being twisted by you
Look at the text analysis in the below screenshot and tell, if it isnt you embarrassing yourself

PastorAIO:
Please tell us the name of the bible version that you read that translated it like that, if you're not lying

https://i68.tinypic.com/312z7lv.jpg
Your wish is my command
I am reading the original, and not any particular translations nor translated versions per se

PastorAIO:
What new character did God show to them that he hadn't shown before.?

Here you go again getting continually preoccupied with character
Though you chose to ignore it
but where I earlier asked about, what does the PastorAIO ID name mean and do you live up to it
I wasnt asking about your character but was asking about the PastorAIO ID name

You have heard people say:
"Maa fi han ẹ, nkan ti orukọ mi jẹ" or "Orukọ nro"
meaning when loosely translated:
"I will reveal to why I am called by my name" or "aptly named, he's living up to the name"

Well, you and I, know and accept that, Yahweh means I AM THAT I AM, isnt it?
We can at least agree on that, cant we?

PastorAIO:
You are a very confused person

You will always say someone is a very confused person,
if they're not giving you the answers you want to hear
but since you first brought it up, thinking of it, it's really you, who is more confused than a chameleon in a bag of skittles
and all because you are not paying attention and giving careful consideration to the post's each and every word

Just because you know my name doesn't mean you know me
Likewise, just because certain patriachs used and know Yahweh's name, doesnt mean they know Yahweh

You've miscontrued all my honest and well-intended response(s)
Nothing spoilt because everything will make perfect sense, when, later you understand what does Yahweh mean
So for now, laugh at the confusion

PastorAIO:
So the full meaning of Yahweh is revealed by sending plagues to egypt?

SMH, the problem is, you're clutching on to "So the full meaning of Yahweh is revealed by sending plagues to egypt?"
but failing to lay hold of the underlined in: "by my name, Yahweh, not I did reveal unto them"

PastorAIO:
But though they were calling yahwehs name before they didn't know Yahweh

Where are you getting "they didn't know Yahweh" from?

The original text says: "by my name, Yahweh, not I did reveal unto them"
"not I did reveal" are the keywords in that original text statement

You have heard people say:
"Maa fi han ẹ, nkan ti orukọ mi jẹ" or "Orukọ nro"

meaning when loosely translated:
"I will show you or reveal to you why I am called by my name" or "aptly named, he's living up to the name"

PastorAIO:
because they were unaware of his full genocidal capabilities

¹³Then the Lord said to Abram, “You can be sure that your descendants will be strangers in a foreign land,
where they will be oppressed as slaves for 400 years.
¹⁴But I will punish the nation that enslaves them, and in the end they will come away with great wealth.
1⁵(As for you, you will die in peace and be buried at a ripe old age.)
¹⁶After four generations your descendants will return here to this land,
for the sins of the Amorites do not yet warrant their destruction.”
(i.e. for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure)
- Genesis 15:13-16

Your "his full genocidal capabilities" outburst, as you can see in Genesis 15:13-16 above, was God's judgement on them for their wickedness

PastorAIO:
even though he wiped out the earth with a flood

Yep, even though He wiped out the earth with a flood in His capacity
He wiped out the earth with a flood, in His capacity as El-Shaddai (i.e. in His capacity as God Almighty) and not as Yahweh
but now, God, in effect, is telling Moses, they dont call Me Yahweh for nothing
and that He wants to do justice to the name.
God wants to live up to his Yahweh name
He is going to meet the expectations that the Yahweh name suggests and commands
You may call it nominative determinism, if you wish

I know quite a few, for a start, know sarassin and know what sarassin's ID or name means
I know you too, know what your Nairaland ID handle or name is
but what does the PastorAIO ID name mean and do you live up to it?

The cat's out of the bag...
He who sups with the devil should have a long spoon

⁶Eat you not the bread of him that has an evil eye, neither desire you his dainty meats:
⁷For as he thinks in his heart, so is he:
Eat and drink, said he to you; but his heart is not with you.
⁸The morsel which you have eaten shall you vomit up, and lose your sweet words.
- Proverbs 23:6-8

Chins up, smiles on!
What if I told you, I knew it's a matter of time, before someone turns up to start pissing on this thread,
but those having itching ears, were telling OP, the pissing on the parade, is rain and not pee
and that OP should continue singing because they're dancing in the rain, dancing in the pissing rain

Brace yourself OP, as this thread continues being made a laughing stock by the butterflylions, the Pidgin2s, the analice107s & the 701ecilanas
and you get the butt-end of different more jokes from the Billyonaires, the sukkots & others

smartn09, OP is not after or interested in filthy lucre.

PastorAIO:
As long as the name was in use then contradicting the claim of exodus then my point stands

Abram said to the king of Sodom,
"I have lifted up my hand to Yahweh, God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth,
- Genesis 14:22

¹After this presentation to Israel’s leaders, Moses and Aaron went and spoke to Pharaoh.
They told him, “This is what Yahweh, the God of Israel, says:
Let my people go so they may hold a festival in My honor in the wilderness.”
²“Is that so?” retorted Pharaoh.
“And who is Yahweh? Why should I listen to him and let Israel go?
I don’t know Yahweh, and I will not let Israel go.”
- Exodus 5:1-2

I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El-Shaddai (i.e. God Almighty)
but by my name, Yahweh, not I did reveal unto them
- Exodus 6:3

The name "was in use" or the name being in use, is quite different to knowing by experience what the name is about

Pharaoh, the Israelites and neighbouring countries, got to know and see the manifestations of the name Yahweh

Yahweh, aka YHWH, aka I AM, WHO I AM, aka etcetera revealed to Pharaoh, the Israelites and neighbouring countries by being Yahweh; I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE

The practical exhibition and performance revealed the intrinsic meaning of Yahweh to Pharaoh, the Egyptians, the Israelites and neighbouring countries

Exodus 6:3, is saying, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob know, have seen and experienced Me, as El-Shaddai (i.e. God Almighty)
but they never had the opportunity to demonstrably see, know or experience Me, as Yahweh

Inspite of the earlier explaination, you're still bent on allowing a false sense of triumphalism to creep into your mind
and standing your point on a wobbly stool that falsely looks normal

PastorAIO:
Hello, I get your drift very well and I say that you drift is the wrong drift.

Okay, you are making the big, and wrong, assumption that Moses wrote Genesis. That is a tradition that is man made.
In the same Books of Moses we can read an account of Moses' death. How is that possible?

Above already responded to

PastorAIO:
But even if we were to allow that obvious error, how do we account for Genesis 4:26.

In Gen 4:26 we are told clearly and explicitly that at the time of Enosh was when people began to call on the name Yahweh.

So the name Yahweh was in use from the time of Enosh according to this passage

Yes the name was used from Enosh's time
but you've still got the wrong end of the stick, again, with Genesis 4:26b
Genesis 4:26b is not interpreted as "at the time of Enosh was when people began to call on the name Yahweh
Genesis 4:26b is the crescendo of man's misuse/abuse of Yahweh's name and irreverent behaviour that culminated in Genesis 6:1-7

Whilst you've noticed that Genesis 4:26b is a brand new sentence,
why not consider checking what word is mistranslated as "began" in it

PastorAIO:
Genesis said they called on the name of the lord.
What name would that be? Would they call him Amadioha? If the did would he answer ?

Do you realise that The LORD is translated from Yahweh in the Christian bible.
So when genesis says the called on the name of Yahweh I can only take that to mean that they knew the name and used it to call the bearer.

If you think otherwise then please, in as few words as possible, tell us how they called on the name of Yahweh without knowing the name but of Yahweh

I think by now, the realisation has dawned on you that Genesis DOESN'T SAY they called on the name of the lord
"called on the name of the Lord" is a mistranslation of Genesis 4:26b

PastorAIO:
Exodus6:3

3and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as El Shaddai, but by My name, YHWH, I did not make Myself known to them.

Funny thing is that Yahweh is all over the place before Moses turns up

truthislight:
Because the same God that appeared to Abraham as EL-shaddai is the one that revealed himself to Moses as the one that appeared to Abraham Isasc and Jacob. Hence, the one that asked moses to write.

It therefore made sense that Moses identified him where ever in his writing whenever a reference to him YAHWEH is made.

Simple!

Peace.

PastorAIO:
Sir, you are missing the point. As usual. I am not asking if Yahweh is equivalent to el shaddai or not.

Exodus 6:3 says Abraham did not know Yahweh by name.

Genesis 14:22 quotes Abraham as calling Yahweh by name.

So the question, wherein lies my point, is 'Did Abraham know Yahwehs name or not'?

Resounding yes!
Abraham did know Yahweh's name
Abraham knew Yahweh's name and used it in conversations (e.g. Genesis 14:22)
he however, didn't get to know or witness the explicit meaning of the name; Yahweh
The occasion didnt arise for him to personally experience the meaning,
to be found in words or events, what the name; Yahweh, is and all about

God was about to manifest Himself. God was going to explosively demo,
God is ready and eager for confrontation
God is going to demonstrate for Pharaoh, the Israelites and who care to watch, what it means to be named Yahweh
Better watch out. God's on a warpath
What it takes be called Yahweh, which was not revealed Abraham, is about to be made known publicly (i.e. Exodus 6:3)

PastorAIO:
One of those 2 bible passages is a lie. Or maybe even both sef.

As read above, none of the 2 bible passages is a lie
As a matter of fact and even sef both the Genesis 14:22 and Exodus 6:3 statements are in their own rights, individually true

truthislight:
Read that my post again.

Since Abraham did not do the writing of the account he cannot be said that he knew based on that.

Someone else did the reported speech

My explanation is that the one that had discussion with Abraham did asked moses to write what took place between them in the past, hence it was appropriate for moses to insert the name of Yahweh in the reported speech since it was obvious to him who it was that was talking to Abraham.

Knowing that it was a reported speech and Moses was the one that Yahweh reveal his name to, mentioning Yahweh by name in his writing cannot be wrong.

He however mentioned that this name was unknown to Abraham. Any deceit there?

If you still fail to get my drift let me know

"¹⁸He said, "Please show me your glory."
¹⁹He said, "I will make all my goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of Yahweh before you.
I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy."
²⁰He said, "You cannot see my face, for man may not see me and live."
²¹Yahweh also said, "Behold, there is a place by me, and you shall stand on the rock.
²²It will happen, while my glory passes by, that I will put you in a cleft of the rock,
and will cover you with my hand until I have passed by;
²³then I will take away my hand, and you will see my back;
but my face shall not be seen."
- Exodus 33:18-23

Moses asked to see time ahead, asked to see what lay in front and lies ahead,
but God declined, saying no one can see His face and live,
so instead, showed him the past, starting from, in the beginning, showed him the back and what laid behind
In effect, the someone else did the reported speech after watching a ''rewind the recording way back towards the beginning'' film or tape

DoctorAlien:
Good. I understand that Christ shed His blood so that we can be forgiven i.e. so that our sins would be remitted.
This is because atonement/reparation for sin must be made, as the Bible records that "without shedding of blood is no remission." Heb. 9:22

Sarassin:
So, let me see now if I understand you correctly, You say that Jesus shed his blood so that you may be forgiven your sins,
because as you say ; atonement/reparation for sin is essential
and without shedding blood atonement is not feasible and neither is remission.

This is sheer genius at work, in trying to wrangle yourself a get-out-of–jail-card
you have conflated the doctrines of Forgiveness and Atonement
and created another gospel entirely.
It is the words and actions of Jesus that matters the most and nothing else,
it should be clear to all that one of the most central themes of the teachings of Jesus was that of forgiveness,
in the following verses Jesus directly teaches this; Mat 26:28, Mark 11:25, Mat 11:6-15, 1 John 1:9, Luke 17:3-4, Mat 6:14-15

Yes this is true that one of the most central themes of the teachings of Jesus was that of forgiveness
but the other most central theme is, reconciliation
which essentially is, returning or coming back to God, having "at-one-ment" with God (i.e. atonement)
Without the work successfully done or carried out by Jesus, the "at-one-ment" with God opportunity, will not have existed

God, in Genesis 6:6, is on record, saying, He was sorry He made human beings on the earth and he was deeply grieved about that.
but as Jesus, with atonement or "at-one-ment",
He did something, as a way, that showed He is sorry and that would fix up the entire mess or situation

I can go on about "at-one-ment" with God (i.e. atonement, DNA, zygote, blood etcetera) but the extra info will exceed the scope of this reply.

Sarassin:
I asked you to provide one verse in the NT where Jesus alludes to “atonement”, I will help you out

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served,
but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
- Mark 10:45

Even as the Son of Man is not come to be ministered unto,
but to minister, and to give His life a redemption for many.
- Matthew 20:28

Short Definition:
a ransom, an offering of expiation
the act of making amends or reparation for guilt or wrongdoing; atonement

Definition:
the purchasing money for manumitting slaves, a ransom, the price of ransoming;
especially the sacrifice by which expiation is effected, an offering of expiation.
freeing them from all slavery (bondage) to sin

Sarassin:
Nowhere in the NT canons does Jesus directly express the view that his death is a vehicle for the atonement of sins,
not once does Jesus use the word ‘atonement’ even his disciples taught that the death of Jesus brought about the forgiveness of sins,
the distinction is there to be made but most Christians are simply not aware of it.

⁴⁸If we let Him go on like this, everyone will believe in Him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”
⁴⁹But one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all!
⁵⁰You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”
⁵¹Caiaphas did not say this on his own. Instead, as high priest that year, he was prophesying that Jesus would die for the nation,
⁵²and not only for the nation, but also for the scattered children of God, to gather them together into one
- John 11-48-52

and He Himself is the propitiation (i.e. atoning sacrifice) for our sins;
and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world
- 1 John 2:2

In this is love:
it was not that we loved God, but He has loved us,
and He sent us His Son, the atonement for the sake of our sins
- 1 John 4:10

God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,
through the shedding of his blood--to be received by faith.
He did this to demonstrate his righteousness,
because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--
- Romans 3:25

People have already publicly and indirectly said this about Jesus
so, why my friend, are you expecting Jesus to allude again to a done and dusted fact
Caiaphas, in John 11:50 above, wasn't talking about forgiveness but rather was alluding to atonement

Sarassin:
The doctrine of atonement is a construct of Paul in his writings
purely and simply for selfish and egotistical reasons

The next day, John saw Jesus coming toward him and said,
"Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
- John 1:29

Rather, the payment that freed you was the precious blood of Christ,
the lamb with no defects or imperfections
- 1 Peter 1:19

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served,
but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
- Mark 10:45

Even as the Son of Man is not come to be ministered unto,
but to minister, and to give His life a redemption for many.
- Matthew 20:28

To the contrary, not according to John the Baptist, Peter, Mark and Matthew
these subscribed to the doctrine of atonement

Sarassin:
the shedding of human blood for the sins of others was not Jewish practise
the doctrine of atonement was essential to Paul's gospel

The shedding of human blood for the sins of others was not Jewish practise
because God gave them, an expressed command against shedding or sacrificing of human blood for the sins of others.

I am sure, you know, why God was against the shedding of such ordinary human blood, is because of the pointlessness

I am sure, you accept and agree that, God, Himself, is not bound by "the shedding or sacrificing of human blood for the sins of others" restriction
I also, am equally sure, you are aware, God, was not against the shedding of human blood per se

Sarassin:
it is one of the most important doctrinal discrepancies between the writings of Paul
and the Synoptic writers that has perplexed biblical scholars enormously

Perplexed SOME biblical scholars enormously
BUT not all or every other person

Sarassin:
You jumped into the middle of this thread bandying wild accusations and snide comments without bothering to read through properly.
Let me be clear, I am not teaching anyone anything, these are merely my views.
My assertion that Paul considered himself an incarnation of Jesus stands,
an incarnation in the sense that he arrogated to himself the ability to divine the nature of Christ,
not even on a physical level, because he never met Jesus but in a spiritual and ephemeral sense

Where and when exactly did Paul
''arrogate himself the ability to divine the nature of Christ,
not even on a physical level, but in a spiritual and ephemeral sense"?

Sarassin:
that in a nutshell is the essence of what I have been writing about

Well, it was obvious from the opening post, that you'll go over-energetic and completely bananas with thread,
Next time, try briefly and clearly expressing what exactly each of the falsehoods are
and stop being superfluous
Soul-destroying and too long assertions like on this thread causes one to feel bored or try someone's patience
PastorAIO's prophecy is about to fulfil, that arguments will just go all over the place and 10 pages later there'll be no progress, just a lot of yabis.

Didov1:
...yh.people called paul n is brothers {brothers in christ} christians in antioch ......first...
what do u mean by d word CHRISTIAN..
to my own understanding.. it means a follower of christ, someone who is christlike.........
nice writeup op..

The Christi-anos or Christian slur word used by King Agrippa or the people at Antioch,
that Peter and the disciples took exception to did not and doesn't etymologically mean follower of christ

Four groups of people follow(ed) Jesus,
(i.e. namely: the Crowd, the Curious, the Committed and the Committee)
Each four qualify to be called follower of christ
King Agrippa or the people at Antioch know this and so Christi-anos or Christian to them didnt mean follower of christ
Nor did it or does it mean ''someone who is christlike''

When the Christi-anos or Christian mocking term was coined by the people of Antioch
and when it was used by King Agrippa, it actually means quite the opposite of ''someone who is christlike''

Didov1:
ookaaay muttleylaff...since u prefer been called christ follower, no problem...

The focus is not me
but what those that believed in the Mashiach called each other

The truth is those that believed in the Mashiach never called themselves the Christi-anos or Christian term
but called each other:
"saint(s)"; "brother(s)"; "sister(s)"; "disciples";
"elder(s)"; "apostle(s)"; "servant(s)"; "believer(s)";
"follower(s)";"the faithful", "the elect(s)" (i.e. 2 John 1:1); "the called", (i.e. Romans 8:28)
"slave(s)/bondservant(s)" progressing to being "son";
"a child of God" maturing to being "son of God" (i.e. Romans 8:17, Galatians 4:7, 1 John 5:1, 1 Corinthians 7:22, 1 John 3:1, John 1:12)

They never, not once, call each other the Christi-anos or Christian term

Didov1:
sofar you belief in christ and i do same, then we are good to go....

You're good at skirting the issue
and doing a good job of keeping distant from the truth

I earlier gave you four groups of people that follow(ed) Jesus,
(i.e. namely: the Crowd, the Curious, the Committed and the Committee)
Now, tell, how did you arrive at your understanding, that the term Christi-anos or Christian means, follower of Christ?

If the term Christi-anos or Christian really means, follower of Christ,
arent each of those four groups, the aforementioned 4 Cs; followers of Christ?

Didov1:
the word christian was used jst thrice in d new testament nd they r all refering to d christians of d early church.,.(act11:26)for a whole yr barnabas nd saul met with the church and taught great number of people, the disciples were called christians at first at antioch......
(act26:28)..then agrippa said to paul,do you think that in such a short time you can persuade to be a CHRISTIAN?......
(1peter4:16)..however,if you suffer as a christian,do not be ashamed but praise GOD that you bear that NAME....
they were called christians bcox they bhave n preach abt christ..i think dox verse r enough prove....muttleylaff

Is it necessary that the truth be labored again, that on each occasion, the term Christi-anos or Christian was used,
it was used in a despicable, belittling, derogatory and rebuffing context or manner

Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16 are the only three places in the bible where the term Christi-anos or Christian, is found and used

No where else, in the bible, will it ever be found, any of the disciples, believers, Paul, Peter, say I am a CHRISTIAN...
No where else, in the bible, will it ever be found, any of the disciples, believers, Paul, Peter, addressing each other as CHRISTIANs...

If the christian term is so palatable or that acceptable,
dont you wonder why neither Paul, Peter, disciples, etcetera ever addressed themselves or each other by it?

I can only tell the truth about the real meaning of the term Christi-anos or Christian. I cant make you believe it

frosbel2:
"You must not have any other god but me" - Exodus 20:3

Christians might be committing idolatry by worshipping the same Jesus WHO said;
"It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only"
Luke 4:8

It is scary, but Christians could actually be displeasing God by their worship of a MAN,
which may be why churches are full of madness and confusion.

¹After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem,
²asking, “Where is the One who has been born King of the Jews?
We saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.”
- Matthew 2:1-2

⁸So they hurried away from the tomb in fear and great joy, and ran to tell His disciples.
⁹Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!”
They came to Him, grasped His feet, and worshiped Him.
¹⁰“Do not be afraid,” said Jesus.
“Go, tell My brothers to go to Galilee. There they will see Me.”…
- Matthew 28:8-10

The man saw Jesus at a distance.
So he ran [to Jesus], bowed down in front of Him, (i.e. worshipped Him)
- Mark 5:6

Hier:
Please, close this case, #Shalom

This is what happens, when yanga sleeps, and something else, goes wake up its post.
#Shalom

analice107:
I'm happy for this man, but the thing is, for 40yrs he had led people to hell fire and left them there, now he has escaped. This scares me to bits.

Guys be careful whose influence you are under. Most atheists here will draw kids into hell and then leave them there afterwards and escape.

Farrakhan a Christian now? This man is responsible for Islam in America in the past years.

God help me not to follow man, but you

analice107:
I had read more about his statement on Facebook. He is not a Christian and his proclamation of Jesus is in the light of Islam, not Christianity.

My dear children,
I am writing this to you so that you will not sin.
But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate who pleads our case before the Father.
He is Jesus Christ, the one who is truly righteous
- 1 John 2:1

He doesn't want and doesn't have to be a Christian

Anyway, I enjoyed watching his defiance at the devil
and reliving the Job déjà vu stance
You can have the money, have the clothes, have the suit, have the house,
but me, you can not have

Chap is smart, he's cop on that there a free legal aid in Heaven.
So he's secured himself the best legal aid in advance

Didov1:
..same here...u make me read d whole comments 2 understand u....
he is jst after d historic meaning of d name n d way it was during d time of paul....
dou m nt in support of his notion

What is my notion that you are not in support of?

Didov1:
..cox i belief the word christian means follows of christ...
dat do nt stop me from been a christian..

You believe wrong
because the word Christian or Christi-anos does not mean followers of Christ

You will shudder once you know what Christian or Christi-anos really means
The meaning is repugnant
The people of Antioch, are masters in formulating epithets like this and are infamous for it

Four set of people followed Jesus in the bible, namely:
The Crowd, the Curious, the Committed and the Committee

Arent all of those followers of Christ? The 4 Cs?

Hier:
well, I must be sincere, but that's by the way

Do you sincerely think King Agrippa and the people of Antioch meant the Christian term to be a compliment?

Most people dont really want the TRUTH
They just want constant reassurance that the lie, what they believe, is the truth

The truth, sometimes is better not to know
because it is something somebody dont want to hear or know

Hier:
If I had know, I will just put up a write up without quoting you but its gonna address all that.
So, I will just pretend as though I didn't read all the above and go to my tent.
Thanks

You know the truth by the way it feels
Dont put up a write up, if you cant handle the response
If you can't handle the truth about what the christian term really means, you shouldn't have put up the write up

Am I now, not proven right, when I wrote:
Admittedly, the attachment or commitment to a traditional term,
especially one is known to, addressed as or referred to, has to be a hard thing to break
Certainly, this is a seemingly pious name, to make one, want to bury head in the sand
and not want to know the truth about it
(i.e. be hostile to the truth about the tag Christian or Christi-anos)

Hier:
You seem like you are in agreement with his write up from the bolded

Are you bothered, if she does

Hier:
the truth is, if I call myself a Christian

The truth is, God never called believers Christians,
Jesus never called His followers Christians.
The disciples, apostles, Paul, Peter etcetera never called each other Christians
so why you decide call yourself a Christian?
Why call yourself a christian, knowing what the term Christian means, when it's used by the people who coined the term?

Hier:
it doesn't make me less of what God want for me

Calling you a nigger doesnt make you less of a black man God wants you to be
but you still would object to being called a nigger
Why the double standards?
Why accept being called a Christian but not accept being addressed or called a nigger?

Hier:
cause all this confusion doesn't count before God now

To put confusion at rest, here is the list of names that count before God:

"saint(s)"
"brother(s)",
"sister(s)"
"disciples",
"elder(s)"
"apostle(s)",
"servant(s)",
"believer(s)",
"follower(s)",
"the faithful",
"the elect(s)", (i.e. 2 John 1:1)
"the called", (i.e. Romans 8:28)
"slave(s)/bondservant(s)" progressing to being "son"
"a child of God" maturing to being "son of God" (i.e. Romans 8:17, Galatians 4:7, 1 John 5:1, 1 Corinthians 7:22, 1 John 3:1, John 1:12)
and "Hephzibah" (i.e. Isaiah 62:2, 4)

Responding to your opening sentence, I suggest to whom applicable, should be called any of the above

You also asked:
Does the fact that we refer to ourselves as Christians, makes it punishable by God. You know the punishment for sinners at least

Well I dont know about punishment.
But I know you will be held accountable, if you persist after knowing the truth and meaning of term

Didov1:
sorry muttleylaff,i was reffering 2 d former thread were ur comments were taken from..(handful of reason why you may not be a christian)that d name of d thread.....nd abt d paulic part,i dnt rilly understand d word,dat was why i told him i'm a christian...

Then God said,
"Let us make human beings in Our image, to be like us (i.e. according to Our likeness)
- Genesis 1:26a

You want to yearn for attributes of God and not Paul's
Be like God, not like Paul

and for your information, when King Agrippa and the people of Antioch called the early believers or disciples Christi-anos (i.e. CHRISTIAN)
it was not as a compliment nor did they mean CHRIST-like by the term Christi-anos

This is why you wouldnt find early believers, disciples, saint, Peter, Paul, Jesus, or God embrace the term

Hier:
What do you suggest Christians should be called Jesus witnesser or Gospel preacher.

lemme add, does the fact that we refer to ourselves as Christians, makes it punishable by God.
You know the punishment for sinners at least

Let me add, that, knowledge isnt free, you got to pay attention

The word Christian, is the Greek transliteration, Christi-anos

So, admittedly, the attachment or commitment to a traditional term,
especially one is known to, addressed as or referred to, has to be a hard thing to break
Certainly, this is a seemingly pious name, to make one, want to bury head in the sand
and not want to know the truth about it
(i.e. be hostile to the truth about the tag Christian or Christi-anos)

The fact, that, you refer yourself as Christian, don't mean that's who you really are
because the truth of the matter, is, that's not what God calls you, it's what the world calls you or says who you are.

Here are a few parallels you can relate to:
Are you a nigger?
Do you refer or address yourself as a nigger?
Do you call yourself, answer back after or when being called a nigger?
What would you say if someone, right now, possibly non-black, called you a nigger?
Have you begun to catch the drift?

Hier:
By default, when they were first called Christian, as the disciples custom in the Acts of the Apostle were, they never wrote any letter saying they should tell people not to address them as one, if you find any, bring it to my notice.

Acts 11:26-27
²⁶And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people.
And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
²⁷And in these came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.

Acts 11:26 is not an acceptance verse
rather it is a history verse, informing readers, that the believers, were called this epithet, Christi-anos (i.e. Christian) first, at Antioch

Acts 11:26 is not saying, that the believers, called themselves, the Christi-anos or Christian epithet

By default and custom, the disciples never wrote any letter addressing or calling each other, using the Christi-anos or Christian epithet
if you find any, bring it to my notice.
Please, in your findings, exclude afterthought bible versions or translations

Hier:
1 Peter 4:16
Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed;
but let him glorify God on this behalf.

Christian is just another epithet, similar in import, to the infamous word, nigger

Just, as black people suffered as niggers, before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 enacted by the 88th United States Congress
so the early believers suffered, contemptuous ridicule, mockery and/or disdain
and Peter, in the 1 Peter 4:16 verse, IS NOT, under any circumstances, calling anybody or anyone a Christian
but rather, is saying dont be ashamed, if any gets to be treated like a nigger Christian
(i.e. in effect, keep calm and brush it off, if subjected to contemptuous ridicule, mockery and/or disdain)

Hier:
The term was used around Paul, and Paul never debated or built an argument around it, and Paul never corrected the notion in his epistles

Acts 26:28
²⁸Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
²⁹And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou,
but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.

The person, that used that term around Paul, is a hardcore and die-hard Jew
who knew what he was doing and saying, by using the Christian term around Paul

Agrippa, not only a Jew but a king as well, deliberately and calculatedly, tried to hurt Paul's emotional state or sensitivity.

Do you really believe that Agrippa & the people of Antioch revered Jesus that much, they called the disciples or believers ''Christ-like''?
You do know and understand what Agrippa & the people of Antioch meant by the term Christi-anos or Christian?

But of course, it is better to cat a fish first before you descale and gut it
so Paul ignored the Christi-anos or Christian epithet, uttered by Agrippa, to offend him

He also avoided calling himself a Christi-anos or Christian, instead replied with:
"I wish to God that you and everyone listening to me today would quickly
and completely become as I am (except for being a prisoner)

It would have been the perfect opportunity for Paul to thump his chest
and in King Agrippa's presence, proudly declare he is a christian
but alas, he didnt, he let that window of opportunity slide by.
WHY?

Also, Paul never carried the notion in his epistles that, he or any of the believers is a christian
WHY?

Hier:
Read that last verse and imagine, Paul tell that to a king,
I said someone was Paulic right, I dash you that verse

Then God said,
"Let us make human beings in Our image, to be like us (i.e. according to Our likeness)
- Genesis 1:26a
I dash you Genesis 1:26a verse

Hier:
I have no idea, gist me

²⁷Jesus and his disciples left Galilee and went up to the villages near Caesarea Philippi.
As they were walking along, He asked them, "Who do people say I am?"
²⁸"Well," they replied, "some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say you are one of the other prophets."
²⁹Then He asked them, "But who do you say I am?"
Peter replied, "You are the Messiah."
Mark 8:27-29

Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it
Your ''gist me'' wish is my command

Hier:
I sent for searches and result just came back
Lemme guess, a pastor is preparing this questions as a part of his sermon, anytime from now, past, present and future.
I think I understand John 4:23, worship God in Spirit, use the spirit, to know the truth you are to listen to.
So bad. Many are truth worshippers, not a fully discerned spirit worshipper

Too bad, many dont discern why and what Agrippa and those in Antioch implied by calling Paul and the earlier believers Christian or Christi-anos
In youth we learn, in age we understand
Certain truths, can only be clearly seen or understood with the wisdom of age and grace of God

Hier:
Cc Didov1
Watch out for this lady, she's Paulic.
She've been tearing unchristian threads down with one reply

Christi-anos or Christian is a misnomer for believers, saints, brothers, sisters, disciples

Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16 are the only three places in the bible where the term Christi-anos or Christian, is found.
On each occasion, the term was used in a belittling, derogatory and rebuffing context or manner
No where in the bible, will it ever be found, any of the disciples, believers, Paul, Peter, say I am a CHRISTIAN...
Same way, you wont say about yourself: I am a NIGGER

Didov1:
sorry Hier i am a CHRISTIAN....
av commented on this thread b4, jst scroll up u will see it...
abt d paulic part, sorry m a christian...nice writeup

I've scrolled up but I dont see her earlier comments on this thread
she, however, is a wise sister, for ducking the Paulic part

Ken4Christ:
You can't fight the truth for too long.
Even your very conscience know that Jesus is Lord
You are just being stubborn.

Wilgrea7:
I'm not trying to fight anything..
I'm at peace with my conscience...
I'm only stating the obvious.. you haven't refuted it

It would not be in good conscience disputing that Jesus is Lord
If not now, it will be in one's good stead, to sooner or later accept and/or admit, that Jesus is Lord

walls01:
brother let not give the devil room to derail us. you and I carry the cross of Jesus and both believe he is God. no man cometh to the father expect through him c
just a very little difference. we have much work to do
many people no longer believe there is God
I would like you to join force with me to let them see they are blind hence bringing them to the light.
I greet you again thanks

It is bad
and indeed very sad, to hear that many people, no longer believe there is this
Self-existent, Invisible, Intelligent, Omniscient, Omnipresent,
Authority, All Powerful, Influence phenomenon, that GOD is.

walls01:
without twisting or referring to another verse what is the meaning of Rev 3:14?

"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write the following:
"This is the solemn pronouncement of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the originator of God's creation:

Normally, I don't interpret a text in isolation or without the benefit of the context
but I will make this an exception

The beginning or originator in Revelation 3:14, means and/or is talking of, the source of God's creation

I've answered you, now you tell me, walls01, who created you?
Is it God? Is it Yahweh? Is it Jesus? Is it the Word? Is it all of them?
Why, all of them or why not, all of them?

Have I given you confusing and difficult questions to answer?

walls01:
I have tried for you the best Jesus is a creation of God he was sent by God into the earth

We agree. Hallelujah!

walls01:
Jesus testifies to this by saying the Father sent me and he called himself the son of God

We agree again. It's another one

Hang on, but is that underlined bold "son" or "Son"?
Please clarify which it is

walls01:
unstable men say he sent himself and he is God the son, making Jesus a liar by saying he sent himself

Please don't try that line here
Check back on this thread, you will find me agreeing with you, that the Father sent Jesus
and also agreed that Jesus didn't send Himself, so where is all this making Jesus a liar coming from.

If you back check, you'll read, that God sent Himself to earth. He accomplished that by being a human being in the person of Jesus.
For the work at hand, there is no other way or other means. Protocols needed to be followed and adhered to, that's part of why

Now, tell, is Jesus, God manifested in flesh or not?

walls01:
you are becoming annoying

I don't find you becoming annoying
but I am finding you becoming hard work

walls01:
you said Yahweh but others say Jehovah you see different interpretation

Chief! omi eko, eko ni nau
You say potato, I say potahto,
you say tomato, I say tomahto!
The same thing is being referred to using different pronouncing words.

Yeshua HaMashiach, is the same as, Jesus Christ, same Jesu Kristi etcetera,
just as, YHWH, Jehovah or Yahweh and LORD, which Jews use instead of actually uttering and/or directly writing God's real name, are all the same thing.
Jews use LORD instead because they believe God's name is too holy for them to plainly utter or outrightly write

walls01:
Jesus son of God has been directly given the right by God to be address as God because he is the only one begotten as a son of all the creature of God

Chief, please go and rest. Abeggy jor, no bi by force nau.

Let me use your "because" qualifier, so you'll see the futility of your statement

We have been directly given the right by God to be addressed as "God" BECAUSE we are begotten sons of all the creature of God.

Do you now, see, how incorrect the above paragraph turns out, using your reasoning and the "because" qualifier?

Jesus is the first born of the begotten.
There are others born again (i.e. born from above)

Jesus is God because He is God, period.
It has nothing to do with that "because" of yours

You've misunderstood the Godhood
and not knowingly twisting or misinterpreting it

xtivin:
Does that mean Enoch have to do the same?.
Bible scholars please

Yes, it does mean Enoch did the same.
Enoch doesn't have to do the same.
He already had done the same.
Enoch and Elijah, both died at place where they were transferred to

In fact, not only Enoch but also every other human being has to do the same
(i.e. everyone has an appointment with the first death, aka physical or natural death)

walls01:
thank you too have a blessed Sunday

Consult together, argue your case.
Get together and decide what to say.
Who made these things known so long ago?
What idol ever told you they would happen? Was it not I, Yahweh?
For there is no other God
but me, a righteous God and Savior.
There is none but me."
- Isaiah 45:21

But about the Son, He says,
"Your throne, O God,
will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom
- Hebrews 1:8

Just FYIs, that dont require nor demand responses

walls01:
interpreting the Bible as usual no wonder so many denominations. twisting and interpreting it based on our belief

You can be painted with this proverbial twisting brush too

walls01:
brother I have other assignment I need to attend to until our pact cross again bye for now

"I, I am Yahweh,
and there is no other Savior but Me"
- Isaiah 43

We've both played out parts and done our little bits

I am yet to read anywhere in the Bible that someone's salvation is in jeopardy, if such, doesn't believe that Jesus is God, or vice versa.
Or doesn't believe, Yahweh is Saviour, Whom Jesus is.

So regardless of the stances, we still both safe and saved.
Excuse the pun.

Have a fabulous day
and a blessed week too, as it rolls out
Thanks for your time

walls01:
this are unnecessary questions that have different interpretations

They are necessary questions, all leading, to a reality check(s)
You're aware of this, that's why you aren't comfortable giving answers to them

walls01:
for a conclusion if God and Jesus is a single being how come Jesus and God have a separate throne as in Rev 3

SMH. My brother, if you had answered each & everyone of all those questions you ducked, the occasion for asking this question wouldn't have arisen or happened.
"Aye question yi, kokan tie ni yo ni"

The least I can do for now, to answer your question, is to offer that, you try this to get some leverage:
What is the fruit of the Spirit?
What is the fruit of the Spirit's numeric value?

Now the answer to:
"how come Jesus and God have a separate throne as in Rev 3" is FLAVOUR

There is, only one throne,
there is only one Being
where Jesus is the manifest in human being flesh, of this Invisible Being called God
but you'll have the ability to perceive & relish the achievement Jesus accomplished, this happens, by enjoying & basking in the power, in Jesus' company, the same way He did, in the company of the Father's, upon completion of His assigned work

Bottom line, there is one throne,
but it's a flavoured throne

Throne is a word signifying Regal Influence or Royal Power.

Why aren't you questioning Revelation 3:12 too?
Or is because you are believing you'll be made a literal pillar in the temple of God?