₦airaland Forum

Jozzy4:
That comparison is faulty, because the context is talking about different things. we (christian caught to heaven) will always be with the Lord. Its very clear that it means they will always be with Jesus in heaven.

I wont go into the different things aspect
however ''christian caught to heaven'' and be forever with God,
is the same as with a bride rushing into the arms of the Bridegroom and forever be with Him

Jozzy4:
John 14:3
"also, If I go my way and prepare a place for you, I will come again
and will receive you Home to myself, so that where I am you also may be"

Note the underlined

I wonder why you neglected reflecting on the bits that preceded the underlined
Anyway, this is a classic example of randomly quoting bible verses
and not understanding bible verses, the context, the idioms or the prevailing culture of the time behind and surrounding the verses

People go away to prepare a place or build a house, so that where they are, their bride may also be

OLAADEGBU:
I know using the words born again and Christian in the sentence is tautology
but it is sometimes necessary so as to drive home the clearness of the meaning.

Well I can argue the same with using negro or nigger too, like the way vooks usually at times likes to do

OLAADEGBU:
I hope the scriptures below will satisfy your curiosity.

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

"And when he had found him, he brought him to 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" (Acts 11:26).

"Then Agrippa said to Paul, You almost persuade me to be a Christian. And Paul said, I would to God, that not only you, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds" (Acts 26:28-29)

You know asking for the verses wasnt for my benefit
and that it was for all, to see the context and read how the 3 Christian words, in the Bible, were used.

OLAADEGBU:
The term "Christian" was originally applied to the disciples of Christ and this means "learners" of Christ, which soon became an object of derision and persecution.

Does ''Christian'' really MEAN ''learner'' or it means ''follower''?
You conveniently or absent mindedly didnt respond to whether the early believers or Apostles explicitly called themselves Christians?

OLAADEGBU:
Those who are ashamed to be called a Christian are not worthy to be called disciples of Christ

Did you notice Paul response to Aggrippa?
Did you notice Paul stopped short of using Aggrippa's "Christian" adjective
and instead opted to use ''I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am''

Jesus asked the disciples: ''Who do people say I am?''
After the disciples gave all manner of answers, He zeroed in.
''But what about you?'' He asked. ''Who do you say I am?''

Here is I, taking a leaf from Jesus, now too, asking, not what do people call you, or what others say you are
but am asking: OLAADEGBU, who do you say you are?

OLAADEGBU:
Hence Peter's admonition

This isnt an admonition but more of a morale build up
Believers at that time were being inundated with persecutions and sufferings of all sorts.
On top, morale was getting low so Peter was building up or boosting morale when he penned that letter
Peter effectively was saying, if you suffer as an object of derision, do not be embarrassed or feel guilty
(e.g. do not be ashamed when in a mockingly manner you're called or suffer as a christian,
an effect, to some extent, similarly to being called a negro/nigger in pre-60s/70s/even today)

Jozzy4:
This honeymoon theory is a lie

As you like it,
but it still wont stop this Bridegroom from take His bride on a honeymoon

Jozzy4:
"because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call,
with an arch angels voice and with Gods trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first
17. After ward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away to meet the Lord in the air;
and thus we will always be with the Lord" - 1 The 4:16,17

They will meet the Lord in the air and WILL ALWAYS BE WITH HIM . Unless you wanna tell me Jesus will also come down to earth?

You need to go on a speed/crash course, to learn on how to, on all levels, understandably read the Bible

Compare 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 ''always be with the Lord''
with Matthew 28:20's ''I am with you always''

Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you.
And be sure of this:
I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
- Matthew 28:20

OLAADEGBU:
What does it mean to be a born again Christian?

I've in the Bible read about being born again The Bible tells how one is or when one is born from above
but I am yet to read about be born again Christian (i.e. born again with a Christian appendage)

Can I have where Christian is explicitly mentioned in the born again verse(s) please?

OLAADEGBU:
How can I become a born again Christian?

Same way, one tongue in cheek becomes a born again Negro/Nigger Christian?
Can I have the three occurrences where Christian is explicitly mentioned in the Bible and the etymology of the word?
Also did the early believers or Apostles explicitly called themselves Christians?

Jozzy4:
This is the problem with fanatics,

Biblical rear-view mirror will fix this problem and eliminate blind spots such as these

Jozzy4:
if everybody become a born again and go to heaven, does that not clearly spell psalm 37: 9-11 and matt 5:5 as a lie?

No it doesnt because Heaven is a necessary honeymoon, a trip to return back from, come down, back to earth to

Jozzy4:
Can God lie?

No, because God is loyal to the truth, He cant lie.

Jozzy4:
Why promise a " New Earth" if everbody will be ressurected to heaven?

Answer to this, is same with the honeymoon response given above

austinoeze:
The Bible made us to believe that this our mortal body will definitely die and decompose in the earth which is true because people have been dying and their bodies decompose in the soil.
Now my question is:
"if truly our bodies would die and decompose to soil, what will then burn in the said 'Hell fire'?"

The soul is what will burn

Now depending at which stage or phase, souls will be purified by fire, and souls will be destroyed as in burnt for destruction (i.e. die) in the Lake of Fire

Then I saw thrones, and the people sitting on them had been given the authority to judge.
And I saw the SOULS of those who had been beheaded for their testimony about Jesus and for proclaiming the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his statue, nor accepted his mark on their forehead or their hands.
They all came to life again, and they reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
- Revelation 20:4

When the Lamb broke the fifth seal,
I saw under the altar the SOULS of all who had been martyred for the word of God
and for being faithful in their testimony
- Revelation 6:9

austinoeze:
This is a question I kept asking people that claim to be more closer to God,
but till this day I've not gotten a convincing answer

You wont get a convincing answer because afterlife, Sheol (i.e. the original Hebrew concept of afterlife) now has gray lines shared with Gehenna (i.e. the refuse dump in Jerusalem hyperbolically referred to by Jesus in Matthew 5:29 Matthew 18:9 and Mark 9:47) and Hell (i.e. a Greek mythology and Greek concept of afterlife) which arent really understood
The etymology of afterlife from a Jewish concept (i.e. Sheol, with 2 sections) has changed over time and Sheol, since has being interchangeably replaced with Gehenna and Hell

Jessicha:
Verse 14: death and hell are cast into the lake of fire!
Lets assume you are a jjc who dont know the meaning of death, hell nko?
Is fire going to be cast into fire or what? Pls explain

Bravo! You're a smart person

Jessicha:
Devil, A SPIRIT CREATURE will be harmed by a literal fire? Sorry, you are mistaken because you dont get the symbolism in that verse . "
He makes his angels SPIRITS, his ministers a CONSUMING FIRE" psalm 104: 4,
satan himself is a consuming fire, so fire will be cast into fire right? You are grossly mistaken

You are grossly mistaken ma, God is a consuming fire and not satan

Jessicha:
Of course, Jesus said They were destroyed, Sodom and Gomorah cease to exist for all time.

I am hungry I can eat a horse.
Everyone knows this is a hyperbole, Jesus too often uses hyperboles to get the seriousness of messages through

Jessicha:
There are many things that we cant see but could feel, i cant see my skeleton but I could feel it,
I cant see the air I breath but I could feel it .

But here comes this ghost in the machine stuff, we are told it has eyes and some even said it look like an human,
have seen people go blind, why cant they continue to use the eyes of this stuff to see ?
Why cant people whose legs are amputated continue to use the legs of the stuff to walk? If it exist. Am just curious

Who said ghost in the machine has eyes and who even said it look like an human?
Am just curious

MightySparrow:
If I understand you, you are talking of human spirit.

Notice in the title that it says ''ghost soul''
which indicates more than the ''human spirit''
and so implying spirit and soul (i.e. ''ghost soul'')

Not everyone knows there are distinctions between spirit and soul
luckily Hebrews 4:12, hints at a barest minimum that, there is a distinction between soul and spirit, vis-à-vis that they can be separated

For the word of God is living and all-efficient,
and much sharper than a double edged sword,
and it pierces to the separation of soul and spirit and of joints, marrow and of bones,
and judges the reasoning and conscience of the heart.
- Hebrews 4:12

MightySparrow:
It is the part of man or the real man that lives in the body.
Just like you atimes stay in your car.

Putting it in proper perspectives, remember the saying in Leviticus 17:11 and Deuteronomy 12:23 or Genesis 2:7, Job 33:4 and Job 27:3 that:
the LIFE of the FLESH is in the BLOOD
and the LIFE of the SOUL is in the breath/SPIRIT

The BLOOD makes the difference between the life and death of the BODY (i.e. the SOUL departs/exits the body)
- a body without a soul becomes a corpse or dead body

The SPIRIT makes the difference between the life and death of the SOUL
- a soul without spirit becomes a dead soul

MightySparrow:
If the car has flat tyre you are not expected to use your own as a spare

Its isnt like tomayto, tomahto, spritual eyes arent physical eyes, and so they arent necessarily interchangeable,
Spirit, Soul and Body have different roles to play

The spirit, typifies what has to do with our relation to God or our consciousness of God (i.e. relation with what is more than ourselves)
the soul, typifies what has to do with our relation to ourselves or our self consciousness
the body, typifies what has to do with our relation to the physical and material world (i.e. relation with what is less than ourselves)

Now may the God of peace make you holy in every way,
and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless
until our Lord Jesus Christ comes again.
- 1 Thessalonians 5:23

The ''Ghost in the machine'' is British philosopher Gilbert Ryle's description of René Descartes' mind-body dualism
and the phrase was introduced first, in his book, titled ''The Concept of Mind''

Read how Ryle in his book titled ''The Concept of Mind'' (i.e. chapter 1 - DESCARTES’ MYTH etc) debunks René Descartes' mind-body dualism:
http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/Gilbert_Ryle_The_Concept_of_Mind.pdf

https://s16.postimg.org/ohp6tdg05/smith.jpg
dridowu SenseiX Jarus
Dont give a rat ass whether west or east, as we are all naija
It's the face that always intrigues me
Was she trying to be seductive in the police mugshot
or what's with one eye totally shut and the other barely open
Anyway here she is in her swagger mood and pose

zube01:
so what's the lie there?

zube01 there is no lie in it.
Methinks instead of turning to me,
you're better off asking the original poster to tell all what he mistakenly thought the God of Truth ''lied'' about in Exodus 3:18

Notice the oxymoron (i.e. the God of Truth ''lied'') in the above statement

Exodus 3:18 was a preliminary ''Watch-This-I-Told-You-So-Moses'' Pharaoh test,
which proved Pharaoh wouldnt let the Israelites have a 3-day break
talkess him being ready to grant or willing to allow a higher request of letting the Israelites leave Egypt free to go to a Promise Land

Whoever asks for a blessing in the land will be blessed by the God of Truth.
Whoever swears an oath in the land will swear by the God of Truth.
Past troubles are forgotten. They are hidden from my eyes
- Isaiah 65:16

nd07:
d journey was actually meant 4 3days but their stubbornness & unbelief made it 40yrs

Chief, the journey time for travelling from Egypt to the Promised Land (i.e. Canaan) is not 3 days ooo

answerspls:
PLS ANSWER WITH FACT NOT JUST YES OR NO. THANKS

To show Moses what God had previously told him about Pharaoh and to prove Pharaoh wouldnt play ball, the small test in Exodus 3:18 was put to Pharaoh
- give them 3 days off was what is to kick the ball rolling and let the game start

Shey pesin wey no fit borrow una five naira, hin go fit dash una ten naira? Na that be Pharaoh's case
So No, God did not lie, it was a test ooo and Pharaoh woefully failed this small first test

zube01:
Pls quote what is written there nd what made u think He lied

"The elders of Israel will accept your message.
Then you and the elders must go to the king of Egypt and tell him,
'The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us.
So please let us take a three-day journey into the wilderness to offer sacrifices to the LORD, our God.'
- Exodus 3:18

Elisha stared at Hazael with a fixed gaze until Hazael became uneasy.
Then the man of God started weeping.
- 2 Kings 8:11

When Jesus came into full view of the city, He wept aloud over it, and exclaimed,
- Luke 19:41

When Jesus therefore saw her weeping
and the Jews also weeping who came with her,
he became enraged in the Spirit and stirred himself up
- John 11:33

"Where have you laid him," Jesus asked.
"Come and see, Lord," they answered.
- John 11:34

Then Jesus wept
- John 11:35

UltimateDaniel:
Hmm, that could be right... But the Rev. still acts wrongly....

Let's just say, a telling sign of misplaced priorities

Ndkings1:
JE Records’ singer, JahBless came for Timaya on his birthday, today, September 13, 2015 when he accused Jez Brenda
– the producer who produced his ‘Hallelujah’ single of theft.
Quote
Hey bro @timayatimaya who ever produced that your halleluyah jam should be jailed! ..he lifted the instrumental off my album , #iamme album track 2 “jeje ft @oristefemi ..and gave it to you.
I want to believe you know nothing about it cos with your years of experience in this game you should know the consequences of copyright infringements. pls avoid such producers in future cos they might tarnish your image.
And for you Mr producer, see you in court.

There are three type of copyright principles
1) in the musical work, owned by person who composed the song/beat or owned by the publisher
2) in the lyrics, maybe or may not be owned by person who owns the musical work
3) in sound recording of musical work, will be owned by the entity that paid for the recording, usually the record company

Timaya's Hallelujah is just too familiarly like Jabless' JeJe, and so infringes 1 and 2 copyright principles

Timaya is registered as a member of Copyright Society of Nigeria (COSON)

Jabless, if he's also a member of COSON needs to approach COSON first about this, as under Nigerian law, owners of copyright in music and sound recordings have the right to request payment in order to authorize the public performance of their works.

Timaya's lawyer(s) should have checked to make sure no copyrights were infringed before allowing Timaya go ahead to publish etc

If Timaya doesnt want to play ball, then Jabless can go ahead to see Mr Producer, Jez Brenda and others, in court

mekonglobal:
A typical of a Christ embassy member giving us a half baked sermon

Wish for a change, it was a Christ Embassy member giving a half baked sermon
but oh no, it's Don Jazzy Pastor Chris again
It's like vooks usually would say: another regurgitated food by Pastor Chris for the baby chicks

UltimateDaniel:
Rev Emma Percy, chaplain of Trinity College, Oxford, has faced criticism for saying God can be referred to as 'She'.
A leading woman priest who believes God should be referred to as "she" has received dozens of letters from people telling her she is "silly" or worse.

I have read the whole article and do agree with the letters that she is being stewpid.

This is not the proper way or correct manner for her to wage her feminist campaign of women's equality with men.

It is silly of her to say that believers think of God as "some kind of old man in the sky"

Knowing that Jesus referred to God, as being His Father and our Father, it then, is sillier of her to believe God should be referred to as "she"

Colossians 1:15 tells us that God is invisble, whilst we know about Genesis 1:27, it's from likes of John 14:9 etc that God came to earth as a He
- God became a man, in the person of Jesus Christ

Colossians 1:15
Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.
He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation,

John 14:9
Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip,
even after I have been among you such a long time?
Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.
How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

Genesis 1:27 notwithstanding, God is epicene, so no one should be alienated from knowing God.
It doesnt matter if you're a he or you're a she, because God has both a "maleness" and "femaleness" to Him
This means there is no excuse for any gender NOT to identify with God.

The ''maleness'' in God, conveys the sense of provider, strength, power etc

PROVIDER - Matthew 6:9,11
9So then, this is how you should pray: 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name,
11Give us this day our daily bread,

STRENGTH & POWER - Exodus 15:3
The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name

Isaiah 42:13
Jehovah will go forth as a mighty man; he will stir up his zeal like a man of war:
he will cry, yea, he will shout aloud; he will do mightily against his enemies.

While the ''femaleness'' in God, is in association with comfort, protection, love, caring, nurturing, fertility, wisdom etc

COMFORT - Isaiah 66:13
As a mother comforts her son, so I will comfort you, and you will be comforted in Jerusalem.

PROTECTION - Luke 13:34
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God's messengers!
How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings,
but you wouldn't let me.

LOVE CARING & NURTURING - Isaiah 49:15
"Never! Can a mother forget her nursing child?
Can she feel no love for the child she has borne?
But even if that were possible, I would not forget you!

FERTILITY - Isaiah 42:14
For a long time I have held my peace; I have kept still and restrained myself;
now I will cry out like a woman in labor; I will gasp and pant

Job 38:29
“From whose womb has come the ice?
And the frost of heaven, who has given it birth?


As seen from a few case in point examples like in the verses above, there are adequate female images of God in the bible, without needing to resort to an "our Mother God" nomenclature.

Bottom line is, God hasnt got an identity crisis, besides it is His prerogative to decide
and/or allow the Godself to be revealed to us in the Bible, as a male personage
AND NOT to be revealed to us in a physical she or female form

UltimateDaniel:
Rev Emma Percy, chaplain of Trinity College, Oxford and a member of Women and the Church, said earlier this year she wanted to change the notion that God is "some kind of old man in the sky" by using "She" instead of the more traditional

Within reasonable contexts, God answers to all pronouns and adjectives,
but unlike Rev Emma Percy, I dont think there should be the option for female pronouns in the liturgy, such as "our Mother God".

In an effort to wage a feminist campaign of women's equality with men, Rev Emma Percy has conceived a badly thought out and far-fetched proposal for an open-and-shut-no-contest case

UltimateDaniel:
But could this be really offensive?

No not it isnt offensive and no one had said it is offensive
she however is being admonished for being stewpid enough to think her proposal is the best thing since sliced bread

She seems to be a feminist theologian

An2elect2:
They are very silly for making her a reverend

There is nothing silly in making her a reverend

An2elect2:
These are some of the stinks you get when a woman is given a position of authority in the church

True, this woman is stirring up an unnecessary fuss of some sort
but there still are quite a lot of good women in places of authority with their heads tightened on performing exceedingly and satisfactorily well
(i.e. there are a lot of good women in places of authority and revered, whether in the Bible, modern times, secular or non secular settings)
so please, do not disparage women in positions of authority
and dont use the same broad brush on them or paint them with a broad brush

The Bible records women with positions of authority
and Jesus too is known to have saddled women with positions of authority, so your remark is biased and misleading.
It also shows an outright mistrust of women occupying positions of authority
- a fear/mistrust of women, having no foundation or basis anymore, which in fact, Jesus so many times in His ministry on earth had corrected

misreal:
.

SMH. Look for FTC

Gombs:
Slow it down, cowboy! There's a truckload for you to read up.

Obviously, the truckload is for you to read up

Gombs:
So, you're the new spokesman?

Brother's keeper rings a bell or sound familiar to you?

Gombs:
Well, since debosky has gone AWOL, I don't have a problem tutoring the whole lot.

If so, then suck it up and just roll over

Gombs:
So, it's me and KJV now, eh?

Though you read me right the first time,
I reiterate, its only you and at the least, KJV, that interchangeably use testament for covenant

Gombs:
OK, a quick quiz, shall we?

Instruction: carefully read the below information, and promptly answer the preceeding question.

Heb 9:15 KJV
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Q1.What's the need for a new testament if there wasn't an old one? (kindly keep it in one sentence.) 20marks

Dont worry if you're ignorant about this, it isnt you alone and KJV obsessed with the testament word
You see, where you see testament, every other version used correctly used covenant.
So answering you correctly, God promised a new covenant and not a new testament

There is no first testament, there however is, a first and new covenant. Capisce?

No one dies before a covenant's application, like does, with last wills or testament. SMH

Gombs:
Q2. Why was there a need for a change in priesthood if there wasn't a change in the testaments? 20marks

Non sequitur

Gombs:
Q3. Whose death was hinged on the effectiveness of the OT? 10marks

Non sequitur

Gombs:
Good luck.

At the rate you're going and on the path you are on, trust me, you need it more than I do

Gombs:
Dont bore us now, would you?

As you can read, you've done a good job of boring all, particularly me, already

Gombs:
Dont blame I and KJV... Blame your inability to get study bibles.

At least you cant blame me for not warning you about truth decay, if you dont brush up your Bible properly

Gombs:
NB: the Greek for the word 'testament', 'diatheke' was used interchangeably 20 times for the word covenant... What sayeth Thou to this, considering the above writ by you?

Non sequitur

Gombs:
Q4. Who was Jesus agreeing with? 5marks

Another non sequitur

Gombs:
Do you read what you typed at all?

Do you really know what a last will (i.e. testament) is?
Is this how it is taught in your fellowship?

OK, is the agreement to Adam a testament?
Is the agreement to Noah a testament?
You do remember the rainbow sign, dont you?
Is the agreement with Abraham a testament?
You do remember the bloody circumscision, dont you?
If you do, then why is this difficult getting round your head then?

Gombs:
I think you should call for back up!

That's a recommendation for yourself

MightySparrow:
The word Testament appeared only in some books of New Testament but not once in Old Testament only covenant is mentioned.

Jeromejnr:
So what's the point?

The unfolding following is poster's point

MightySparrow:
Please explain the differences between Covenant and Testament.

Primary similarity between Covenant and Testament #1, is that, they both fundamentally are agreements,
however with covenant, sometimes it can be a one sided agreement, other times its an all party involved mutual agreement

Primary difference between Covenant and Testament #1, is that, covenant takes effect immediately after an oath
which usually or at times, involves blood shedding of some sort or kind, to make it official, binding or legal
An example of a covenant without blood shedding is the Edenic one
An example of a covenant with blood shedding is the Abrahamic Covenant (i.e. blood shedding via circumcision)

Genesis 17:10-11
¹⁰This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep:
Every male among you shall be circumcised.
¹¹You must cut off the flesh of your foreskin as a sign of the covenant between me and you.

Primary difference between Covenant and Testament #2, is that, reiterating, covenant takes effect immediately after an oath
and unlike a Testament, it doesnt wait for the death or doesnt need the death of any of the participants before its application

MightySparrow:
As for the thread, New Testament started from the Day Jesus had the last supper (Covenant ceremony) with His disciples

The new agreement or covenant was done at the last supper (i.e. Matthew 26:28, the Covenant ceremony),
the testament or His last will, however wouldnt take effect until after His death

Exodus 24:8
Then Moses took the blood from the basins and splattered it over the people, declaring,
"Look, this blood confirms the covenant the LORD has made with you in giving you these instructions."

Jeremiah 31:31-34
³¹“The day is coming,” says the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.
³²This covenant will not be like the one I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand
and brought them out of the land of Egypt.
They broke that covenant, though I loved them as a husband loves his wife,” says the Lord.

³³“But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,” says the Lord.
“I will put my instructions deep within them, and I will write them on their hearts.
I will be their God, and they will be my people.
³⁴And they will not need to teach their neighbors,
nor will they need to teach their relatives, saying, ‘You should know the Lord.’
For everyone, from the least to the greatest, will know me already,” says the Lord.
“And I will forgive their wickedness, and I will never again remember their sins.”

Matthew 26:28
for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people.
It is poured out as a sacrifice to forgive the sins of many.

MightySparrow:
His death on the cross marked the end of the OT.

Well, maybe appropriately, it marked the end of an old covenant or old agreement

MightySparrow:
We must understand that OT started with Abraham with Genesis 15 s a family and re - enacted with the nation of Israel in Exodus 24. Again on the day of Passover in Jesus time.

It is true that there are at least up to seven different covenants or agreements in the Bible,
which spanned from Adam in Eden, to Noah and in regards to the flood, to Abraham and in regards to the Promise, to the Israelites and in regards to the Promise land and to etcetera other agreements or covenants

But since no one died before the application of the so called ''OT'',
then in a manner suitable for such a case like this, ''OT'' should be called old covenant or old agreement, as opposed to an ''OT'' tag

Gombs:
Read it up bro. God bless you

There is nothing to read up on bro

What debosky, MightySparrow, I and maybe others, are trying to draw your attention to
is that its only you and at the least, KJV, that interchangeably use testament for covenant
There is a distinction to agreement (i.e. covenant) and last will (i.e. testament)
Instead of you and KJV to use covenant, you are using testament

All last wills or testaments are agreements but not all agreements or covenants are last wills or testaments
Read up more on this bro. Brush up your Bible, else you'll have a truth decay. God bless you too

OLAADEGBU:
Show of support for pastor James McConnel as case continues

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/show-of-support-for-ni-pastor-as-case-continues/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J_t7Eq1wdY
Someone had to say it as it is, as it really is,
it just so happens he is the one with the chutzpah to do so
He didnt beat around the bush...

He is being prosecuted under the 2003 Communications Act for his statements in a sermon which was made available online.

In a sermon last year, McConnell said: “Islam is heathen, Islam is satanic, Islam is a doctrine spawned in hell”.

Last month, the minister had his first court hearing and, speaking beforehand, he said that he would go to jail for the sake of the gospel.

Atheist journalist Suzanne Breen argued that the prosecution is wrong and said:
“Freedom of speech isn’t only for polite persons of mild disposition airing their views within Government-policed parameters”.

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/show-of-support-for-ni-pastor-as-case-continues/

Gombs:
Read it up bro. God bless you

There is nothing to read up on bro

What debosky, MightySparrow, I and maybe others, are trying to draw your attention to
is that its only you and at the least, KJV, that interchangeably use testament for covenant
There is a distinction to agreement (i.e. covenant) and last will (i.e. testament)
Instead of you and KJV to use covenant, you are using testament

All last wills or testaments are agreements but not all agreements or covenants are last wills or testaments
Read up more on this bro. Brush up your Bible, else you'll have a truth decay. God bless you too

MightySparrow:
Please explain the differences between Covenant and Testament.

Primary similarity between Covenant and Testament #1, is that, they both fundamentally are agreements,
however with covenant, sometimes it can be a one sided agreement, other times its an all party involved mutual agreement

Primary difference between Covenant and Testament #1, is that, covenant takes effect immediately after an oath
which usually or at times, involves blood shedding of some sort or kind, to make it official, binding or legal
An example of a covenant without blood shedding is the Edenic one
An example of a covenant with blood shedding is the Abrahamic Covenant (i.e. blood shedding via circumcision)

Genesis 17:10-11
¹⁰This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep:
Every male among you shall be circumcised.
¹¹You must cut off the flesh of your foreskin as a sign of the covenant between me and you.

Primary difference between Covenant and Testament #2, is that, reiterating, covenant takes effect immediately after an oath
and unlike a Testament, it doesnt wait for the death or doesnt need the death of any of the participants before its application

MightySparrow:
As for the thread, New Testament started from the Day Jesus had the last supper (Covenant ceremony) with His disciples

The new agreement or covenant was done at the last supper (i.e. Matthew 26:28, the Covenant ceremony),
the testament or His last will, however wouldnt take effect until after His death

Exodus 24:8
Then Moses took the blood from the basins and splattered it over the people, declaring,
"Look, this blood confirms the covenant the LORD has made with you in giving you these instructions."

Jeremiah 31:31-34
³¹“The day is coming,” says the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.
³²This covenant will not be like the one I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand
and brought them out of the land of Egypt.
They broke that covenant, though I loved them as a husband loves his wife,” says the Lord.

³³“But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,” says the Lord.
“I will put my instructions deep within them, and I will write them on their hearts.
I will be their God, and they will be my people.
³⁴And they will not need to teach their neighbors,
nor will they need to teach their relatives, saying, ‘You should know the Lord.’
For everyone, from the least to the greatest, will know me already,” says the Lord.
“And I will forgive their wickedness, and I will never again remember their sins.”

Matthew 26:28
for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people.
It is poured out as a sacrifice to forgive the sins of many.

MightySparrow:
His death on the cross marked the end of the OT.

Well, maybe appropriately, it marked the end of an old covenant or old agreement

MightySparrow:
We must understand that OT started with Abraham with Genesis 15 s a family and re - enacted with the nation of Israel in Exodus 24. Again on the day of Passover in Jesus time.

It is true that there are at least up to seven different covenants or agreements in the Bible,
which spanned from Adam in Eden, to Noah and in regards to the flood, to Abraham and in regards to the Promise, to the Israelites and in regards to the Promise land and to etcetera other agreements or covenants

But since no one died before the application of the so called ''OT'',
then in a manner suitable for such a case like this, ''OT'' should be called old covenant or old agreement, as opposed to an ''OT'' tag

Gombs:
Read through, Son!... But, a quick quiz now, shall we?

Q1. When does a testament take effect?

A. Before the death of the testator.

B. During the lifetime of the testator.

C. After the death of the testator.

Best wishes.

debosky:
After the death, if we are talking about a last will and testament.
However your treatment of testament in this context is flawed - who died for the old testament to come into force?

I wonder what prompted me posting:
Lets not go into the nitty gritty differences and similarities between ''covenant'' and ''testament'' ...

debosky:
Jesus couldn't teach new revelations?

You might ad well give up now.

Refer this to the original post authored by its owner not me please

Gombs:
I really do not appreciate redundancy, but... Let me just indulge you with one question.

Was Abraham under the old covenant?

A Yes or No would be just fine.

You've definitely noticed I have parroted your post to show how ludicrously it is.

Noticed I didn't want to go into the similarities between covenant and testament (i.e. will) and where their differences begins to set them apart.

Abraham was under the Abrahamic covenant when God took hold of his thing to show me who really owns it.
Though it was bloody, no one had to die or died before benefiting from it.

Of course, Abraham saw into the future the new testament - it's promises and benefits

Gombs:
A lot of times, when we say "in the old Testament,..." people tend to shift their minds towards the books of Genesis to Malachi, or the laws of Moses.

But in reality, the old Testament was between GENESIS till the death of Jesus.
Jesus functioned under the old Testament, and He really couldn't teach new revelations, because the folks of then could not receive it, because they had not the Spirit.

The disciples knew Jesus by the flesh. They didn't know Him by the Spirit, for to them, He was to them a great Jewish teacher. Peter however said something by the Spirit, but he didn't really understand what he said. No wonder, after Jesus died, they all went to their different occupations, even though Jesus told them He'd be back again. They did not understand all those

The New Testament began at the resurrection, after the death of Jesus. For the Bible declared in the ninth chapter of the book of Hebrews

16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

The new testament therefore began with the Acts of the Apostles. Is the old Testament book then ineffective and useless?
Nay, the old Testament is for us to learn from (Romans 15:4), not to live by.
We will never enjoy Christianity by living by the old Testament.

God bless you all

Kenny4lyfe goshen360 debosky
Interesting that, as it was then, so it still is today
Yes, Jesus functioned under the old Testament, and He really couldn't teach new revelations,
because the folks of then could not receive it,
because they had not the Spirit to KNOW THAT the old Testament is for us to learn from (Romans 15:4), and not to live by.
We will never enjoy Christianity by living by the old Testament, especially not by living by old Testament TITHING

As the new revelations teaches that, we ought to live by His grace and cheerful giving,
and not by an old Testament TITHING coercion, compulsion, arm-twisting or pressure

Lets not go into the nitty gritty differences and similarities between ''covenant'' and ''testament''
Question is, is TITHING in this new will?
What exactly are the others things in this will that took effect after Jesus Christ shed His blood and died?
What exactly are they, especially if agreeing with you that the new testament therefore began with the Acts of the Apostles?
TITHING de facto, is it in this new will?

freecocoa:
No, I am being totally honest, there were nights I stayed up past bed time ofcourse, I got away with it because my parents didn't find out and the times I was caught, I was chatized or even spanked, some of the times I got home past curfew, I was punished or scolded, my parents never supported any of my excesses willfully or not

It just goes to prove too, that there are things that happen on earth, things we humans do on earth etcetera that God never supports
God never supports any of man's excesses willfully or not

freecocoa:
I thought God doesn't reason like humans, he is perfect and we humans are not

As you obviously didnt think of Isaiah 1:18 and Hebrews 4:15, you've thought wrong that God doesn't reason like humans etcetera

Isaiah 1:18
“Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD:
though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool

Hebrews 4:15
This High Priest of ours understands our weaknesses,
for he faced all of the same testings we do, yet he did not sin.

freecocoa:
how can you compare his behaviour to that of humans?

What/which behaviour(s) of His was compared to that of humans?

freecocoa:
Okay then, so if her father refuses for her to marry him, he still gets paid for her virginity, how is that fair to the woman?

I don't think the world we live in is fair

freecocoa:
Her opinion isn't even needed

Don't ask such daft questions, as no good parent will refrain from doing what's in the good interest of their child

Ephesians 6:4
Fathers, don't make your children bitter about life.
Instead, bring them up in Christian discipline and instruction

Colossians 3:21
Fathers, do not fret and harass your children,
or you may make them sullen and morose

freecocoa:
Okay one part of the bible says he must marry her, never to divorce her, another part says her father decides, now which one do they adhere to?

After careful considerations, which is applicable is adhered to

freecocoa:
Sin came into the earth through man who was deceived by the woman, for this she was punished/cursed and because Adam listened to her, because he listened to her, the ground was cursed, why not curse adam directly?

What were you expecting? A pretence that nothing untowards happened? To turn a blind eye or to just sweep everything out of sight, under the carpet?
Besides get the fact right,
yes, God confirmed that the serpent and the ground were jinxed (i.e. have bad luck) but He never cursed Adam and Eve.
You're mistaking Adam and Eve's cause and effect with a curse.

freecocoa:
...Pain is the mind and body so? What does that change?

Changed the fact & truth that there wasnt pain before the fall from grace

freecocoa:
Please how does Gen 3:16 and Gen 4:7 correlate?

Get two Bibles, open both verses, put them side by side and read slowly but loudly slow to see how they correlate (i.e. to see the connection)

freecocoa:
I am yet to see how proverbs 31 talked about strange men and adviced against them

Proverbs 31 is talking about the virtuous woman or wife (i.e. was drawing your attention to the no contempt for women there)

freecocoa:
Just like the bible admonished men against strange women

As earlier said, the bible is full of perverse, rotten or strange men stories but you may take a pick from any of these warnings then:

Proverbs 21:8 - He that perverts his way is a strange man, and the works of the pure one are right

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

Proverbs 14:6 - The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to the discerning

freecocoa:
It's not a fetish, some people like to lie even when it's clear they are lying, they just won't admit, so I love to expose their folly.cheesy

As earlier said, each to his/her own, so ride on, whatever floats your goat

freecocoa:
1. A woman created by taking the rib off a man and inserting into a moulded structure

Easily done by God

freecocoa:
I'd like to know how this happened, as it is still biologically impossible

Already answered this when I mentioned that we are in an extremely long time far in the future in biologically making this possible

We are making small strides in regrowing limbs and organs using stem cells obtained from bone marrows, however this is a far cry in regrowing limbs and organs for a full bodied human being like was done for Eve

freecocoa:
"And the lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
And the rib which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, she shall be called woman because she was taken out of man"
Genesis:2:21-23.

I came across this and was wondering, because I know that the DNA in the rib when used in creating a clone, will give a replica of the original rib owner, so how come a woman was created out of a man's rib?

First, because that is the only bone out of 206 bones in the body that regrows itself back

Second, if you've admitted knowing that the DNA has genetic instructions used in the development, functioning and reproduction of all known living organisms and many viruses (i.e. the DNA in the rib has instructions when used in creating a clone) why are you asking how come a woman was created out of a man's rib?

freecocoa:
Please Bible people help me out here

We are light years away from replicating what God did in making Eve
It is a huge step for man at the moment but it wasn't that much of a step for God when He made Eve from Adam's rib
freecocoa, brush up on bone marrow and stem cells to get a face palmed clearer picture
whilst doing that you'll see how we are slowing making strides in that direction too

An2elect2:
Is Anita now a man? no How can she be a pastor then? Lol

Pastor Anita is synonymous with Mr Anita, Sir Anita.

She knows nothing about God's plan

I pity her tho

vooks:
What are you saying?

https://s7.postimg.org/kp61xz687/Woman_Shepherd.jpg
Are you minding her.
She obviously doesnt know what she is saying...
She probably thinks the above picture is trick photography or is photoshopped
She is ignorant that shepherding is not gender specific
and that it isnt something intended for men only or that it can only be done by a man

Of course the first recorded shepherd (i.e. pastor) in the Bible was a man called Abel
Rachel, a Miss, was a pastor (i.e. shepherding her father's) among may other Hebrew women in the Bible
- she is the earliest female shepherd called by name

I suppose it is because of situations like this
is why God in His infinite wisdom let it be recorded and be specifically mentioned that a woman, Rachel, is a shepherd

Genesis 29:9
Jacob was still talking with them when Rachel arrived with her father's flock, for she was a shepherd.

"So the last will be first, and the first will be last."

We seem to not recognise how, Go, in a then a patriarchal society, was gradually restoring the relegated woman

God, via angel Gabriel announced, first, to a relegated woman, His now ready, intention of coming to earth
When God was born He was first seen by women pastors (i.e. women shepherds)
God the Son's, first miracle was instigated by woman (i.e. it was the last Adam or the ''second Adam'''s woman déjà vu, a form of Eve)
The first ''gentile'' apostle was not a man but a woman (i.e. the Samaritan woman by the well)
When God resurrected, He first, was seen by a woman (i.e. Mary Magdalene, the first apostle of the Gospel of the resurrection)

Jeremiah 3:15
I will give you shepherds who are loyal to Me, and they will shepherd you with knowledge and skill

Jeremiah 23:4
Then I will appoint responsible shepherds who will care for them, and they will never be afraid again.
Not a single one will be lost or missing. I, the LORD, have spoken!

Ephesians 4:11-12
¹¹And He gave some indeed to be apostles, and some prophets,
and some evangelists, and some shepherds (i.e. pastors) and teachers,
¹²to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ

1 Corinthians 12:28
In the church God has appointed first apostles, next prophets, third teachers, then those who perform miracles,
then those who have the gift of healing, then those who help others, those who are managers,
and those who can speak in a number of languages.

We have only one true Pastor Or Shepherd
but we are ALL called to shepherding, as in Bible times, women as well as men, young or old were shepherds

Pastoring or shepherding is an office which isnt gender specific
it is a role or duty meant to be commonplace among believers, albeit it's distributed to each one, just as determined by God,
hence why it didnt get a mention among others in 1 Corinthians 12:28 above

Besides if Matthew 9:36-38 isnt gender prejudiced,
why would anyone want to hold any woman/girl back from shepherding/pastoring, in its real sense?

Granted the Bible was written in a patriarchal culture,
but that's no excuse to read the Bible through the lens of a misunderstood and misinterpreted 1 Timothy 2:11-15 or 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

In the so called patriarchal culture and time which the Bible was written,
we shouldnt forget that so many women such as Deborah, Junia, Priscilla etc are mentioned and honored as leaders and teachers
and these all, even before and after the promises in Jeremiah 3:15 & Jeremiah 23:4

frosbel2:
As someone who held unto this myth for so many years, as I add more years to my 'youth' ( ) , I find it more and more difficult and even outright foolish to believe that this is fact.

From recent research, it is quite evident that the earth as a planet ( note : Not the people in it ) is an ancient planet which has existed for millions of years.

Why in this 21st century of science and knowledge do Christians still believe in this fable of 6000 years ?

6000 years is the earth's footballer's age and it is arrived at counted or starting from Genesis 1:3

If counted from Genesis 1:1, the Earth's real age which is x millions of years is computed