₦airaland Forum

jdilight:
I dislike repetition, why should I continue to say the same thing over and over again. Read the write up and ask me any question and I will answer you, if it is not already answered in the this write up.

BabaGnoni:
^^^
What you should be doing, is apologising for conjuring up a quote out of thin air and smacking my name on it.
In the real world this will have some serious consequences and not go unpunished
The boldness and cheek of some people. SMH

BabaGnoni:
You owe me no apology or explanation Gombs.
Why I have become the centre of unwanted attention all of a sudden, I don't know

I didn't bring Eve and serpent on to this thread, neither have I on the WoF thread.

You should have faced and confronted your undisciplined colleagues, ask them why they continually derail and pollute other peoples' threads with their poison

PS: nannymcphee after picking up feelers (i.e. as usual not related to the ongoing thread) put out on the WoF thread by our "friends", designed to elicit the reactions of others, she nannymcphee, then made up a quote, doctored or improvised it and finally stucked my name to it.
- It was a rookie mistake on her part, which is why I didn't hold it against her nor take her up on it but just let it slide

WinsomeX: @nannymcphee, did you quote BabaGnoni or you simply provided a statement under his name following the accusations leveled against him by Bidam and mbaemeka? Please, be honest about this; we will all stand to give account of our words before God one day.

By the way, fabricating a quote which is non existent on this thread and/or nowhere said or found on it
(i.e. no link of the quote is anywhere on this thread)
is tantamount to taking a sly sip of gutter water offered by mbaemeka

Gombs:
Can you please put the question up again!?

Gombs:
Now that we've come this far, mfrom the book, irrespective of the derailing the thread has endured, plus those who use extra monikers, but their line of reasoning betrays them, can we all agree that the book by Hagin was very needful at a time as these, even though the anti WoF folks seem to be innperfect churches and hence Hagin wrote the book for churches like CEC, LFC, RCCG, etc?

I'd put up chapter 9 today (hopefully), it'd then remain one last chapter. It was not surprising anti WoF guys har nothing to say about Hagin's 24 principles from the Epistles regarding money, givin and receiving-why? It caught them pants down

WinsomeX:
No I have not. Not having placed it on my scale of preference for duties.

I trust you are enjoying your weekend. BTW, you didn't reply my PM.

Cheers.

WinsomeX:
I guess one will purchase it. right?

I will check amazon then.

Just checked and found it.

www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B005LH5QO2/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?qid=1413768415&sr=8-2&pi=SL75

It cost about $13.

pickabeau1:
Can i get the link to this thread

Gombs:
I give in cash terms because I can't give my job to church

by the way some present day Christians now say that: giving to the poor is just lending to God, that God will pay back but without interest, i.e its more profitable to give to ministers/church than the poor)

It grieves my spirit to hear that there are some ministers teaching—or at least giving the impression—that giving to them personally will bring a greater blessing to the donor than giving to the poor or supporting the local church's ministry to the poor

Proverbs 19:17:"He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord; and that which he hath given will he pay him again." "That's not too good an investment," they say. "Giving five dollars to a poor person is a loan to God, and He will pay you back five dollars. You get back just what you 'loaned' to God. But if you invest that five dollars in a ministry with a 'higher anointing,' you can expect a multiplied return."

( by the way some present day Christians now say that: giving to the poor is just lending to God,

that God will pay back but without interest

i.e its more profitable to give to ministers/church than the poor)

The concept of firstfruits is not used in the New Testament in reference to financial giving. There is not even the vaguest hint of it by any New Testament writer in reference to money or the support of ministers

Gombs:
If you copy from the pdf, and paste, it repeats itself ie 1 line repeats itself for like a thousand times. The pdf is signature protected. Besides, I have to highlight, so, no qulams for me.

I used a pdf to word converter sha, and yeah, I'm using my pc not the tab or phone.

Gombs:
Alright fellas, chapter 7 in the pioe line.

*Starts typing in earnest!

Gombs:
Na wa o, so let me agree, so which one was given by herod as Kunle said? Are you of same school of thought?

So, we should safely assume then that you are of the opinion Jesus wore rags, hence they were taken by the soldiers for memorabilia, just so that scriptures would be fulfilled shey?

Nb:I didn't insult you. I asked whether you had reading disorder.

PastorKun: Luke 23:11

11 Then Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him. Dressing him in an elegant robe, they sent him back to Pilate.

vooks:
Luke 23:11 (ESV)
11 And Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him. Then, arraying him in splendid clothing, he sent him back to Pilate

Matthew 27:28 (ESV)
28 And they stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him,

Mark 15: 17 (ESV)
17 And they clothed him in a purple cloak, and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on him

Gombs:
Fulfilling scriptures shey? The sole purpose? So if he wore rags, they'd have casted lots shey? For memorabilia? Serial killers shebi?

As for the above bold, can you please show me where they said the clothes were torn or shredded? I must have missed that place! I remember John the beloved writing They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whoseit shall be:

Are you also dyslexic or you want to twist scriptures for your ideology?

[size=14pt]Jesus Wore Nice Clothes[/size]

When Jesus was crucified, His clothes were nice enough that the soldiers divided them among themselves and gambled for His coat.

Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose
it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.
—John 19:23,24

Would Roman soldiers cast lots for the tattered and torn rags of a beggar or the shabby, worn clothes of a poor man? No, of course not

pickabeau1:
OK...so basically there is nothing wrong..

All is fine and dandy

No problem....


Let's see what the book addresses then

vooks:
Here is Keneth Hagin's Midas Touch book, not sure of copyrights or not
http://www.ekklesia.lt/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Kenneth-E-Hagin-The-Midas-Touch.pdf

[size=14pt]Was Jesus Homeless?[/size]
The Williams translation of verse 13 says, "But he left Nazareth and made His home in Capernaum. . . ." Wuest renders the same verse, "And having abandoned Nazareth . . . He established His permanent home in Capernaum. . . ."
Now look at Matthew 9:1. It says, "Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town" (NIV).
Williams translates this verse, "And He got into a boat and crossed to the other side, and went into His home town."
The Wuest version says, "And having gone on board the boat, he crossed over and entered his own city."
How does someone have his "own town," his "home town," and his "own city" unless he lives there? And how does he live there unless he has a place to live?
Mark 2:1 is also very interesting. It reads, "A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home" (NIV).
In the Williams version, the verse reads, "After some days He came back to Capernaum, and it was reported that He was at home."
wuest's translation says, "And having again entered Capernaum, after some days He was heard of as being at home."

Jesus couldn't "come home" or be reported as being "at home" if He didn't have a home.
The argument that Jesus didn't have a home cannot be used as proof of the poverty of Jesus because Scripture indicates that Jesus did indeed have a home.

How does someone have his "own town," his "home town," and his "own city" unless he lives there? And how does he live there unless he has a place to live?

vooks:
Here is Keneth Hagin's Midas Touch book, not sure of copyrights or not
http://www.ekklesia.lt/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Kenneth-E-Hagin-The-Midas-Touch.pdf