₦airaland Forum

frosbel: the word of faith movement is not the same word of faith as preached by Paul.

From the word of faith movement have emanated the gospel of greed, name it and claim it, weird spiritual manifestations and worst of all , the EMPHASIS on experiences instead of the word of GOD.

The word of Faith movement is dangerous and MUST be avoided.

Continue with your useless emotional rants. I'm tempted to call you a liar. But unlike the sister that's obviously not as smart as you, you're careful enough to couch your crappy statements in generalities. The last thing anybody can accuse the Word of Faith movement of is elevating experiences. Maybe, you don't even know what goes in among those who preach the Word of Faith. I was at Kenneth Copeland's biggest annual event last year. Not once did I see anything like manifestations, much less emphasis on "experiences". The Word was taught by different preachers for days and days. Btw, I met a number of Nigerians there - from here, the UK and Nigeria. Maybe, you should confirm with them.

christemmbassey: @nlMediator, the issue is that a ɓhristian can not be possesed bv an evil spirit and therefor does not need deliverance, why? Bc he's allready been possesed bƴ the holy spirit and the spirit can not exist side by side with evil spirit. Finally, the bible says in col 1:13 that Christ had delivered us from the power of darkness.......

My brother, I've not even joined the debate fully on whether a christian can be possessed. [Of course, a christian cannot be possessed - question is whether he can be oppressed]. My interest in the discussion is our brother's claim that if something is not in the Bible, we have no business believing it. Well, that was not what he said when it came to pre-marital sex. So, I wanted to point out that inconsistency to him.

On King Saul, I don't believe he was possessed. An evil spirit came upon him and acted on him externally; the spirit did not live inside him, which is what possession is. Second, I need examples of possession of regular folk in the OT, you know, the type of people that Jesus delivered when He came. Remember, I didn't discount the existence of such stories. Here's another hint: do you realize that the devil or satan is barely mentioned in the Bible after the Genesis encounter? Does it mean he was not active then and wasn't doing all the things he does today?

Goshen360: 1. That is what you people called fornication. Is that what it means? You have not provided a contrary view to its meaning in order to deal with the subject. That was what I did on that thread. Off course we're gonna have problem with that because of my understanding of the OT & NT. The NT is entirely different from the OT because of the cross and what Christ did by His blood. If we can't agree on that, there's going to be problem.

2. This your #2 point cracked me to hard laugh. Anyway, I was on my way to reply a brother, Bidam on a thread and stumbled on your reply and decided to talk back to you. Now, you asked if anybody was possesed BEFORE Jesus turned 30? Well, I actually laughed at you for that statement. Look at it here:

1After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 2Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches. 3In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. 4For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. 5And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years. 6When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole? - John 5

Infirmity! 38years! BEFORE Jesus was born! The people who were possessed WERE NOT CHRISTIANS. Christianity is because of what Christ did and by the blood, we were engrafted into the NEW COVENANT. Deliverance for Christians is an insult to the blood of Christ!

3. Again, I laugh at this point #3. First, the gift of the Holy Spirit is for edification of the SAINTS not to detect devils\demons in the saints of God, those purchased and redeemed by the blood of Christ. There's no scriptural evidence the gift is used to detect DEVILS\DEMONS in CHRISTIANS. When believers or Christians gather together in Christian worship, are they are Christians that gathered together? Isn't unbelievers in their midst? As the church gathers, isn't is possible for non-christian in their midst be possessed of demons? This should open the discussion I guess. Scriptures records that when Christians gather, an unbeliever can be in their midst and such can be possessed NOT a Christian.

Looks like I am a poor communicator! I did not say that people were not possessed by demons before Jesus turned 30 and started His ministry. I said you hardly find any record of those people being possessed. The woman bound by the spirit of infirmity was possessed, as you rightly said, before Jesus was born. But did you read it anywhere in the Bible before the Gospels, even though she was possessed before the Gospels? If you lived a year before Jesus was born and read the Scriptures that existed at that point, would you read her account or those of the numerous people that Jesus delivered later? No. So, you could have declared at that point that nobody was possessed in that city since the Bible had no record of it. And you would have been wrong. Because many, including that woman, were bound and needed deliverance. What I expect you to do is open your OT and look at how many instances you see anybody being demon possessed. That would be enlightening.

On discerning of spirits, that's your interpretation. I can say the same about some of the other gifts, such as healings and miracles. Claim that christians cannot fall sick or need a miracle. But the gift was given to reach non-christians who attend christian meetings so they can see the power of God in their lives and be saved. WOuld you accept my interpretation that the gifts of healings and miracles do not apply to christians? If not, why should I accept yours? Neither of us can prove our position by citing any scripture. That's my point. If you can't prove your position from scriptures, then you need to be cautious about advancing it or using it to dismiss the contrary view or limit the general application of scripture.

On fornication, again you miss the point. It does not matter what definition other people presented. And btw, I provided no definition and I'm not sure I even contributed to that discussion at all. What matters is your own definition. You define a state of affairs as appropriate. Yet, there is no evidence of what you are advocating in the Bible. If you're sincere with your claim that if something is not in the Bible that settles it for you, then you have no business advocating a practice that is not in the Bible. But your inconsistency here is galling. You reject deliverance for christians because you never saw the practice in the Bible. But you approve of another practice (pre-marital sex) that you never saw in the Bible.

If you can't see the inconsistency, I can't help you.

Goshen360: 1. If no Christian went for deliverance, that settles it! The word of God is our standard. If you people can't provide example where Christians are being delivered from demonic oppression, you have not valid claim to this deliverance for Christians because you don't understand who a Christian is.

2. People delivered by Christ? And those are Christians? You must be insulting the finished works of Christ and the cross with his precious blood.

3. And you people were able to define that fornication means what you defined it to mean or we follow the words of Christ? There's no validity for Christian going for deliverance from scriptures and to that we hold our faith in what Christ had accomplished for us.

Cool.

1. If no engaged christian in the Bible slept with the partner, that settles it. We cannot preach it today. Do you realize that's what you're saying, by analogy? Until you can present evidence of any christian couple sleeping before marriage in the Bible and receiving endorsement, you cannot support it. Of course, you wouldn't do that, but would rather spend days and weeks defending something you cannot find in the Bible. Yet, when somebody brings up something else hey allegedly cannot find in the Bible, you reject it on that basis. Your approach goes contra to any rule of integrity and credibility that I know.

2. You misunderstood my question about demon possession before Jesus. If you read the Bible before Jesus started delivering people, you could also argue that nobody was demon possessed. From Genesis to Malachi, you can rarely find an account of people bound by evil spirits. Yet, there were many such people. Obviously, demon possession did not just start when Jesus began His ministry. So, let's use your logic. Was anybody possessed in the OT and in the 4 gospels before Jesus turned 30? Well, since we can hardly find any such incident, then nobody was possessed. Or you disagree?

3. I once asked you about the gift of discerning of spirits. What is that gift doing in the Church? Is it only to be used to discern devils in unbelievers? If your answer is Yes, where does the Bible say that? Again, remember unless you can show me where the Bible says it, it cannot be true. We're going solely by your rules or standard here. So, I'm waiting to see how you reach the conclusion that that gift is only for believers when we have no evidence in the Bible to that effect.

Goshen360: This is not matter of one's opinion or not. The Bible is our standard. Please, use scriptures. Show us from scripture where A CHRISTIAN went for deliverance services or deliverance was conducted on a CHRISTIAN. It's not a matter of one saved forever saved we talking about here; it's a matter of NEW creation.

So, if no christian went for deliverance in the Scriptures, that settles the question? Can you tell us how many people were listed as demon possessed in the Bible before Jesus came and started delivering people? One more thing: I'm sorry to say but you're being hypocritical on this issue. When you claimed that sex between engaged couples was legitimate, you were asked to provide evidence of the practice from the Bible. Not only could you not, but you kept on defending your position. Maybe, you should apply the same yard stick to deliverance.

It's not about defending error. Or you missed the part where I said you're free to discuss his teachings and what you think is wrong with it? What you endorse is hiding under biblical exegesis to promote defamation. That is unworthy of a child of God.

tobechi74: In my early days, I was asked my dream caeeer, i had immediately replied " lawyer". My dad immediately told me that "all lawyers are liars".that statement immedtately demorolised me.

Few years later, my elder cousin came home informing us of his intention to marry a lawyer. He was immediately told to think twice about it. Everyone present began narrating their ordeals with lawyers.

i was very young then.i was really brainwashed against doing anything with lawyers. I viewed them as a proffesional liars paid to lie.

as i grow older, my belief faded gradually.i now belive that that some honest lawyers truely exist. However, they are few. The multitude liars tend to overshadow them. The legal system is itself corrupt.

What then diffrentiaates an honest lawyer from the lying lawyers?

The legal system has made it such that the more difficult a case tends to be, the more money u tend to make as a lawyer. The initial belief that lawyers defend the innocent is really fading. Do lawyers still do that?
Modern lawyers defend who approaches them, who is ready to foot the bill irrespective of the truth

The dishonet lawyers lack conscience. He uses his lying tongue to bend the truth and strech the lies in convincing the court
the dishonest lawyer defends the case of a known persistent murderer and sleeps peacefully afterward
the dishonest lawyer is ready to call a white spade "black" .
he is willing to defend a criminal today and to accuse the innocent the next day.
he does little or nothing while charging the client exhorbidant fees.raping the client of thousand and knocking of 2%
he hardly advices his client to settle out of court knowing it is of no benefit to him.even if the client has 5% chance of winning the case. He would rather continue delaying the case since he stands to gain from "sitting fee".

The irony of it all is that such persons who consider their pocket first before their conscience or the client scale through the legal profession.hardened criminals, curropt goverment officials and rich politician patronise them and pay them . .They win the case even though the entire court know they ought to loose. In most cases, the judge is helpless as he is trained to judge by reason and not by emotions.

I think you're still very young. As you grow up, you'll find out that virtually every line of work is trapped in sin. Perhaps because we live in a world system in which satan is god. Only recently, I read that physicians in Nigeria collect a 10% referral fee from the Indian doctors they refer some patients to, which could make them refer a patient that does not need the referral or care. I've not even mentioned running abortion mills. Business people and bankers sell all kinds of products with lies or with a view to getting you to take what you don't need or even want so they can make more money. Owners of hotels let people stay in their rooms who may be robbers and murderers and who use the place as part of their crime route. University teachers sell grades or molest students. You get my point by now: focusing on lawyers and their ills is a waste of time.

Tgirl4real: @Frosbel,

A lot of confusion and harm I tell u.

@ bro Chi, I will suggest you his teachings side by side what scriptures teaches us. Imagine someone asking 'Jesus' to back up what he is saying with the word! Have u ever seen such in scriptures? Certainly, it's a false christ that appeared to him.

@ Idnoble, what question did u ask again?

You need to quit being ridiculous. People like you are far worse than those you criticize. Here you are lying about Hagin and when asked to provide evidence of your baseless assertions, you hide under lack of scriptural example of somebody asking Jesus questions. If you are a sincere person, you'd acknowledge that what Hagin did there was the same thing you claimed he was not doing: exalting experiences over scriptures. So, in your world, if a being appears to you, you'll accept everything he says because he claims he is Jesus? Of course, if Hagin did just that, you'd be among to first to excoriate him. Looks like nothing can satisfy you people.

You are free to question anyone's teachings, including Hagin's. Even the critics here are called false prophets when they're busy calling out others. What you're not at liberty to do is make false accusations about what somebody said or did not say. If you have an ounce of integrity, provide evidence of the baseless claims you made about Hagin, including correcting his errors and not being fully truthful about his health condition. With all of Hagin's faults, hardly anybody can accuse him of bearing false witness against his brethren, in the midst of scores of stories he told in his works. On that he beats all of you hands down. I'd straighten myself before I start looking for who is imperfect.

I skimmed some of the internet sources. Filled with hogwash. Kenneth Hagin lived in our times. How come much of the criticism about him does not come from people in his home town of McKinney, TX or in Oklahoma where he ended his ministry? Because, people that know him personally knew he was real and true. A Nigerian that lives in McKinney was in my house the other time. If you have any questions about Hagin's growing up years, let me know and I'll see if I can reach him to confirm how people view him there. The devil would always raise people to sow seeds of doubt about any effective ministry, so that many would not benefit from it. Hagin himself never claimed to know it all. His critics here and elswehere should only pray that that God would favor them with just 1% of the knowledge of the Bible, relationship with God and influence with men that Hagin had while on earth.

Also, I'm not sure I understand this stuff about not being truthful about his healing. For all I know, his healing testimonies were about being healed as a teenager. Are you saying that somebody that was healed in his teens and lived up to 80 plus years could never have fallen sick in his old age? Or he was not truthful about being sick in his old age? I'm not following the point here, if any.

Tgirl4real: Dis wan na long thing o.

I read your post after this to Frosbel, pls take it easy.

I know Kenneth Hagin tried correcting some of his errors in one of the last books he wrote, I can't remember anymore. I used to be a great follower. One of my dreams was to meet him b4 he died.

Hagin made people focus more on hearing the voice of God than following scriptures, he promoted seeing of visions and out of body experiences. He is one of the major fathers of the WOF movement making people more selfcentered than being Christ-centered. He gave personal def to biblical terms like Word of Knowledge, wisdom without any scriptural backing.

The baba o of move of the spirit - u can see the confusion in the video up there.

Copeland on the otherhand is worse. He took the prosperity gospel to a whole new level. His teachings are like that of Oyaks.

I can't remember much cos I stopped following them a long time ago and I am so limited right now.

Google may help you better.

Regretfully, your post is filled with errors founded on limited knowledge of the subject you're speaking about. And that's part of why being "critical" can be a problem. Here's a sample of your errors.

1. Hagin wrote a book correcting his errors. What book was that? I'm pretty sure it only exists in your imagination. He wrote a book, The Midas Touch, correcting some of the excesses of his "followers" in the ministry.

2. He defined terms like Word of Knowledge, wisdom, without scriptural backing. And you are sure he defined them by himself? Or did you not read where he made clear he was drawing from the studies of others, at least on the 2 concepts you mentioned?

3. He promoted out of body experiences and visions. Really? The same Hagin that always emphasized the Word of God above visions, even telling Jesus in a vision that he would not believe what He was saying unless Jesus could back it up with the Bible? The same Hagin that was against lifting spiritual experiences above the written Word?

Let me stop here. It's obvious you know very little about Bro. Hagin. And have read very few of his works or at least read them with understanding.

^^

I noticed you've been answering questions posed after mine and eager to answer new ones, but have not responded to mine. Maybe my questions were no so clear or a bit more difficult?

I don't think the issue is about literal crying. That is largely irrelevant. Even here on earth, we use crying in a figurative sense, saying people cried for help even when no tears were shed. The issue here is: are the souls there right now in Heaven or not? His argument is that nobody goes to Heaven until Jesus returns. But that does not align with that Scripture. Because of the lingering questions that I posed.

^^

Let me sure I understand what you're saying. Rev. 6:10 is about a future event that has not occurred as of today. And you believe this will occur when? If your answer is before Jesus comes, that means you believe that dead people go to Heaven before judgment, which contradicts your earlier assertions. If your answer is when Jesus comes back and dead saints are resurrected, that suggests that resurrected SINNERS would not be judged immediately upon resurrection. They would have to be here on EARTH for that verse to apply to them. Is that what you are saying: that there is no immediate judgment for sinners when Jesus appears but that they would be on earth for some time and then the killed saints in Rev. 6:10 would cry to God for vengeance?

Secondly, when the killed saints in Rev. 6:10 cried out, they were told to wait till their fellow saints are reunited with them. So, in light of that, are you also saying that when Jesus appears not ALL the saints would be resurrected at the same time? That is, some martyrs would be resurrected first, followed by sinners, while other martyrs and the rest of the saints are still in the grave. Then the first set of martyrs cry and God tells them to wait till the other martyrs and saints resurrect and join them?

On the other hand, if ALL the saints are resurrected at the same time, what would be the point in God telling the crying saints to wait till their brethren join them? That takes us back to the point that that chapter may have been speaking of life before Jesus comes.

These questions need to be cleared for your position to make sense. The alternative interpretation that these saints are already in Heaven and are seeking vengeance over their killers and other wicked people now on earth and are being told to wait for their brethren who are still alive does not suffer from these problems.

frosbel: You do err not knowing the scriptures.

Until you understand bible language in the cultural setting of the day , you will keep believing error.

In Isaiah , it was clearly stated that they will look upon , not conscious people but dead people.

Besides God is a consuming fire which means that the fire consumes any object that it comes into contact , yet you and your institutionalised friends ( ) will want us to believe that fire , more so God's fire , never consumes . Hilarious and insane at the same time.

Fire does not always consume. Are you saying that all objects are subject to destruction by fire? That everything that comes into contact with fire must be annihilated by it. I would think that even in this material realm, there are fire-proof objects, No? How much more in the non-material realm of the soul. Arguing that because fire consumes, it follows that everything that comes into contact with fire is consumed is pedestrian.

^^

But you still need to explain why the maggots and the life will continue to "live" after the souls or human beings have been burnt or annihilated. Here on earth, it's easy to understand why maggots and fires remain after serving as agents of destruction - they can be re-used as agents of other destruction or put to other use. What is the purpose of the endless fires and maggots living for eternity when there's nothing else to destroy?

^^
The guy’s skill at explaining away things is amazing. If only he deployed it to exaplin away his erroneous beliefs.

shdemidemi: Ain't we all limited to our senses? Left to you and I, if we were God, we would cancel physical death all together without judgement. We might actually say God was wicked for making His only begotten son go through that much whipping and bashing, we might have done it a different way. Unfortunately, we are not God, but we can be sure that his plans for us are of good and not evil ( by faith)

Correct.

It is almost laughable that people proclaim how wicked people are for believing in eternal punishment but jubilate that they believe in punishment in hell even for a few seconds. With my kind of heart, I do not want anybody to be punished after this life, even the worst of sinners. Sometimes, I entertain the hope that God will forgive everybody and make sure nobody suffers after death but that everybody lives with Him in happiness and harmony forever. I guess, I can put on a sanctimonious heart and condemn all those that believe that God is so wicked that He cannot forgive and forget the sins of evil people and insist on annihilating them out of existence while their saved relatives enjoy in eternity. But that’s not our job here. Our role is to examine God’s Word and go with what it says.

frosbel: Jesus quoted from Isaiah 66:24

"And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind."



Enjoy.

What are the worms and fires still doing after the people have been annihilated? So, God sends souls to hell, they’re burnt to death within 30 seconds and then he keeps the fire on and the worms alive suffering in the fire for trillions of years? You need to put on your thinking cap. I was reading Matt. 24 and 25 yesterday and it is almost shocking that anybody would read those passages and still conclude that it is not a continuous punishment for the condemned dead.

shdemidemi: I give up on you jo, I thought you knew a bit about scriptures but you have lost every regard this your I.d get for my eyes. I am speechless mehn. I am outta here.

Ain't seen nothing yet! I warned you guys. You're dealing with a very evil force. Imagine someone that calls himself a christian claiming that Jesus did not exist until He was born by Mary? I mean, what can be moreoutrageous? Some people that do not accept Jesus as God but see Him only as the Son of God still acknowledge that He existed before 2000 years ago; that He created all things, including those that have been in existence for longer than 2 millenia. It's almost a complete waste of time discussing with some of these guys.

For hundreds of years, people that deny the divinity of Christ Jesus have been arguing. If anybody has been able to convince even ONE of these people all these centuries that they are wrong, I'm yet to hear the story. The reason is simple: their position is a mental stronghold that can only be broken spiritually. (2 Cor. 10: 3-5). Either one successfully binds the spirit holding their mind captive or it will take some dramatic occurrence, such as a vision or divine visitation in a dream, etc. How to know that these guys are under captivity:

1. Obsession with this topic or related ones about hell and the Holy Ghost. This is so even when there are scores of topics they can be focusing on that can be of immediate or eternal benefit to christians and non-christians alike. Yet, they pour so much energy into topics they claim themselves are of little or no significance to one's salvation (e.g., they remind you that you don't need to believe in the trinity to be saved. So, why not focus on the things you need to be saved? Or that there is no continuing pain in hell even for non-believers. So, why bother repeating it to people who will suffer no pain while people need help - topics to deal - with the pain they're going through right now?)

2. Excitement. They salivate at the mere thought of discussing these topics and can abandon everything else just to satisfy the unhealthy urge.

Christians should bear this in mind when discussing with these guys. The primary object of discussing with them is not to win them over intellectually - as that is nigh impossible - but to help young believers and non-christians who may be carried away by their sophistry. Do you know they already have an answer to this post even before I wrote it?

^^
You're mixing things up. Abraham's lifestyle and what made him justified are 2 different things. James and Paul were talking about what made Abraham justified and they referred to one incident - the sacrifice of Issac. And Abraham was not counted righteous or his faith was not accounted for righteousness when he was in his house - it was when he left hom and raised his hand to kill his son. Both the OT and Paul make that clear. And so does James. Only difference is that Paul calls the act faith while James calls the act works, because James was focusing on the fact that there is no such thing as (justifying) faith without action. How does a person get justified today? Is it by 'believing' in his heart or acting on that belief by confessing Jesus as Lord? Put differently, when you say Abraham was justified by faith, what is the content of that faith?

The idea that Peter did not understand Paul's message because he did not understand a vision shown in Acts is a weak one. Even Paul probably did not understand all of his message in the beginning. He even accepted to purify himself according to the Law in Acts. If somebody else had done that, you'd also accuse him of not understanding Paul's message.

Please show me where in 1 Pet. where Peter said he did not understand Paul's message.

And another thing I notice you're doing is to divide the Church of Christ into 2: one for Jews and one for christians. There is only one body of Christ and the same message applies to all. Peter being sent to the Jews and Paul being sent to the Gentiles does not mean that the 2 sets of christians would be applying 2 different sets of principles. Nothing in the WOrd of God says that. In fact, when Paul met Jews during his minsitry, he preached the same message to them.

^^

I believe your understanding here is a more accurate understanding of the Scriptures. I disagree with you on Peter. I don't see anywhere in the Scriptures where Peter Peter confessed that he did not understand all that Paul taught. He said SOME people do not understand it and twist it for their own destruction. That's not to say that he himself is included. Besides, how on earth would he know that people misunderstood Paul if he did not have an understanding of what Paul was saying?

On James and works, I agree with you completely. It continues to boggle the mind how Grace preachers often attack James. James made clear what he was talking about - the sacrifice by Abraham of his son. Abraham believed God in his heart and was ready to do what he believed, which is sacrifice Isaac. But would it do any good if he stayed at home and did nothing and then claim that he is justified by the faith he has in his heart? In fact, God Himself did not commend Abraham's faith until the point he raised the knife to kill his son.That's God's understanding of faith - that you act on what you believe. Grace preachers should not make it appear as though all you need is claim you believe and you're justified. No, that's not faith. Faith has an action component to complete it as well as an action component that serves as its fruit. Paul called what Abraham did with Isaac faith. James emphasized the action component. Both were discussing the same incident, not 2 different incidents.

The reality is that the core of the Grace message is that we live beyond the law and this calls for a higher level of living than the law. Grace preaching should not stop at how we are not under the law, because all that does is make the preacher and the congregation feel good, including those that see it as an occasion to live a sin-filled life. The real work starts in living everyday under grace. And that is far more demanding than the life under the law.

Furthermore, don't think that what you're peddling here is that new. People have been preaching it for years and have met with deserved denunciation. Besides, they have not succeeded in derailing the pure message about the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is hard to believe that anybody is saved who does not believe Jesus is God. For no man can save. If Jesus is not God, He cannot save.

What I also find interesting is that rejecting Jesus as God seems to go hand in hand with rejecting eternal torment and Holy Spirit Baptism. People reading Nairaland may think it's a new phenomenon. But it's not. Here is what a preacher said almost 100 years ago:

"There are many evil, deceiving spirits sent forth in these last days who endeavor to rob Jesus of His Lordship and of His rightful place. Many are opening the doors to these latest devils, such as New Theology and New Thought and Christian Science. These evil cults deny the fundamental truths of God's Word. They all deny eternal punishment and all deny the deity of Jesus Christ. You will never see the Baptism of the Holy Ghost come upon a man who accepts these errors.. . . Another thing, you will never find a Russellite baptized in the Holy Ghost; nor a member of any other cult that does not put the Lord Jesus Christ pre-eminent above all."

Smith Wigglesworth, Ever Increasing Faith, at p. 89 (2013 edition).

[quote author=frosbel][/quote]Sorry, I'm not going to join you in your fad-chasing. I'll not discard an existing doctrine for something new simply because the old one is traditional. So, far none of you has given one convincing reason why Jesus is not God. All you do is misapply Scriptures that deal with Him as man (with human limitations) and use that to show that He couldn't be God since God cannot be so limited. Then, you disregard aspects of your argument that conflict with Scriptures and common sense.

Examples of this can be found in your latest response to me. You claim that the Spirit of Christ is the same as Spirit of God, but then say that Christ is not God. What sense does that make? One spirit, 2 different persons. Where else do you find that in nature, life or Scriptures?

Worse still, you suggest that the Holy Spirit belongs to or is shared by both God and A man (Jesus). Please, you should have some respect for your creator.

The excerpt you quoted makes some point but shows your (you and him) confusion. You claim Jesus is a man, but also ascribe to Him the power of omnipresence. He's in Heaven and is still the Head of the Church. Yet, He's only a man. The excerpt says that the Holy Spirit is a mere force, not a person. Only recently, you said you're still forming your opinion on whether the Holy Spirit is a person. Maybe, you need to study some more.

Finally, you insist that Jesus is a man, yet every man born after Adam has a human father's DNA. You've not explained to us how He can be a man without that essential ingredient.

^^

Never claimed to be a Bible scholar. Besides, studying includes looking at the work of scholars, which I did by referencing Strong's. Unless, you're saying it is only study when it agrees with your views and the views of the scholars you approve. But anybody that knows anything about Bible scholarship would at least acknowledge that Dr. Strong qualifies as a scholar. And Strong's clearly agrees me and rejects your interpretation. I'm pretty sure most knowledeable folks would pick Strong's over you and the organizations you represent here.

Now, let me further show you guys from God's Word that Jesus is God and that you'll continue to misunderstand the Scriptures you quote when you fail to separate the man from the God. Let's look at Romans 8: 9- 10.

"9.But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness."

Notice Paul starts by calling the Holy Ghost the Spirit of God, which every believer must have. Then he switches to calling the Holy Ghost the Spirit of Christ. He interchangeably used God and Christ (unless of course you guys believe that there is a Spirit of Christ and a Spirit of God that both indwell the christian). But it gets better! In verse 10, Paul uses interchangeably the Spirit of God/Christ and Christ by saying that it is Christ that dwells in us when earlier he said it was the Spirit of God or the Spirit of Christ. In the eyes of Paul, there is no difference between the Spirit of God and Christ. And there is no difference between Christ and God; that's why he freely calls Him the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ.

This also tallies with what Jesus told His followers that He, the Father, and the Holy Ghost will come and abide with those who love Him. Everybody knows that all of them cannot do so - the Father and Jesus are in Heaven. Jesus was saying that God will dwell in His children through the Holy Spirit. Again, God dwells in all of His children. But that God is the Holy Spirit.

I wait to hear you guys' tortured interpretation of Rom. 8:9-10.

^^

Until you separate Jesus the man who emptied Himslef of His glory and Jesus the God who has always been, you'll continue to misunderstand and misinterpret these Scriptures.

frosbel: What matters to me is what the bible says.

After his bodily resurrection , Jesus clearly made his disciples know that he was flesh and bones.

This means that he was raised from the dead bodily as Jesus himself confirmed

So, you guys that reject Jesus as God can't get your stories together? What kind of disagreement is this? Confusion galore.

ijawkid: Smh.....

Acts 3:15
Good News Translation (GNT)
15 You killed the one who leads to life, but
God raised him from death—and we are
witnesses to this.

This problems exist when you don't take time to study scriptures thoroughly.......

Have you forgotten how Jesus said "" I am the way,the truth and life,no one comes to the Father except through him"".....

Have you forgoTten??....

How does Jesus being the author of life turn out to be Jesus is the source of all life when Jesus himself depends on the Father to stay alive........

John 6:57 has been quoted clearly but you ignore it........

Smdh!!!!!.......

You guessed wrong. I actually studied that Scripture before I ever posted it here. Your take or translation does not capture the full meaning. The word used in Acts 3:15 is "archegos" which KJV transaltes as Prince here or Author in Heb. 2:10. According to Strongs, the word "primarily signifies one who takes a lead in, or provides the first occasion of anything . . . .In Heb. 2:10, the word suggests a combination of the meaning of leader with that of the source from whence a thing proceeds [] That Christ is the Prince of life signifies the life He had was not from another; the Prince or Author of life must be He who has life from Himself."

So, it's not just about leading to something (life) but ALSO about being its source or orginator. And this source does not get the life from another.

Maybe, you'd want to share your own study and its source so we can compare notes.

^^

I half-expected the interpretation you gave to Acts 3:15. Peter did not say they killed the person who became the source of life after His death. That's your slant. Peter said He's the very Source of Life, period. I take God at His Word. Simple. To think that you've been hammering that the Bible is so simple we don't need anybody to teach us.

frosbel: 47 facts for sure , ignore them at your peril.

So why don't you explain to us in a few simple sentences how Jesus can be the very source of life and not be God? Your co-confederates were stumped by the question (especially after admitting that God is the source of life), so feel free to help them.

"But you killed the very Source (the Author) of life . . . ." Acts 3:15 AMP.

"You killed the author of life . . . ." Acts 3:15 NIV.

"You killed the author of life . . . ." NLT

frosbel: Wrong !!

The wages of sin is death , means the death of the sinner, read Ezekiel chapters 18 and 36. When ADAM sinned the punishment was the curse of death.

It has not changed !

Also , it is morally unacceptable in most decent societies to burn thieves, torture victims, torment the weak and old, mutilate our enemies etc. We all agree that the catholic church carried out some of the worse crimes of torture in medieval times, which included but was not limited to burnings at the stake, cutting out tongues and disembowelment of their victims. We find these acts which were temporary very cruel and evil.

Why then is it, that we moral beings would dare insinuate that the God of mercy , justice and love will do 1000 times worse evils than all these wicked demons who plagued mankind for centuries ? Are we not putting the character of God on par with that of SATAN when we make these outrageous and misleading remarks about eternal torment ?

Who benefits from this torture business ?

It is important we reexamine all traditional doctrine we have learnt to ensure that they line up with the bible , otherwise we will be placing obstacles in the paths of millions who want to enter the kingdom but who find it difficult to reconcile a loving GOD to a monstrous sadist.

The brother asked you to provide scriptural backing for your position that there is no eternal torment. Of course, you have none. So you resort to morality of most decent societies. But does it occur to you that under the morality of most decent societies, the same thieves, etc that are not burnt or tortured in those societies are also not killed. That is, most "decent socieities" have abolished the death penalty for criminals (sinners). Yet, you agree that God will impose the death penalty on sinners in hell. If you really are guided by the morality of decent societies, then you have to agree that God would be an immoral God to attach the death penalty to bad behavior. Yet, you're not courageous enough to do so. Some consistency in reasoning!