₦airaland Forum

newmi:
Sure it is. . . but l can't find anybody making claims of gains let alone exalting Paul or his teachings.please l think you should read the post again but your statements with all due respects seem to suggest that you perhaps didn't carefully read through the post. Because l cannot find any similitude of an intent based on choice to discredit portions of the Bible why should anyone do that or attempt to do that because 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness". It is profitable meaning that; "it is usefu"l, "it is appropriate", "it is well suited for", bearing this in mind it would be insane to even attempt to discredit any portion.
The point is simple Paul was an apostle "primarily" ordained and sent to the gentiles so without any discredit to other disciples or apostle it is only logical to accept the postulation that Christ revealled to him details about this gospel as it concerns the gentile church
Galasians 1:15-16
15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. HIS LAST STATEMENT SUGGEST THAT IT WAS DIVINE
You are sure and convinced he (Peter) didn't?
Then what do you have to say about this
2 Peter 3:14-16
14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

1. If Paul's teachings are not being exalted what do you make of this?

"All the things that Jesus found hard to communicate to the disciples were revealed to Paul . If any mn has to excell in doctrine of truth, he has to dwell on the teachings of Paul."

2. From what you quoted, you can see that Peter never said Paul's teachings were hard for HIM, which is the claim you're trying to debunk. You really thought I didn't know of that scripture before I made my observation? The point is that Peter is presented as this inferior guy who could not understand the hard revelation Paul had. There's no truth to that from Scriptures.

Joagbaje:
It's not self explanatory at all. Because what he said doesn't relate to the spirit of my post or it's simplicity. You should let image 123 clarify himself

There is higher level of truth and lesser truths. All are based on certain principles. Don't be too quick to criticise what you don't understand. You should rather ask question.

Pls study your bible first, read Pauline epistles with open heart.

Peter acknowledge some of pails teachings were hard to be understood.

Youre Veering too far off.I'm contrasting between those who rather dwell on the teachings in the gospels and refuse to study the deeper teachings of Pauline epistles ,claiming the gospels are the words of Jesus and by that carry superiority. so don't ,miss my point

The epistles are for us all. That's why I'm giving invitation to everybody o come and see the treasure in the epistles .

God never did away with them. Paiul himself taught on it.

1 Corinthians 9:13-14
13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? 14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.


you have so much assumptions. Read my opening thread again with a fresh open heart. You don't sound as though you even understand it

1. It's quite possible that I didn't understand your post. Perhaps because I didn't read well or because the message is too high. Either way, the imortant thing is that I express my opinion and learn as I get further clarification or even correction.

2. Making my point is a way of asking questions. Posing ten questions for you may not come off quite well. Key thing is that if you see any area of misunderstanding, you provide clarification.

3. If your post is directed at those who'd lift the gospels over the epistles, I'm with you.

4. Peter did not say that Paul's teachings was hard for HIM. It was hard for some people, specially those who were twisting it.

5. I decided to re-read your post. I may have missed one or two little things, but not much. But I saw this part more clearly: "All the things that Jesus found hard to communicate to the disciples were revealed to Paul . If any mn has to excell in doctrine of truth, he has to dwell on the teachings of Paul."

You made 2 claims there that are purely your personal opinion, unsupported by scripture. Nothing in the Bible says that ALL that Jesus found hard to communicate was revealed to Paul. So, the rest of the NT is milk? Or the claim that only through Paul's writings can one excel? Again, the rest of the NT is there to serve what purpose - breed mediocrity?

It is self-explanatory. Nothing is gained by exalting Paul or his teachings.

1. It's either you believe that the Bible is the revealed Word of God or you do not. You cannot choose to discredit portions of the Bible on any basis whatsoever - regeneration, receiving the Holy Spirit, etc. Even Paul said ALL scripture is given by inspiration, not just Pauline epistles.
2. Even before Paul and the New Testament, God has been revealing DEEP things to His people. To quote something from Paul and make it suggest that Paul was the only one that received deep things is to prove your argument with your argument. That's logically fallacious.
3. We also hear the suggestion that Peter acknowledged that Paul's teachings were hard for him to understand. Yet, Peter said no such thing.
4. It is true that Jesus made it clear He will reveal additional stuff to His disciples. He never said it would be through only one person or two. Nor did he say that the words of one disciple should be exalted above others, including Jesus's words. All scripture should be read in harmony.
5. The people that harp on Paul usually do so out of convenience or to show their own superiority. If they followed Paul strictly, they would never preach things like tithes or first fruits. How come the person with the deep revelation forgot something on which churches spend so much effort?

Joagbaje:
I understand. Im not spoiling bussiness for Tow men. I mostly get involved in situations where there's no help or where they have bad Samaritans . Take for example, one night on the express between ph and warri , there was a blockade which made of us to take the freshly sand filled and uncompleted dualized part. It rained . And up to 10 buses sank with mama ,papa, children as passengers. Some I learnt have been there for hours. I got them all out. But there are cases where one has to help a broken vehicle in the middle of nowhere to a nearest place of safety. Are we going to consider law in such desperate situations especially if your car is full?

I made more enquiry now and the information I'm getting is that such lincense is only issued to commercial operators. will I now go and join association because I wan help people? My conclusion is that there are times one may have to follows ones heart depite whatever law. Especially if the law is contrary to spiritual law After all I've seen an advert on CNN where one broken down fish truck was towed by another bigger good Samaritan truck. No permit!

Ha ha, by definition, you're spoiling business for them! What do you think would have happened to those 10 buses and other broken-down vehicles if there are no good samaritans like you? The business will be shared between the bad samaritans and the tow-truck owners, who by the way would also be considered the good guys. I do think, though the law does not make sense - the way you describe it (well, same goes for many laws!) especially considering that there are many bad roads in Nigeria and very few towing companies. There may be a way to get round the law, if one takes a closer look at it. Is it possible for you to post the particular provision or mention the exact statute so one can look it up? At the very least, the law should allow towing, where the driver of disabled vehicle requests it.

Joagbaje:
Well , I was arguing my way. I actually thought they were just being funny.but it's not about what happen next , I'm more concern about future occurrence. Because i still dey do am! I just want to hear if others encountered such police palava in the name of helping .

@inedi
I feel if there's any law it should have been only for commercial towing van. Not for a good Samaritan .

Laws that require people to have a permit to conduct a business or license to provide a professional service are usually there to protect the public from untrained providers, generate revenue for the government or present a barrier to entry thereby keeping the money in the hands of those already in the trade who also probably lobbied for the law. If you want to continue to tow, maybe you should consider getting a license. That way, the government people won't be mad with you since the revenue part is taken care of. But you may still be an enemy of tow-truck owners and their drivers. Safety is probably the least on the list of factors, given the Nigerian situation.

Joagbaje:
As a man grows , his language has to change if not, he won't receive .

Theres a legal aspect and the vital aspect of our salvation . The legal aspect is what what christ has done and purchased on our behalf. The vital aspect is our awareness and faith and possession . Yes provision has been made for everything,

1 Corinthians 3:21
21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;

I'm not talking about being greater in heaven or before God. I'm talking in terms of being greater in authority by the virtue of office. God says to submit to those who are above us. He call them rulers in the body of christ.

It's a pronouncement of grace. If I say "BE HEALED!" is it a prayer to God? The Jews greet "shalom" it's not a prayer to God . But it's supposed to be a spiritual greeting and blessing

It's a general term we use which connotes several things. Sometimes we often use it religiously. Or as greeting.

"Shalom", "God bless you", "be healed" are all declarations. They're a kind of prayer. The declarant expects that his delcaration will come to pass because God has set the necessary order for its manifestation. That is, it is an indirect prayer, as opposed to the direct prayers we are more accustomed to. When Jesus spoke in Mark 11.23 about speaking to a mountain and seeing it removed - similar to 'be healed' - He was speaking in the context of prayer, as the next verse makes clear.

Joagbaje:
At least there's no place where paul is asking for God to be with him. Which many Christians are doing today. That is the error being addressed. You know Enigma like to use his lawyer skill to confuse simple posts. I understand what he does very well. The message is very clear and simple. Firstly look at the context of the video. It's to help Christians pray more maturely. It is immature for us to be asking God to give us what he said he had done. I will come to paul and timothy matter o. If God says I am healed , I shouldn't say "come and heal me". If God says I'm blessed I shouldn't say "come and bless me. If God says "I am with you" I shouldn't say come and be with me. It's a prayer of unbelief.

When it comes to our personal issues and things that has to do with Satan. We don't need to ask or beg God. We lay hold by faith. For example I can't ask God to come and cast a devil away. It is in my power to exercise authority because,these are based on the finished works of christ. I posses my possession by faith. I don't have to call om God for what he has done.

But as I said earlier , a minister who is higher can blessed someone under his authority.

A "greater " can pronounce blessing on the lesser but not the other way round. I will try and get the scripture on that Timothy wont make such pronouncement on paul. A higher person in authority can make certain pronouncement on people under his authority. Sometimes by the spirit other time just out of courtesy.

I don't really want to enter into the content of what said to Timothy ,does it mean God will now follow Timothy because of paul pronouncement? .if you understand my write-up above you will see that it's based on a principle . Its a prouncement of blessing. Not that God should "follow" Timothy. It's a pronoucement of Grace. And he wasn't praying to God. If I say "God bless you" or "you're blessed" it's not a prayer to God. I really didn't want to enter this because it will require explanations of the principles especially to those who don't believe in leadership offices in christs body.

So the thread is about the religious prayer to God some do. Which can't get result in the new testament. "God pls be with me" "God pls hear my prayer" etc. But a minister can pronounce words by the authority and anointing. That's why a minister can tell someone "be healed!" even though "by his stripe he was healed" but that is different from someone saying "God pls come and heal me" "god pls take this devil away" The body of christ can't mature by those kin gds of prayers
t

I believe in leadership in the church. But I see it as service. You also see it as service. But we diverge when you support a system that creates 2 classes of Christians – a royalty of leaders and a congregation of commoners. The Bible makes no such distinction. In any case, you can share your knowledge to educate other people here, not just the person you’re responding to or the people that share your beliefs in every single thing.
The demon analogy is not applicable here. 2 christians are facing a demon problem. The one who knows his rights does not call upon God but commands the devil to cease and leave. The other begs God for mercy. But that’s not the same situation with blessing or God’s presence. 2 christians are blessed. One knows it and does not pray God bless me. But he also says ‘God bless you’ to the one he knows is blessed. What is the purpose of the declaration? The person is already blessed. It’s like God told me that he has given me 100% in my physics exam. Then, you declare over me: “God give you success” or even “God give you 100%”. What is the declaration adding to the 100% I have?

Same thing with God’s presence. Since you already admit that saying “God be with you” will not make God be with the person since God is already with the person, you have to explain why the declaration by a superior is useful. I can understand if you’re declaring blessing or divine presence over somebody who doesn’t have it. But here you already know the person has it. So, it is either pointless or there is a purpose for it.
And I agree that there’s a purpose. Not just what you claim it is – pronouncement – unless you can show the relevance of the pronouncement.
Finally, the fact that Paul may not have prayed it for himself is not dispositive. He also did not give himself instructions on getting married, but gave to others. It does not make us insist on being like Paul in that area and ignoring his words on that topic. Instead we take his words as the Word of God. Besides, one could also argue that when Paul was asking for prayer that utterance be given to him in Eph. 6.19, it is functionally equivalent to asking that God be with you in that situation. Which tallies with the comment earlier made by someone here that it is about ‘manifestation’ not literal presence.

Enigma:
Their problem is conceit and lack of depth of understanding --- quite ironic, considering they keep going on about 'milk' and 'strong meat'.

Notice they cannot provide any sensible explanation why Paul would pray "God be with you" for other Christians and for Timothy --- a whole 'pastor'.

Or maybe Paul was not aware of the words of Jesus? Or maybe those other Christians and even Timothy the 'pastor' did not have the Holy Spirit is why Paul kept praying on several occasions "God be with you". Mind you if our friends insist on a distinction between "God be with me" and "God be with you" then any time someone prays "God be with you" to them they should reject it; they should tell Oyakhilome that if anyone prays "God be with you" for him, he should reject it --- since he would not say the same for himself. Anyway, since I'm not sure he really believes in God I won't be surprised if he rejects it.

[quote author=Knight1 link=topic=788242.msg9427522#msg9427522 date=1319703236]@ joagbaje
can you not see this?
The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.

there are two statements in that sentence. the second is the 'utterance of grace'. God is omnipresent, very correct. but he doesn't manifest his presence everywhere. that is the point of the prayer.

and i don't even know why praying to GOd to be with you should be an issue
It's not like He's complaining,

[/quote]You seem to have a better handle on this. It appears it's more about manifestation than literal presence. It's like Jesus saying that where 2 or more are gathered, He's there. Yet, He's always there, even when they're not gathered and even when they're alone. I'm beginning to see that part of the reason we have endless and meaniningless controversies in christianity is that as christians we have not fully figured out when to take the words in the Bible literally and when not to.

Joagbaje:
Don't twist this. There is difference between "with me" and "with you" . I cant ask God to be with me because he is always with me.
But when a superior pronouce be with you, it's a grace he is imparting. A manifestation. But you won't find him asking God to be with him. If you ever find Paul asking God to be with him then you have a point .

Your explanation is not satisfactory. The reason you don’t pray ‘God be with me’ is because God is with you. Then you go ahead to pray the same prayer for another Christian, whom God is also with. Does that make sense to you? Same thing with ‘God bless me.’ If every christian is blessed, why pray that the christian be blessed when you won’t say the same prayer for yourself? And you have not responded to the point about why Paul would pray that God be with Timothy. Are you bigger than Timothy and is the God with you different from the one with Timothy?

At the end of the day, it is possible you’re right. But it won’t be because of the explanations you provided. Because they simply do not make sense or add up.

Sorry, I've not followed up on this topic. Hope to provide a fulll response soon.

davidylan:
You're missing the point. Evangelism is not a defence of faith. Defence of faith is within the church. But what we owe other religion and faiths is the gospel. You cannot win people to christ by attacking them. You only stir up hate. The gospel is Gods love to man. [/color]

This is generally correct. As is this definition of apologetics :"My assumption is that apologetics is a defence of the christian doctrines. So do I need to defed christian docritrine to pagans?"

However, the application is wrong. Apologetics is about defending the faith, mainly to non-christians. Christians do not need a defense of christian doctrines to them, since christians already believe many of these doctrines. E.g., the resurrection of Jesus is believed by every christian but may be questioned by non-christians. Apologetics is about using logic, philosophy, empiricism, etc to defend a doctrinal position. Paul employed it in talking to Festus and Agrippa. Other examples abound. See link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics

^^

Watch out for pride - spiritual or otherwise. You've been shown you're wrong and instead of pondering on it, you choose to introduce a new slant about 'doings' based on words.

I think it's all about wisdom and balance. Christian apologia is not limited to the church. In fact, by definition, it is a lot more about outside the confines of the church. However, apologia does not consist of insulting the founders of religions, especially when done in a harsh tone. Such tactics rarely work and so defeats the commendable objective of trying to reach the adherents and steer them away from their wrong beliefs. Pointing out errors or disagreements with other faiths should be encouraged. But should be done in a civil tone and preferably with people who are ready to engage in reasoned dialogue.

Sweetnecta:
^^ You had to call the follower of the unlettered prophet to show you stuff in your own bible.

This is another proof that you people are completely misguided. no wonder Jesus of the bible called you fo.ols, adulterous generation, ye of little faith, [no faith at all. grabbing to all things false]. is that to hot for you, now?

John 21 verse 25: Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.


I suppose you will argue that Greek is the mother tongue of biblical Jesus, just like mandike is the mother tongue of Igbo people?

Ha ha, I know about the verse in John and know very well that it does not say what you claimed in your post. As you correctly quoted the verse, it says Jesus DID many things that were not written, not TAUGHT or SAID many things. That is, Jesus may have restored the sight of 100 people. The Bible may record 2, since it makes no difference whether you repeat all of them or not. The point has been proven that Jesus can restore sight. Not the same thing as Jesus saying that you should be born again and not play soccer. But one was written and the other was not. So your earlier claim was at best ignorant and at worst false.

Sweetnecta:
@mabell: « #24 on: Today at 08:34:37 AM »As I reflected on the Quran, I have to change my earlier position. Yes. Muslims and Christians and indeed Jews and all who believe there is God and worship is due to Him, worship the same God.

The difference between the muslims and the christians in worship in the light of your post, is that Christians have corrupted the concept of One God, hence have corrupted the concept of true worship of One God.

They mis-defined and mis-described God by tagging with Him attributes that are incorrect and not befitting His Majesty.

Should God have a son? Should God be split into bits and pieces and parts? Should God not be able to be separate from creations? Should God not be able to maintain His Position with compromising, as to become like any other?

Are there nothing God will restrict Himself from?

I was discussing with a Christian, yesterday, and i had to remind him that the NT and the christians claim that they did not record all that was said and or what Jesus preached. Considering in addition that you do not have true authentic and complete records of Jesus in language and substance without something not there, no one can be 100% sure of what Jesus position is. From the Bible, alone, we will be working with incomplete details using foreign tongues [Greek and Latin] for the most part instead of authentic Syriac spoken by Jesus.


It will be difficult to capture the full gist/thrust of what Louis the 16 said during the french revolution from a manuscript written in hausa language, then translated and made into a book in swahili. This is the same condition we have using greek manuscript to write the mission of Jesus in english or any language, ignoring the importance of what was possibly the original details in Syriac spoken by Jesus. If it were written down in the Syriac language, it would have been better. But it would have been best if it was written in Syriac immediately under the supervision of Jesus, as he was talking, walk and and going about the work of preaching or delivering what his Lord sent him with.

But this is not the case. So the individual Christian needs to rethink his/her position in light of absolute TRUTH.

Can you show me where the Bible says that?

Sport is part of bodily exercise which Paul told us is profitable, but only a little. I Tim. 4:8.

^^
Quite helpful. Thanks. I still have a question or two and hope to be able to articulate them better, later.

italo:
You guys have still not given proof that the good thief wasn't baptized throughout nis lifetime. Couldn't he have been baptized before the cross? In which case Jesus would have no need to mention 'baptism' to him at the time.

Now I'm not saying categorically that he was baptized, I'm saying we have no way of knowing. And its good to shut up about things you don't know or at least not sound so certain about the uncertain.

I thought you're going to come back with a sensible response after what you claimed was an easy question.

Image123:
Recall the lady diviner who was throwing spanners into Paul and his team's outreach until Paul sensed it in his spirit. Recall Paul saying somewhere that 'satan hindered us' and He wanted to be at a particular place about 3times but Satan stopped it, and he later saw that he could actually send others instead. Recall the messenger of satan sent to 'buffet' Paul. The scriptures is clear to say "we wrestle". Positionally, we're more than conquerors already. Yet experientially, we have to endure, put on the WHOLE ARMOR so as to be able to stand. Truth is not everybody stands. The enemy attacks on different lines. Some do well to stand. Some fall seven times and stand. Some fall and can't get up. If anyone drops the shield of faith, brother, He's become susceptible to injury from the enemies' camp. Injury may be sin, sickness, unnecessary delay or failure. God's people can perish for lack of knowledge, truth. But of course we can stand in victory with God, it's possible and it's some's testimonies. Praise God.

Your general position is fine. But there are some holes still. Proverbs 26 says that an undeserved curse shall not rest (on God's people). Lamentations 3 makes clear that nobody can command and it will come to pass unless the Lord has ordained it. Isaiah lets us know that no weapon fashioned against us shall prosper. To argue that these scriptures will not avail a new christian based on experience, maturity or knowledge is unacceptable. If that were the case, satan must be the biggest fool not to aim his arrows at every new christian he can find, since nobody matures or acquires all the requisite knowledge in few days of re-birth. But we all know that's not the case.


My attitude to Bible interpretation these days is that if it diverges from common sense and common human experience, it's likely not a correct interpretation. [E.g., that's how I know that some of the teaching on giving is wrong, because if it were true, billions of dollars would be passing through the hands of the teachers and believers every year]. Of course one would be careful not to go the other extreme on common sense. Some things may be true without making sense. E.g., Jesus' virgin birth. But not a neighbor who's been married for 15 years saying they're expecting a child through virgin birth.

In sum, a clearer explanation or position is that God's children are protected when they're young [new] and as they grow, God expects them to use their faith, grounded in knowledge. But even at that, I'm not quick to conclude that God does not make His protection available to not-so-knowledgeable adults. It's something I'm still thinking through.

[quote author=dtw_sola link=topic=783120.msg9353152#msg9353152 date=1318793588]I've recently started dating a lovely girl who is also devoutly religious. As a result I've started attending a local RCCG parish here in the States. Whenever the pastor starts prayer session, the church seems to become an instant madhouse. People running about, laying on the ground, spazzing out, acting like nut-jobs, and asking for God to rain fire on everything. One elderly man at the church even started shaking me, telling me I was not praying hard enough. "Pray like a NIgerian" he yelled. Nigerian pentecostal style of prayer is extremely forceful and violent. Has this type of gra-gra prayer proven to be more effective than just simply asking God your requests without all the shouting, screaming sweating, and catching epileptic seizures. I mean with all of the violent prayer in Nigeria compared to the much more muted Western style, Nigerians are generally still far worse off. Why is it that Nigerians pray in this manner? Does this style make your prayers more likely to be answered? I left Nigeria at a young age, and I guess I am Westernized in my attitude about prayer (and religion in general). Shouldn't a sincere prayer with a righteous heart be sufficient and effective? Does God require all the demo. I am a laid back gentleman and it is not in my nature to act like a crazy person. Her pastor and others have advised her about having relations with me because of a sense that I was not spiritual. I am a skeptical person by nature, but I have a spiritual side. This is an honest question. I don't wanna lose this girl.[/quote]I think you're conflating two things: your spiritual state and your prayer style. Readin your post closely, I believe the concern of the church leadership is more with the former than the latter. The starting point would be to get born again and be filled with the Holy Spirit. After that, even if you continue to pray 'like a gentleman' nobody would hassle you. You may even find out you like to pray the way the others do. On the other hand, if your spiritual state is dead, jumping up and down in prayer will not convince any leader sensitive in the spirit. Another thing to note is that this girl may be praying the same way at home. Would you be able to stand that? Finally, for what is worth, I generally do not pray the Nigerian style even when in Nigeria. But nobody to my knowledge has questioned my salvation in church. Sometimes, though, I pray that way. It relates sometimes to fervency - how passionate you are about what you're praying about. Before you know it, you abandon yourself and start acting 'ungentlemanly.'

^^
Apparently, you've not been to many European or American churches where they have received the Holy Ghost. Many there do not necessarily display the kind of energy that Nigerians exhibit. Of course, among them are also those that pray with much energy. But it would be a mistake to isolate those as the only ones filled with the Holy Ghost.

Pastor AIO:
I disagree. What they do is illegal even by the current laws as they stand. They execute ponzi schemes, they are racketeers, they are thieves and vagabonds. I don't know which laws allow them to do these things. It is only now that they are trying to change the laws to allow them to plunder with impunity. Even Obama is trying to pretend that they are not breaking the law. That man is such a disgrace.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2070685

Obama is a gangster too. He is a liar and a fraud. He is a despicable man. Bankers are criminals full stop. The entire banking system is one big 419 and anybody that tries to stand up to them gets threatened physically. That is a fact. Have you watched the video of Catherine Austin Fitts that I posted above. I know you don't like watching videos but please watch this one and listen to what they did to her and tell me if these guys are not just area boys in suits.

Check out This interview with william K. Black too.

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8CqaHTygSc&feature=related[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faHcCalkSag[/flash]

So far, you’ve not shown any law that was broken or offense that was committed. Forging and fabricating documents happened after the fact of the financial crisis. I thought your suggestion was that they committed crimes or illegalities that led to the financial crisis. I’m not aware of any widespread ponzi schemes, apart from Madoff and a handful of others, who also are being prosecuted, like the Stanford Financial Group guys. Threatening people also does not qualify in the sense that I don’t see its link to the crisis. What the ‘occupiers’ are protesting are not necessarily what you’re referring to but the activities of bankers that almost brought the entire global financial system to ruins.

I’ll watch the videos.

Joagbaje:
The prophecy says there would be global crisis in 7 years time. It happened exactly as it was predicted. We are enting the second face which will be worse than the first part.

But that wasn’t all you claimed or what I needed clarity on. Look at post #17 where you stated in part: “He said we are in a 7 year periodic prosperity and after the 7th year there will be a worldwide crisis. But he didn't give the details. But in 2008 when the crisis was on, he explained that it will last another 7 year.” The point is that you cannot support the claim that “we were in a 7 year period of economic prosperity.” The data states otherwise. If you have supporting data, can you share with us? Otherwise, your claim cannot stand. I think you should deal with that before proceeding to the second segment of economic hardship or its second phase. Perhaps you should get the tape or DVD in which the prophecy was made and we can make the determination for ourselves. Because what you're doing now by your constant repetition of the claim is insult our intelligence by seeking to impose an inaccurate view of the global economy.

Pastor AIO:
No there isn't a coherent message. It is more like a mood of dissatisfaction with the state of affairs. Subsequently there are no request or demands as in the wall street. Or rather there are a multiplicity of demands
For instance, some people want the banksters (as they are called) to be brought to justice. What they are doing is no different from what Madoff was doing. ie. a massive ponzi scheme. Madoff was brought to Justice what about the rest of the banking community. These people are rogues, they are scum, they are criminals.
An interesting point that Max Keiser makes is that there are already laws against what they are doing, so in fact we do not need an overhaul of the system. All we actually need is for the system to be implemented. These people ought to be brought to justice. Of course this is not going to happen. I actually foresee social revolution.

I have been suggesting for a while now that countries should have two different currencies. One for the real economy and another for the trading of financial instruments such as derivatives. These two currencies should be allowed to float against each other in a flexible exchange rate. If the financial world is creating value then their currency will appreciate against the real economy's. If however the central bank is just printing money and flooding the financial world with it's currency then it's currency will depreciate against the real economy's currency.
This will act as a buffer between the two worlds so that we do not have to bear the weight of the silly gambling games that financiers play. Also that way rising share prices would be seen for exactly what it is, namely INFLATION. It will cause the financial currency to depreciate against the real currency that the man on the street is using to buy his bread.

But that one is my own little campaign and to be honest I haven't got many people to join me in lobbying for it. But I try to get it discussed as much as possible. There are sooo many different factions of people that want so many different things out of the protests but ultimately there is the recognition that the financial system is wicked, immoral and wrong.

I think it might be worth studying the french revolution again to see if any lessons from there can be applied to our current situation. There seem to be many parallels. The arrogance of the ruling elite, the lack of a coherent cause by the population. In fact after the royal families and the nobles had their dainty little necks cut off France went through a period of improvising what to do next. The french revolution was really driven by a lack of Bread for the common man. I don't think those people storming the bastille were thinking in terms of ideology or policy.

I truly believe that in these protests things will escalate to the point where heads will roll. I cannot say that I feel sorry for the elite. Even that nonsense stuupid Obama man. Imagine, I was so happy when he won, thinking that he had made black people all over the world proud. What a let down. I don't know what will happen that will make the protests a more violent affair. The armies and police are fully controlled by the elite. Power flows out of the barrel of the gun.
Unless some renegade generals decide that they are going to take the side of the people and subsequently that splits the armies. But I'm just speculating wildly there.

Thanks for the London feedback.

Let me leave the defense of the bankers for now. But I think that while we all agree that many of them did the whole world huge harm, it's hard to categorically state that they were engaged in illegal or criminal activity. They were playing by the rules as they existed.

Not being an expert on the French Revolution or History, I'm not so sure of this assertion: but isn't a key difference that at least the common people had a clear target - the royalty and nobility. With the ruling economic elite, there's so much dispersal, you may not know where to start from or who to target.

On Obama, he's only confirming what you have been saying - that the politicians do not rule. The economic power wielders do. What's surprising is that even with this knowledge, many of you still expected any real difference. Or maybe, you're carried away by the flowery rhetoric? I wasn't!

Pastor AIO:
And as an adjunct can you tell me how come Jesus went that day to paradise? How does it fit into most christian theology that Jesus was in paradise that day and so was the good thief?

Good observation. I deliberately chose to avoid that issue. That's why I didn't use the word "today" that appears in that text. Going into that discussion would derail the thread, as it is hot topic among christians, including here. For what it's worth, there's a disagreement as to whether Jesus meant He'd be in paradise with the thief that day or some other day. But the temporal component does not change the fact that the thief would be in paradise without water baptism.

Joagbaje:
How can you say problem is over here in nigeria. We are all here , the economy problem is global. Nigeria is not exempted. . This is just the beginning. What will affect bigger nations who are our customers will affect us. It's about to get worse. Prophecies don't fail. Unless nations embrace God.

Hmmn, I can see you’re still insisting on this prophecy, when you’ve not addressed my point that what you reported cannot be factually correct: there were no 7 years of prosperity or economic growth from 2001-2008.

^^

The protests in the US have lacked a coherent message. Nobody can really tell what they exactly want. Could you enlighten us further on the London protest and their message - other than Wall Street or the City is bad?

italo:
Even though I have a better answer for you, let me take an easy route. Do you have any proof that 'the good thief' wasn't baptized?

The proof is simple common sense that God gave to all of us. If you choose to believe that the Roman soldiers, after breaking the legs of the thieves, took them down before death and went looking for panic-stricken Christians who went into hiding to come and baptize the 'good thief' before death, that’s your call. I do not. More important, Jesus could have said: “You’ll be with me in paradise provided you get baptized.” He did not. Since the thief probably was not there in John 3 when Jesus mentioned the necessity of water for salvation, wouldn’t it have been better for Jesus to inform him of baptism, with a note that without it, there is no paradise?

Water baptism is important, but it does not save. If it did, Jesus would not have told the thief at the cross that he would be in Paradise, seeing that he wouldn't be baptized before death.

Joagbaje:
If a man has recieved christ, the curses are broken.

2 Corinthians 5:17
17 When someone becomes a Christian, he becomes a brand new person inside. He is not the same anymore. A new life has begun!

Except if the man is ignorant of his inheritance in christ.

I agree.

Joagbaje:
Christians who feed on baby milk truth can definitely be hurt,oppressed,and defeated by the devil. Especially the kind of baby food you project . Which lack the understanding of spiritual authority ,inheritance and rights of a Christian.

But a christian who goes for knowledge and full understanding of his dominion over every works f Satan . Poverty,sin,sickness,and failure . Will always reign in victory. Always!

Galatians 4:1
1 NOW WHAT I mean is that as long as the inheritor (heir) is a child and under age, he does not differ from a slave, although he is the master of all the estate;

This is a nice thread. And I hope we can all learn from it.

I have a little concern with this interpretation of the verse. First, new christians start feeding on milk before they graduate to strong meat. Also, even with meat, it takes some time to assimilate meat or undergo spiritual training. If a new christian is open to such oppression as you note, why wouldn't the devil concentrate on such people and that way ensure they never get to the point of dominion? I think that verse speaks to the fact that a new or immature christian cannot access some of the benefits of christianity, not that the christian, especialy new ones, who leads or strives for a pure life is necessarily open to the devil's control until he grows.

I also agree with the submission that christianity is primarily a one-on-one relationship with God. A lot of people go to Church but do not really know God. They know the words of men, but not the voice of God. It will help if every christian helps as much as he or she can to steer christians toward that kind of relationship.

Image123:
It's not even really about the precision but everything's wrong with the prophesee, even the relevance. Even if he got the score, time and goal scorer, doesn't make him anything. How's that so hard to get? Not to mention the failure to hit the mark.

Oh, you've got a point there. To be amazed that somebody can predict somebody with precision is an indication of spiritual infantilism. What I find curious is that people can be fascinated even when it's not precise. What would they do then if it were? I watched a credible TV show (Tonight Show with Jay Leno) about a month ago and this magician had a T-shirt inside his dress shirt in which was written what Kim Kardashian would choose when he asked her a question. Of the hundreds or thousands of words, Kim chose the one pre-printed on that shirt! That's precision. Yet, we christians should not be fascinated by that. But if we can't do even better than that, what's the noise about? More important though, I think we're sliding into dangerous territory where we no longer examine true christianity on the basis of doctrine and wholesome character. So long as somebody shows miracles and prophecies, we can excuse every other thing on the basis that all christians have points of doctrinal divergence. May God have mercy on us all.