₦airaland Forum

Evil Brain: Not taxing churches is exactly equivalent to funding them. There is no material difference between giving somebody free money and giving them free services. The whole point of money is to exchange it for goods or services. If churches had to pay for their own police and roads and water, they'd be spending huge amounts of cash which their pastors are presently pocketing. All the things that the government provides cost money. All people and every other type of of organisation pay for them and so should the church.
There is absolutely no evidence that people who attend church are less likely to commit crimes, or use drugs. That is just bullshït christian propaganda. There is no correlation between number or size if churches and crime rate. Actually, more religious communities tend to have more crime (also more violent crime, more poverty, more illiteracy, less education, more teen pregnancy, more abortions, lower life expectancy, worse health indices, and more of pretty much every bad thing you can think of). Churches directly harm society by opposing science education, women's rights, religious freedom as well as destroying their members capacity for critical thinking.
The fact that the government makes most of its money from oil doesn't reduce the need to tax churches. Even if it was only 1 kobo we were losing by not taxing them, that's still less money for roads and schools and hospitals all of which are more important than the voodoo nonsense churches spend their money on. Also, not taxing churches puts then at an unfair advantage over individuals and other organisations. For instance, it allows them to buy up huge tracts of land which they can own free of property taxes. Religious institutions now own 7% of all the habitable land on the planet and they are doing nothing useful with it. And most annoyingly, the useless pastors that control these churches also don't pay taxes on their income, their houses or their private jets.
Religious institutions are the people who run them are nothing but a bunch of free riders and parasites. They should pay tax just like everybody else.

Not taxing churches is subsidizing them only if you accept that you're also subsidizing PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte & Touche, Baker & McKenzie and numerous other firms that gross billions of dollars in revenue annually. I didn't see where you made such an assertion. Until you do, your argument about churches and subsidy is baseless. And just as you insist that churches be taxed, you should also argue that these firms be subject to taxes. But you conveniently ignore that.

I did not say that there is a correlation between the number or size of churches and crime rate. I said that going to church has kept many people from crime and harmful behavior, such as drugs and alcohol. That there are people in church that indulge in such behavior or people outside the church that do not indulge in such behavior does not negate it. Even if it’s only one person that’s helped by a church, that amounts to money saved to the society. If your argument, however, is that nobody is ever steered from evil by religion, then it wouldn’t make sense to continue with this discussion.

Unless you’re completely ignorant of Nigeria’s fiscal posture, you should know that Nigeria is notoriously dependent on non-tax revenues for running the economy. Many scholars in economics, political science and sociology would argue that if Nigeria learns to build a state based on taxation, it would be better governed because in societies that depend on taxation rather than resource rents, governments tend to be more accountable. Leaders realize that they have to bargain with the citizens to raise taxes. And citizens are more vigilant over how their tax money is spent because it’s not easy to part with your heard-earned money. The point is that Nigeria is not there yet. But you pretend it is and then claim that your tax money built roads that churches are enjoying tax free. No, your tax money built virtually nothing. Oil money from the Niger Delta did. So, you cannot conveniently rely on such false premise to argue for church taxation. Worse still, even in societies like the US and Canada where tax revenues largely fund government, churches continue to enjoy tax-exempt status.

^^^
The logic of your position is easily refutable. The fact that taxes are not levied does not translate to endorsement. It simply reflects public policy that accepts the important role of the non-taxable entities to the society. In the US, churches are not taxed. But many for-profit businesses are not taxed either, if they choose certain organizational forms. General partnerships, limited artnerships, limited liability partnerships, limited liability companies and even some corporations ("S" Corp) pay no taxes even when they rake in millions of dollars in profit. By your logic, because big accounting and law firms or the Heinz ketch-up group are organized as partnerships and thus exempt from taxes, government is somehow endorsing them and forcing people who do not believe in their products to be subsidizing them? Maybe, you should launch a fruitless campaign to make them pay entity-level taxes.

Churches provide valuable services to the society. The state would be spending more money to fight crimes, if more people were not in church and as a result staying away from evil. Of course, the churches are not doing a perfect job. But it is hard to deny that many religious people are influenced by their beliefs to adopt a lifestyle that saves the society money in terms of crime control, maintenance of law and order, drug rehabilitation, therapy for depression, etc.

And let's quit fooling ourselves that a lot of roads and other infrastructure in Nigeria are built through taxes. An overwhleming amount of the budget of the government at all levels is funded through oil money, which accounts for about 80% or so of government revenues. When we have a tax-dependent society, like many organized societies, which also forces politicians to be accountable to the tax payers, we can have a meaningful dialogue about taxation of religious institutions. For now, it's premature and a waste of valuable time.

This is faulty reasoning: collect money from churches and give to corrupt and unaccountable government officials, so they can embezzle it in addition to the vast sums they already have in the public fisc? In a society where the leadership demonstrates a high level of irresponsibility, a suggestion such as this is a non-starter. Let the government account for and manage properly the trillions of Naira at its disposal and we can then think of additional revenue streams. Otherwise, you’ll only succeed in transferring wealth from the churches to private pockets, with the problem of the poor he identified going unaddressed.

While I am opposed to taxing churches, I think it’d be easier to sell an option that legislatively mandates churches to devote a percentage of their income to anti-poverty initiatives, such as subsidized education, construction or equipping of heath centers and low-interest micro-lending.

And please let’s drop this cockamamie idea of asking church-owned schools to charge rates affordable to the poor or offering free education to all or most of the poor members. You’re not going to build anything resembling a standard university that way. It takes money to run good schools and that money has to come from somewhere, including tuition. It is sad already that there’s probably no standard university in Nigeria today. Reducing revenue would further undermine the quality of education being delivered.

Excellent!

haibe: That is the most painful of them all because if a man still lives after death, what is the need for the ressurection? Infact there would be no need for Christ to ressurect too if he can continue living after death.

The reason why paul consoled the Christians with ressurection is because that is our only hope of living again, we don't have an immoral spirit in us that can live separately from the body.


29 Now if there is no resurrection, what will
those do who are baptized for the dead? If the
dead are not raised at all, why are people
baptized for them? 30 And as for us, why do
we endanger ourselves every hour? 31 I face
death every day—yes, just as surely as I boast
about you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32 If I
fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than
human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead
are not raised,

“Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die.

This verses alone shows that ressurection is our hope of believers to live again, if there is no ressurection paul says there is no need to endanger our lives everyday because we will end up dying without waking up again.

If truly man has an immortal spirit in him that can live eternally, then the ressurection is useless and what paul has said is meaninglessness too.

The resurrection is of the body. The spirit will be joined with the body upon resurrection. The body can exist apart from the spirit. James said it. When the spirit leaves the body, the body is dead, according to James. So Paul did not believe in resurrection when he said that he wanted to depart and be with Christ? Or are you suggesting that he was saying that he would depart today but be with Christ thousands of years later? That makes no sense, if you read the full paragraph. Of course another thing you uphold that makes no sense at all is wishing people to rest in peace when you claim they are already resting in peace. Again, was Stephen ignorant when he asked Jesus to receive his spirit as he was about to die?

haibe: How can a physical part which is not a person go to sleep, do you think you are in a literature class here? why the personification?



If the person is still living on when he dies, then don't say he is asleep, that's contradictory.

The bible teaches that the person himself goes to sleep, not just a physical part.

There is no contradiction. The Bible teaches nowhere that the person himself goes to sleep. Every time the Bible refers to a person sleeping and you look at the context, it's always about the physical body and nothing more. The simple question is: was Jesus lying or confused when He said Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were living? His audience knew that those men were physically dead. So, in what way were they living? Spiritually, of course.

frosbel: Do you know that saying RIP when someone dies is more of an accurate reflection of the state of the dead than other statements such as our loved ones have gone to be with the lord or the wicked ones are in hell.

No one except Jesus has gone to be with the Lord.

The dead are RIP , i.e resting in total peace, in fact so peaceful that they do not even know what is going on, they are stone dead.

So next time a pastor spouts lies about someone going to heaven after death or hell, tell him it is not true and he is lying.

Of what use is a wish or prayer to rest in peace if you believe the people are already resting in peace? It’s like telling Bill Gates that you pray for him to be rich today. And since you believe that every dead person goes straight to rest, why are you encouraging people to wish them peace – won’t peace be the result regardless of anyone’s wish, according to you?

More substantively, when people die, their physical part goes to sleep while their spirit lives on. In Matt. 22:31-33, Jesus said that God is the God of the living, not of the dead when referring to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who had been physically dead hundreds of years before. [“I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”]

When Stephen was about to be stoned, he prayed that Jesus should receive his spirit. Acts 7:59. Jesus did not respond that Stephen should wait for thousands of years after judgment. Stephen would have been completely ignorant to make such a prayer or plea if he knew that his spirit would go to sleep and away from Jesus for thousands of years. Acts 7:60 says that Stephen fell asleep, that is, his body.

In Phil. 1:23, Paul said: “For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better . . . .” He did not say that when he departs this earth, he would go to sleep and wait for thousands of years. Instead, he said that being with Christ would follow his departure.

[quote author=frosbel][/quote]What you are doing is in extremely poor taste. Somebody died today and you wouldn't even spare him and his ministry a day of your sordid attacks? Unlike you, there are people that believe in Paul Crouch's ministry and they would like to visit this thread to receive some comfort or say some prayers for the departed man's family. There's a a time and place for everything.

shdemidemi: God does not need to do anything to further convince anyone that He is God. As it is we have more than enough reasons to know He is.
Romans 1
19 For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.
20 For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],

But Paul's persecution led to his sickness and his death. More than any other individual, Paul was responsible for the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. He became the subject of attack from evil men who were moved by Satan to inflict upon him bodily harm and infiltrate the church with false teachers and false teaching. He became partially blind at some point, if this man were to be alive today, many Christians will say God is not with him.


That is where the problem is, 'they saved Peter'. May be if they had not prayed Peter would have died, right? No. Irrespective of what they prayed God had a mission for Peter. Peter would never die until that mission is complete. When peter's time was up, no prayer and fasting could have stopped his demise.



Our body respond to biology. If I am sick I take medications and I pray a balanced prayer, I ask for God's will to be done concerning anything that concerns me.

Thanks for answering my question about using medication or prayers when you or some other people are sick. Going by your understanding of Peter’s incarceration and the will of God, does it make sense to use medication or pray when you’re sick? After all, if it’s God’s will, He’ll heal you (or any sick person) whether you do anything or not. And if it’s not His will to heal, are you not fighting God’s will by trying to get the medicine or prayer do what God does not want to do? You see, it does not add up.

Moreover, your prayer may look balanced to you but it sounds unscriptural to me. First, when do you know that God answered your prayers since whatever outcome is the will of God and you’ve prayed that His will be done? Thus, if the reason you’ve not received your answer is because satan is delaying it, as he did with Daniel’s prayer, you would not even know but would accept that it was not God’s will to heal, in line with your prayer.

More importantly, I do not find anywhere Christians prayed that kind of prayer when they needed anything (healing, provisions, etc) or faced persecution. For example, in Acts 4 when the early Christians faced persecution and wanted healing to manifest, they did not pray some “If it be Thy Will” prayers or fold under the persecution, claiming it’s God will. Instead they prayed in Acts 4: 29-30: “And now, Lord, behold their threatening: and grant unto they servants that with all boldness they may speak the word, by stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.” Verse 31 et seq. show the answer!

God will always do His will. We need not bother with that. Let’s simply pray in faith (1 John 5:14).

I know that the Scripture shows Christians saying in some places things like ‘if the Lord permit’ or ‘if it be the will of God’ (see Acts 18:21, I Cor. 16:7; Heb. 6:3; Jas. 4:15) but none of these was in the context of prayer. So, can you help me with just one example in the New Testament where the saints had a need and prayed ‘if it be God’s Will’?

ayoku777: One thing we need to understand is that the scripture, just like Jesus, is the word of God. Just as Jesus is the living word of God, the communication of the character of the Father, the bible, is also the written word of God, the documentation of the character of God.

So when we read the scriptures, we are reading the character of Christ, who is the same yesterday, today and forever. We are reading what he did, what he can still do, and what he is still willing to do under the same circumstance and atmosphere of faith and fire.

None of the promises of Christ have an expiry date, so they should never be interpreted as what he no longer does. They shouldn't also be treated as promises to be walked in by the apostles or the early church alone. If that is so then promises like Holy spirit and speaking in tongues shouldn't belong to us as well, and commands like the great commission should be none of our business today.

He is I AM THAT I AM, not i was that i was. There is nothing he did in the bible days that he cannot still do and still not willing to do. Coz the scripture is the documentation of his character which is unchanging. Miracles can still happen and will still happen if we seek him and travail in faith to behold his glory.

Exactly! Endorsed 100% by me. Imagine that we have all the responsibility for the great commission as the early church but are not allowed to use some of the tools they found useful. We must be some superman on our own!

shdemidemi: The point you refuse to come to terms with is the fact that what the apostles had at the time were temporal. They were SIGNS pointing to this gospel of Christ.

All through the old testament, the prophets or anyone sent from God needed to perform signs as a proof that they were sent from God. All the apostles did was a sign to show the Jews they were been sent by God.
1 cor 1
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom

Example of what a sign does is show us a direction to our destination. We don't pitch a tent at the signs, it is only there to point us to our destination. In this case the destination is the good news of what Christ had done on the cross and the signs were the miracles.





All I can say to that is that whatever you see or hear are your personal experiences, they cant be a standard. The Word is immovable and dependable. You can count on it. Jesus said Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but My Word shall not pass away. You cannot build your faith on your experiences, because experiences come and go very quickly. They are not as concrete, stable or reliable as the written Word. This is the reason why Peter calls the Word of God “A MORE SURE WORD OF PROPHECY”.

II Peter 1:19

Peter tells us that as great as his experience was on the mount of transfiguration, there was something more sure and steadfast for him to build his life and faith upon. It is as though Peter says, “As great as the experience on the Mount of transfiguration was, it was fleeting and temporal. I have a word that is more sure and enduring than my experience on the mountaintop. This is a word that you can count on to be reliable forever!”


It must be known that the devil can't throw anything at you without God's permission. Even when he tried to sift Peter, he spoke with Christ about it. Luke 22:31

Well, just like God needed a Pharaoh to victimise His own people so He can take the glory. God also need the devil to test us so we can become even better people at the end of the test. Peter before the test and denial was not Peter after the denial. A change had come for the future. Peter would be faced with endorsing the gospel, which Apostle Paul taught and because of God’s dealing with him, he would make all see that indeed the Gentiles have been grafted into and were part of God’s plan and purpose in salvation.



2 tim 3
12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

I am sure you have this verse in your bible. We have been called to endure hardness, sufferings, persecutions which are byproducts of this gospel of Christ.




Paul was actually talking to this corinth church who were holding the less important things in high esteem. He made it clear to them that teaching of God's word and knowledge are the gifts we have and need in the church.

Interesting. You keep on goading me about providing names of people that perform healings. And when I decide to tell you a little about that, you turn around to say that I'm preaching experiences instead of the Word!

All I have been talking about here is the Word. Our salvation experience is similar to the Israel leaving bondage in Egypt. Moses is a type of Christ. Egypt is a type of sin. When God delivered Israel from Egypt, He accompanied it with health and wealth. 'There was no feeble one among them.' He let them take wealth from their neighbors. Similarly, when Jesus saved us, He gave us health and wealth.

I agree that healing can be considered a sign to point people to Christ. Who needs a sign more - the people listening to the Apostles - the same audience that saw Jesus? Or the people in different parts of the world today, who see Jesus as a fictional character or historical figure? I would think the latter and thus the greater need for signs to validate our message to them. Yet, some of you claim these signs are over.

Sure, christians suffer persecution, as those who live godly. But sickness and persecution are not the same.

James was beheaded but Peter was not at the time Herod wanted to do that. What saved Peter? The prayers of the saints. Left to you, the saints should have kept quiet and accepted Peter's condition, calling it persecution, will of God and lessons from satan to make us better! But they knew better and saved Peter, which worked great for the Church till today.

And when Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 13 about putting away childish things, he was talking about selfishness, which he contrasted with love. There's hardly anything more loving than helping others receive healing or staying in health ourselves so we can be available to our families and for the work of God. A few verses after Paul's statement about putting away childish things and thoughts, he says in the beginiing of 1 Cor. 14.1 that we should both desire love and spiritual gifts. Yet, you choose to stop at 1 Cor. 13.11 instead of moving on to the full message that continues into Chap. 14.

One question that some of you keep ducking any time this issue comes up: do you do anything to respond to sickness or disease, such as taking medicines, praying or asking for prayers?

Candour: OK my bro. I won't argue further on this with you. You're right about the Peter and James issue. This is where I believe the will of God comes in. Why would James be beheaded and an angel sent to rescue Peter? God alone knows the reason. We can't fully understand our God as his will a lot of times differ from our will and we would weary ourselves trying to. I don't add to the bible and I won't start now.



I'll keep quiet henceforth on this too. Today's church is very worldly and too earthly conscious. We have little concern for the things that matter to God. I'm happy you agreed that we don't see the manifestations on the scale of acts of apostles. I might be wrong in the reason I adduced for it. I guess I need to seek God's face more on the issue.



You're right its not up to me to teach God what to use the blood for. However I based my position on the fact the Christ was a replacement for the sin offering of old. Healings had been done by God since the start of time and strictly based on his mercy. However, sin needed a righteous judgement and only Christ blood could atone fully and totally.

I'll stop here my brother. You and I have had a most fruitful discussion and I look forward to more productive engagements with you in future. I'll be lying if I claim to know it all and rather than twist scriptures, its better to keep quiet.

Wish you the very best and God bless you.

I wish you the best also, my brother. It has been a very productive exchange with you and I have personally been enriched by some of the points you raised.

shdemidemi: I take it that as big as the world is, we can't come up with ten people with the power to heal. People who can provoke God or force God's hand at their request even if it's not in line with Gods will.

. 1 cor 13:11

11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Really, what has healing got to do with this good news of Christ. Some Christians will be poor, some will be childless, some will be sick, some will die prematurely, some will be rich, some will die by accident, some poverty ridden . Even at that the bible says God made everything beautiful in its time. Death is beautiful in its time, sickness is beautiful in its time as long as God takes the glory at the end.

Our confidence is rooted in the word that says 'All things (especially the ones we see as bad) work together for good for those who are called according to His purpose'. All you can do as a child of God is accept and embrace your lot while you keep trusting him and the word that assures you that his thoughts towards you are of good to give you an expected end. The gospel of Christ teaches endurance, perseverance so we, even we that have the first fruit of the Spirit can hope.

Romans 8:22

22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. 24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.

You're erecting a straw man. Nobody is talking about forcing God to heal against His will. We're talking of people who'd do what Peter or Paul did, which is look at the crippled at the beautiful gate, etc and command them to rise and walk. If that's your question, certainly there are tons of people like that on earth today. Some of us have had a glimpse of that. And there are others that have done bigger things. During my most recent trip to Nigeria, a trusted relative in the ministry shared a story he witnessed in Western Nigeria on a regular day (not during service) that was similar to what Peter did with the man at the beautiful gate.

If your idea of christianity or maturity is that christians should accept anything the devil or life throws at them, you are certainly welcome to that view. But that's not the christianity of the Bible. You cannot excuse a weak faith by hiding under tolerance for unwarranted suffering. Paul believed in healing and miracles at the same time he was suffering shipwreck and the like. But you'd rather focus on his statements on weaknesses and ignore those on mighty deeds. And then slap yourself in the back for your graduating from childish things. When Paul said he put off childish things, he never said that was in reference to healing or miracles. That's your read and your're free to stick to it. Some of us have made a different decision. Let everybody be happy with the choices he or she has made.,

Candour: My position on the issue has not changed if you decide not to lose track of our discussion or get too carried away.

The blood of Christ is for our salvation. It covered our sins permanently making it possible for us to approach a holy God that can't behold iniquity. nothing more nothing less. Christ was healing and empowered his disciples for healing before he shed his blood proving that the blood had nothing to do with healing. 

Until Christ comes back, our flesh will still be subject to the curse of physical death which manifests slowly through sickness and infirmities. A woman no matter how anointed or redeemed will still pass through the rigous and pain of Child birth exactly how Eve experienced it. If we are to go by your idea of redemption, all Christian women shouldnt have a single pain throughout pregnancy. Or is it that women were not redeemed from the curse?

Miracles have been wrought by God since the beginning of time and still remains his prerogative. The creation itself was a miracle. God gave Moses signs to prove to Israel and Pharaoh that he sent him. Christ performed miracles which were signs to prove to Israel that he was the Messiah. Christ promised the disciples signs will be wrought by their hands and reading the book of acts proves what these signs enabled them achieve.

Now can you honestly say you get miracles and signs on the scale of the acts of the apostles today? The answer is no. Even the holy ghost that came down on them was visible. If you've seen an experience like that, i envy you because i'm yet to see it. All the sick that came to Jesus for healing were healed. It was when he got to his hometown that he couldn't perform much because of their unbelief in that they disdained him because they knew his background otherwise whether you had faith or not, Christ dished out the miracles.

The apostles healed all the sick, maimed that came to them at the onset of their ministry. However by the time the epistles were being written, we see the cases of lingering sickness in their own lives which they documented. This can only mean the signs were no longer as plentiful as at the onset. Hence Paul will admonish and advice on perseverance in trials, afflictions and tribulations. Peter and James did same in their epistles.

We all love miracles but we should try and get a total picture of the new testament instead of concentrating on the parts that appeal to us. That's what I'm trying to do bro.

Even in the days of the Apostles, christians went through experiences that would want to make anyone wonder if they had any power. James was beheaded while Peter was there working mighty miracles. Paul and Silas were rough handled like common criminals while carrying a mighty anointing within them. I'm sure if we had none of these incidents in the Bible but have them today, you'll attribute it to God giving more power to the early Church to demonstrate something. No, the Bible says no such thing and we have no right to add to God's Word.

It's easy to see why we don't see similar miracles today even when the need of salvation is greater today. The early christians had a child-like faith. They harbored no doubt about the ability of Jesus or His messengers to heal. At no point would you see any leader or christian telling others they need not believe for big things because it's not for them. You don't even see any NT teacher emphasizing that christians should have faith. Obviously, it was taken for granted. Today, we've become more educated and highly sophisticated. We rationalize to the point that faith withers. And then we wonder why the miracles are different. Secondly, the church has become more earthly-minded or even materialistic. Then, they thought about heaven more often and actually thought they're leaving soon. With our mindset or disposition, I'm not surprised that the results are different.

On the blood, it's not up to you to tell God what the Blood of Jesus is for. He made that clear Himself. You simply choose not to accept it because you believe all those things can be obtained without the Blood. But He said it in plain terms that the sacrifice of Jesus was ("He was bruised" for our iniquities, our health and our peace (wholeness). Because He understands that all those problems are traceable to sin. When sin is dealt with, all that comes with it should also go. God knew that He was healing people before Jesus died yet He still said Jesus would die for our sickness. Because He knows this is the ultimate way of dealing with the problem, instead of patch work measures in the past.

Goshen360: This is the kind of messages we should be listening to on glorious Sunday like this, not casting out devils from Christians, not generational curses on Christians and the likes.

Great grace, great power.

Thank you @ poster for edifying the body of Christ. Grace and truth be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of the finished work of Christ.

My brother, I think it would have been better if you stopped at the point you said this is the kind of message we should be listening to. Spending time to attack others and their understanding of scripture even when unrelated to the thread is unhelpful. And does not show maturity. If anything, it shows stinky pride.

Candour: its actually a simple matter. What was the function of animal blood in the old covenant? I believe you won't say atonement for sin and healing right? It was strictly for atonement. Jesus came as the sacrificial lamb to wash our sins away in the new covenant. His blood took over the functions of the sacrificial lamb.

Heb 9:12
'Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us'

Eternal redemption means salvation of our souls, Nothing more and nothing less.

I don't have a bible verse that says the signs ceased and I didn't claim to have. However what reasons will you adduce to explain the fact that Epaphras, Timothy, Trophimus, Paul all suffered sickness despite their great anointing? And all died violently except John despite their great miracle power?

The folks Paul healed at Malta were all pagans not believers and of course this would have opened the door for evangelism. That is what signs are for, to get attention, like Moses for instance. The gospel was just starting and these were horrible pagan areas, something had to open them up and these extra ordinary miracles did just that.

If healing is not according to God's will, then whose will is it according to? Your will or my will? It is God that works in us to do of his good pleasure. Even Paul prayed to get the infirmity off him and God told him to persevere. Is it because he lacked faith? That is God in action and he's not subject to you or I.

Visible cloven tongues like fire appeared on the apostles when holy ghost came down. I don't know if you have heard of such experience today. Study acts of the apostles and see if we have such manifestations today. God still does extra ordinary things today but we can't force his hand. We pray and make requests to him and he answers us according to his will, not ours hence great men of God suffer affliction like ordinary men too.

The central theme of the gospel is salvation of the soul to get us ready for eternity with God. Whether miracles continue or not will not affect the power of the gospel because it achieved the only thing that can't be counterfeited and that is eternal redemption of the soul. This is the one thing guaranteed us in the gospel. Whether we get other benefits or not, we are still more than conquerors because we are free of Satan's hold on us. That is Paul's message in Rom 8:35-39.

Your position on healing is all over the map. I'm working very hard to pin it down. First, it is that miracles like in Jesus' time no longer occurs. Later, it is that they can occur if God wills. Then, it is miracle is a sign for unbelievers. Well, there are billions of unbelievers today. Should we be working these signs to open the doors to evangelism? You say, No, because it is as God wills and we can't force God's hand! Did Paul force God's hand in Malta when he healed those pagans? Can you see they do not add up? Then you add that healings have ceased because if they did not, Timothy would have been healed and Paul would not have been sick. But if I ask what happened to the pople that were sick and were not healed by Jesus, you'd invent a new slant.

The blood of animals was shed to cover up the sins of the Israelites. But God was clear what He was sending Jesus to do and why the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the earth. It's clear there in Genesis when Adam and Eve sinned. God told them they would suffer the consequences of their sin but He has made provision for it. That provision was the blood of Jesus. God never said the blood would atone for sins but leave the consequences of sin unattended. Isaiah 53:4-5 makes clear that the Blood was shed not just for sin, but also for sickness and disease. In fact, Jesus' death and resurrection not only restored to man what he lost under Adam but put him at a higher position than he was under Adam.

You choose to ignore what the scriptures say so you can depend on analogy (with the blood of animals). The choice is yours but don't pretend you're speaking what God says.

shdemidemi: Can you sincerely give ten names of people who are sure they can heal in the world today?

Can you sincerely give ten names of people who could heal in the early Church, i.e., who the Bible mentions as exercising healing powers? My brother, this thing has nothing to do with numbers. Our position should be based on Scriptures, except where they are silent, in which case we can be guided by the Holy Spirit or use our common sense.

Bidam: Fore those interested here are some scripts of hagin's book on healing.

In one of my meetings I pointed to a man and said, "Sir, you are unsaved, and the Spirit of God shows me that you have a double hernia. If you will come here right this moment, I will lay hands on you and the hernia will disappear instantly." He did and it did.
At the altar call that night he responded to the invitation and was saved. Two nights later I laid hands on him and he was filled with the Holy Spirit.
We need to distinguish between healings obtained through supernatural gifts or manifestations and those obtained by exercising faith in God's Word alone.


It also must be understood that an individual does not operate these supernatural gifts; they are manifested through him. I can't make them operate any time I want to: I can only stay open for the manifestation of the Spirit of God as He wills.
Many of us were taught that the only reason Jesus healed was to prove His deity. If that were the case, He never proved His deity in the city of Nazareth, because He never did the works there that He did elsewhere.

Mark 6:5 tells us, "And he [Jesus] could there [Nazareth] do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them." (Notice that Mark didn't say that Jesus wouldn't do any mighty work there; he said Jesus couldn't!)
The Amplified New Testament says, ". .. He laid His hands on a few sickly people." In other words, they were just sickly, not blind, deaf, crippled, or palsied.

Jesus did not heal people merely to prove His deity. He was not ministering as the Son of God. He was ministering as a prophet of God, anointed with the Holy Spirit. He said in Luke 4:24, "Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country." Notice He called Himself a prophet.

In Matthew 13:58 we learn why Jesus could not heal on some occasions: "And he did not many mighty works there BECAUSE OF THEIR UNBELIEF." Their unbelief hindered Him.

Also in the fourth chapter of Luke, Jesus said that there were many widows in Israel when a great famine occurred during Elijah's time, "But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow" (v. 26).

Even though Elijah had God's power in his life, he could not make it work for everybody. But because he was sent to this particular widow's house, there was a continuous miracle: her meal barrel never became empty, even though they kept dipping meal out of it, and her cruse of oil never ceased to flow (1 Kings 17:16).


Jesus went on to say, "And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian" (Luke 4:27). Naaman traveled many miles to reach Samaria, where he had heard the prophet Elisha could rid him of his leprosy.

Good points, my brother. People are quick to reference where Paul did not heal or left someone sick as evidence that (his) healing powers ceased. But when Jesus left some people sick, they do not draw the same conclusion. They do the reasonable thing - which they should consistently do - which is to know that the lack of healing in any instance has nothing to do with God or His willingness to heal. The explanation lies in other factors - some which we may know, others which we may not.

shdemidemi: ^^^^^endless truth
2 Tim 4
20 Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick.

The great apostle also left a fellow worker sick just as his own blood was about to be used as of libation. He accepted all these things and concluded by acknowledging that he had finished his race. We can only imagine what a Christian that lack wisdom would think and do if they were in Paul's shoes at this supposed dreadful times. This Apostle was not fazed, he was happy to leave this world. He says absence in body is present with God. He wasn't looking for prayer warriors or arrange fasting sessions to live. All he was bothered about was the true gospel of God that must be preached even at his absence. He was more than certain that it is better on the other side but the present day Christian want their heaven in this world hence the constant crave for signs and miracles.

I agree we should seek after Wisdom. That's why I believe in healing. Because it is God's Word. And God's Word is synonymous with wisdom. Those that are rejecting aspects of God's Word applicable to the Church are the ones not seeking after wisdom.

Candour: My bro, i guess we will agree to disagree.


The miracles of Jesus were signs to show who he was to the jews. The miracles the apostles wrought were signs to show the world they were sent by Christ. Just like Moses was given powerful signs to prove God sent him. If the signs continued for that long, i wonder why a whole Timothy would be advised by Paul to use wine to cure a recurring stomach problem. The same Paul that healed every sick person on island of malta?

The apostles miracles were for a reason, to establish a fresh commission in the midst of so much opposition. It ceased after the gospel was established hence the cases of. Epaphras, Timothy and even Paul himself and like the thousands of frustrated miracle seekers we have today.


God heals according to his will. He's even empowered the human body to auto repair when possible. Glad you agree that God has been healing even unbelievers before Christ came. That is why Christ blood is strictly for salvation of souls. The one thing that nothing or nobody on earth or heaven can do for us.

Miracles have been happening before Christ came to shed his blood meaning they dont need the blood to happen. Complete justification is only possible through the blood of Christ and that is why Christ shed his blood. Nothing more nothing less.

You're simply adding to the Scriptures - something you discouraged earlier.

1. Nowhere does the Bible say that the blood of Jesus is for salvation of souls only. That the Blood of Jesus is the only one that can accomplish that does not mean that God wanted the blood to accomplish only that.

2. Nowhere does the Bible say that the miracles by the Apostles was to validate their ministry only and was not available to other christians.

3. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Paul's power to work miracles ceased at some point - before Timothy's case.

4. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that healing is according to God's will only and that human beings can do nothing about getting healed.

If you have just one scriptural verse to support your assertions, just povide it. Otherwise, you are adding to God's Word.

Moreover, there are MANY verses in Scripture that say that healing is available to and through believers.

1. Jesus said that one of the signs to know His believers is that they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover. If this was not in reference to ALL believers, then other things, He said there like speaking in a new language also does not belong to believers beyond the early Church.
2. Paul wrote in Corinthians that God has given to the Church gifts of healings and miracles, among other gifts. If we take out healings and miracles, then the other 7 gifts no longer apply either.
3. James told christians to ask for healing prayers. That verse has no limitation to the early apostles. The elders that would pray were not apostles and he put no expiry date.

If we take out the scriptures on healings and miracles written by Paul, Peter, James, etc, we should take out the rest of what they wrote. We cannot conveniently choose what to believe.

What you are doing is far worse then the people you condemn for following the law or OT. At least, they're following God's Word. You are following and recommending that others follow what is NOT God's Word.

For those interested, here are some cases where healings and miracles of the body manifested through Paul.
Acts 14: 8-10 (KJV). “And there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother’s womb, who never had walked: the same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed, said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked.”

Acts 20: 7-12 (KJV). “And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.”

Certainly, the boy being alive was comforting. They should have gone home sad or pretend that it does not matter what the result is.

Is it not interesting that some of us look at the cases where healing did not appear to occur through Paul (Timothy and Epaphras) and use it as evidence that healing does not belong to believers instead of looking at cases where people received healing through Paul’s ministry and see it as proof that healing is part of God’s provisions for His children?

To me that’s the fundamental difference between the early Church and today’s Church. The early Christians had TOTAL TRUST in God, knowing that there is nothing He cannot do, but also believing that He knows the best and if they don’t get their requests answered, it does not alter their faith in God. Today’s Christian either believes in God when God does all He wants or has so little faith that in order not to feel disappointed He comforts himself with the belief that God does not do the things we expect Him to do. How sad.

Candour: I believe you agree that physical death is also a consequence of the curse Christ came to redeem us from. So how come you and I will still die whether by sickness or old age and irrespective of our faith level or anointing?




I'm not exalting experience my bro. I'm just letting you know that this body of flesh is still subject to corruption which includes sickness and sin. A Christian saved does not immediately become free from sin. Any one who claims that is a liar. However we are sanctified by the word as we fellowship with the lord and allow the spirit free reign in our lives. A lot of atheists are morally better than Christians but you know even that morality is filthy rags before God. He judges us based on Christ's righteousness not ours. That is the difference grace makes. However I always preach that grace isn't license. We've been redeemed to show good works. We must allow the Christ like life manifest through us.



My bro, you'll have to tell me if they had a better Jesus then than now because we don't see such miracles again. Even Epaphras, an associate of Paul was sick nigh unto death. Was it a lack of faith? Or he too didn't know the better Jesus? Jesus miracles were a sign to tell Isreal who he was my bro. Until he returns to take us home, the flesh will always be subject to corruption and your spirit that has been redeemed is housed in that body of flesh.



There is no God like our God. He does his things without recourse to anybody. However I've seen a pagan experience a remission of cancer like I've heard of a believer too.

God does his things miraculously and believe it when I say he does for unbelievers too.

Malala the Pakistani girl is an example of a miracle and you know she's Muslim.

God works things according to his will.

Let me focus on a few of the things you mentioned. If the miracles of Jesus were a sign to tell us who He was, how come such miracles continued after His death through His disciples like Peter? Glad you mentioned Epaphras. He was not healed perhaps. But does tha mean that God did not heal through Paul? He sure did. So, if your thesis is correct about the miracles of Jesus and the sickness of Epaphras, Paul's healings would be a lie. And James' advise that the sick should call elders for healing and would be healed as a result is a lie. I choose to believe God's Word, including what James wrote to chrisitans when they fall sick. And what Peter told us that by His stripes we were healed - not a reference to tthose healed under Jesus' ministry as a sign that He's the Messiah.

The body being subject to death has nothing to do with healing. Everybody will die but being well before dying or for most of your time on earth is better than being sick before dying. So, there's enormous value in God providing healing for His children, while knowing that they are still mortal. It's like saying that everybody would one day die and we therefore should not care if our children go hungry.

In terms of God doing miracles among unbelivers, I frankly do not get your point. God has been healing unbelievers before Jesus came and after Jesus came. Again, going by your logic, we should discount Jesus miracles because what happened through Him also happened among unbelievers. In fact, we can say that He did not even need to do any miracles because there's nothing special about it: God does it among the heathen Pakistani as much as He does it among the Jews. You really expect me to take that as a serious refutation of the clear fact in Scriptures that healing is part of the redemption package?

shdemidemi: Something does not seem right here. Do we then use the english dictionary as the standard for checking meanings of biblical words?

Does salvation mean health and prosperity in the context at which it was used in the scriptures?

Yes. It does. I am with you on the point that we should examine words based on the original usage, not just what today's English dictionary says.

Candour: My sincere apologies for not seeing the humour in your post my bro.

Oya, let me laugh

Ha ha ha, all's well that ends well!!!

Candour: My bro, the deliverance the amplified version talks about is from the power of sin. We were under the bondage of sin because of the adamic nature and that is what we are delivered from. Our die by fire movement has made every reference to deliverance as being associated with demonic oppression.

As long as you're in this corruptible body of flesh, you are subject to its failings. Sickness comes because body tissues, immune system become weak and people experience this at random. See examples, Kumuyi's wife died of throat cancer, Oral Roberts had a pacemaker inserted in his heart after experiencing 2 dangerous heart problems, Obadare was blind till the day of his death. Are these not the heroes of faith we look up to? Do we say God failed because of these instances?

The problem is the horrible and perverted explanation of ROM 8:18-24 that we have in pentecostal circles today. I don't want to derail this thread further by delving into it now.

Pls bro, the blood bought salvation. We will get the glorious new body free of every corruption when Christ returns. Until then, some pagans will enjoy better health, prosperity etc than most fervent Christians and it won't be because God abandoned his children. Its just that the flesh will always remain corruptible flesh.

It’s not just deliverance from sin; it’s also deliverance from the effects of sin, which include separation from God, sickness and lack of prosperity. Until Adam sinned, he had fellowship with God. Until Adam sinned, he was never sick. Until Adam sinned, he was a prosperous man. When he sinned, the Lord cursed the ground, thus affecting his ability to prosper. Jesus’ sacrifice took care of all these problems. That’s why the word used for salvation is soteria. Look it up in the original language and it means deliverance, preservation, safety, health. It is the word in Acts 27.34 when Paul was in a ship wreck. There it is translated as health (KJV), survival (NIV), preservation (NASB), safety and strength (Amp.).

It is interesting that you’re exalting the experience of others – Christians and non-christians alike – to determine the validity of God’s Word. Were you not the person rejecting the same practice in the eating-in-the-dream discussion? I assume you agree that Jesus rescued us from the nature of sin, thus enabling us to have dominion over sin. With that we should lead a more sin-free life. I’m sure that you know that many non-christians lead more moral lives than Christians. Can we then assert that there was no point to Jesus saving us from sin, as far as life on earth is concerned, because many people are doing a better job taking care of sin that Christians? No. Likewise, non-christians walking in health or wealth does nothing to undermine the purpose of the Lord’s sacrifice.

Moreover, some sicknesses and diseases are directly traceable to the devil. No other power or person can fully deliver from such but Jesus. That’s why Jesus came. The Bible makes clear in Matt 8 that Jesus was fulfilling the prophecy in Isaiah 53 which says that part of the Messiah’s mission when He comes on earth is to take away our infirmities, sicknesses and diseases. And Peter lets us know that Jesus demonstrated that when He went about doing good and healing all those oppressed of the devil (Acts. 10.38). Perhaps He came to heal but only before He died, meaning that people that experienced Him before His death experienced a ‘better’ Jesus than those that are experiencing Him today?

Finally, what is your answer to the point that Jesus can give health like no other – like a brand new heart – or do you know of any religion or earthly system that can do something similar?

Gombs:


nlMediator, I will not argue with you


Folks that view this page can deduce the truth for themselves by the holyspirit.


Cheers

I agree. Only thing is that I have not even expanded on my views. We were just examining yours, which is riddled with intellectual inconsistency. When I get a chance to explain the scriptural validity of pleading the blood of Jesus, you and others should feel free to critique. For now, just ponder on how you arrive at the conclusion that something is wrong simply because it was not done in the NT, yet you strongly propagate the idea that people should surrender their first month's salary as first fruits, when you find no such practice in the NT. Again, I agree that people should look at it and make up their mind about the tenability of your position.

Gombs: As simple as ABC. why is this difficult to get in?

You're probably one of the most difficult persons to understand here. The brother disagrees with your position that communion brings healing and you endorse his views in the same post he disagrees as easy as ABC?

Candour: Don't add to the word pls.

Eph 1:7
'In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace:'

The blood redeemed you from the slave market of sin because that is the only thing we couldn't get by our efforts. Every other thing is gettable by human effort. Man has being equipped for that. You don't need to be a Christian to have the goodies of life.

Any body, whether good or bad, atheist or Muslim, sane or insane can get money, health etc. Even witch doctors claim to perform deliverance from powers of darkness for people but SALVATION CANNOT be obtained outside the blood of Christ.

My bro, that is what the blood is for. Remission of sins.

I disagree that the blood of Jesus bought only salvation and that other benefits such as healing and prosperity are available to all without Jesus. There is nothing extra-biblical about my reading of Eph. 1:7. This is how it reads in the Amplified version: "In Him we have redemption (deliverance and salvation) through His blood . . . ." The word translated salvation in the English carries with a wider meaning than just salvation and includes heath, prosperity, etc. The health and prosperity that Jesus gives cannot be found anywhere else. Jesus can give a brand new heart (or other organ) while a doctor can only give a tokunbo or artificial heart. Even if what Jesus gives were to be the same as what is available in the world, it does not mean that Jesus would not make them available to His people. While He was on earth, He healed the sick and fed multitudes even whe there were physicians and food markets around.

Candour: My bro, you should know me by now from our engagements in time past. I don't do camps. I deal with issues, not persons. You and I agreed on something on the 'a fresh purchase' thread, does that mean you and I are forming an alliance? If I agree with you, I'll say it irrespective of whatever disagreement we've had in time past.

Check my posts, I HAVE NEVER subscribed to healing in the communion. Its part of the extra biblical revelations of the Pentecostal movement that has no biblical basis. I'm all for what is revealed in the new testament based on the cross if calvary and u can't find communion being used as a healing balm. Check the references I gave, you won't find such there. If any body tells you that or if you believe that, you'll have to prove it from scripture.

If my Lord say do it for remembrance sake, will you tell him he doesn't know what he's doing? If you can, I cannot. I take communion in line with what my Lord and apostle Paul said. Simply for remembrance.

My brother, I used 'camp' in a loose sense. And even started with a laugh. Certainly, I endorse your approach of sticking to the issues and vindicating your stance without forging unhelpful alliances.

Candour: Hear Christ himself

Luke 22:19-20
'And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.20.Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you'

He said to take communion in remembrance of him and said it was for remission of sins, nothing about mouthing it to kill demons. This is repeated in Matt 26:26-28 and Mark 14:22-24

Hear Paul

1Cor 11:23-26
'For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:24.And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.25.After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as off as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.26.For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come

See all the bolded. Communion is strictly for remembrance of what Christ went through to obtain salvation for us. Nothing more, nothing less.

Christ said so, Paul repeated it.

Ha ha, I hope you can already see dissension in your camp. Communion affords healing, as our brother correctly stated, contrary to your assertion that is all about remembrance. Why does the Bible want us to engage in a practice, simply for rememrance sake? Are our prayers, reading the Bible, calling ourselves christians not all in remembrance of the death of Christ? WOuld we engage in any of that if Jesus had not died?

shdemidemi: @ Gombs and candour

thanks for opening our eyes to these errors that have made their ways in to the church through human improvisation.

on a lighter note, if God answers such prayers the world would be far emptier than it is right now.

We can say that about any prayer. If God answers the prayers for salvation of sinneers, nobody would be unsaved today because the saints have been praying for centuries for people to be saved. See how your illogic is revealed?

Gombs: Jesus said the above...but y didn't you complete it?

Oya let me help you, Jesus said "do this IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME" not do this for your protection or do this to plead your case or do this to heal your self.

When you take communion is it Jesus' real blood?

It is the remembrance of what he did on the cross for us that reaffirms the power we have in His redemptive work. The remembrance is for all he's done, his perfect sacrifice and victory. That's what the communion is about. Yeah, you get healed during communion, because of the remembrance and not that the communion was a kinda medicine


Must you argue?

Thank you for making my point more eloquently. So, the communion, which invokes the blood of Jesus, gives healing? What happened to the point that the blood is only for the remission of sins? And if you can use the blood to get healing, through communion, what are you guys wasting time arguing?