₦airaland Forum

Sad sad sad.

I'd like to see what Joagbaje has to say about this though I won't be holding my breath. Such is usually ignored.

Sad

@GanjaSeed:

Bro, you sure what you're saying? Jesus was "forced" to compassion because they anointed him with an expensive perfume?

Okay, so here's what you're saying that pastor said: - The Lord of Glory OF HIS OWN VIOLITION left Heaven and ALL His Glory etc, became a baby in a poor woman engaged to a poor carpenter, grew up in a poor household in a situation where His people were treated more or less as slaves and second class citizens in their own land, was a person "despised", "not wanted" or of "any becoming attributes" to His own creation and lived like this for at least 30 years. Then one day, He was going out and someone decided to spray perfume on Him. This bribe "made" Him lose control and decide to "claim" and break the bands of death on a member of that family to show thanksgiving for "smelling good".

The Jesus Christ I believe in "became" excited because of perfume? Me too needs to go buy some bloody expensive perfume. I don't even mind getting a cls550 (I'm sure that "kind of" Jesus will give me 10 Billion dollars in return). Basically then, that CE pastor turned Jesus into a motor park tout that you give 50 bucks and who would beat up anyone in your way.

I refuse to believe it. Here's hoping Joagbaje (being nearest CE pastor available) will come denounce that pastor as not being affiliated to CE.

Waiting,  waiting,  waiting!

This "Pastor Christ" thing seems to be quite common on NL - I believe this is like the 4th time I'm coming across it. I pray it remains just a mistake which we strive to correct. However, Joagbajes further claim that "we are Christ" makes me wonder.

Joagbaje, no wahala what you call yourself but just as calling yourself "Goodluck" won't make you president, calling your pastor "Christ" won't make a difference to who he really is - Pastor Chris Oyakilome, respected by many and reviled by as many; believed to be a man of God by many and to be a fraudster by many others. It will not make him Christ.

However, one thing these "boasts" definitely do is make Christians look like a deluded set of individuals when they say Christ is God and they are Christ. Not only christians read these posts and it smacks of hypocrisy, pride and total insanity to hear such claims of divinity. The Apostles were much more humble and careful with what they said - yet these were people who raised the dead openly, got cripples to walk and were bitten by deadly snakes. That last reminds me of a pastor who supposedly was shouting "praise the Lord" in church, got excited and carried away and jumped with his hands stretched up. Sadly (for the bugger), there was a fan operating above. The inevitable impact between hand and fan-blade(s) solicited a shout: "yee Shangooooo"

I wonder what you shout, sir.

One thing I agree with Joagbaje over: Chris Oyakilome is not likely ever to purchase a Jet. We may not like much of what the guy does but he honestly does not seem to tend in that direction. It would have just been really nice if the thrust was less on cash and offerings and more on holiness, the life of Christ and the waity for Heaven. I sincerely think the man started out with a good dream but this world has a way of bringing a lot of what you do not want with what you want - thats why so much amazing rubbish then comes in.

I have been so very close to some heavy weight MOGs and found out its easy to believe many "sinners" will change as they listen to you when you see them coming in. You pray, claim, believe and hope for "miraculous change" Unfortunately, "pearls and pigs do not go hand in hand" and it is a little folly that spoils a lot of wisdom (according to the Bible); not the other way around. Where many of these guys miss it is this - they allow the weeds in and little by little, truth starts to be watered down to keep them in in the hope of change. Sadly, it becomes almost impossible to turn around because in the initial euphoria and excitement, a lot has passed under the bridge. Then we blame them. Maybe we ought pray more for them.

On their own part however, what they "claim" informs a strength that should be able to make an about turn and say "I made a mistake and am sorry. I am turning back". It is this "i am a god" matter that makes that difficult to say and is why many are (humanly) irredemable.

@Joagbaje:

Whist I initially agreed with you that he ought not stay "in Babylon", there was a reason offered for him staying. And I am sorry - true it is that money is needed for much BUT money is not a CAUSE to live for! I would have thought a pastor would ask us to live for God, not for money!
The end of the matter is this - You, Pastor Chris, KunleOshob, me ALL have the same status before God as a 2 year old who has accepted Christ 5 minutes ago and NONE of us is perfect. It is your claims to the contrary that make all this arguments needful

aletheia:
. . .surprised no one has rolled out the Jesus was materially rich argument yet, to buttress their egomania.

True that.

The Robe woven of Gold, Silver and Diamond thread He wore that even Pontius Pilate and Caeser drew swords over; the borrowed donkey which was equivalent of a personalised Lear Jet today (I wonder what the model number of a personalised donkey would be : " Yeshua 001" perharps stamped on its nose with farts smoke emitting from its behind announcing the arrival of the GOM [God of man]) and his tomb: the envy of the ages as even angels came to admire its architecture and the design of its arches.

Not to imagine the material wealth it takes to feed 5, 000 hungry Isrealis (those people who love food so much) and to use perfume to wash His feet every minute. One cannot but wonder what was used to wash his hair if the hair of Halle Berry and/or J-Lo was sponge and "UltraRed" by Paco Rabanne was the soap. Chei, imagine Beyonce using her hair to wash my feet (I need to become a MOG).

Which is why every follower particularly those self called to be high-priests of a priesthood that has only one true High-Priest ought have 16 SUVs like their fellow Akingbola, 2 town mansions and a country home in each state, a personal university, a few hundred designer suits, 3 pre-teens children each of whom has a million dollars in cash as spending allowance yearly and NOW - a private Jet.

Hopefully Concorde will be resurrected so "WE" can be in a class of our own seeing as our reward is here.

Besides the point is the fact that he had nowhere to lay his head and his clothing and manner was so poor they couldn't even separate Him from His disciples. And of course, it is idiotic to remember Paul's desire to complete his work and get his desired reward which supposedly was not on earth.

But then, Paul? What did that pauper with a mouth filled with baby teeth "know" when you consider todays revelation knowledge and its possibilities? Afterall, brains partially fried with "Jeri curls" are best suited to knowing the "real" truth of God's Kingdom

@ogajim:

Its not like I don't get what you and kunle are saying. However, how many people look up to you guys who see you attend, assume all is well and sit easy? They might not be able to sift out the weeds from the fruits, if you get my point! And for these, you've provided tacit support, though not deliberately.

But I guess man cannot be an island anyway. God help us all

@Kunle:

I get your point. I hope you remember I am totally in support of Ganjaseed's position - I was just looking for some way whereby disapproval can be shown. I guess at this point, the only thing that comes to mind is the advise to pluck out our eyes if they will see us to hell. Maybe its time to cut out the social gatherings

@Ganjaseed:

Nice thoughts and posts but one thought comes to my mind reading you - considering what you say and believe about CE, do you feel morally justified still attending that church? Sorry but I feel you "offer" tacit support when you still come together with them. Imagine that out of 400 members, 300 think and believe as you do yet quietly attend. Wouldn't they be better served by "coming out" so the leadership can ask themselves what is going wrong when the pews become empty?

^^^ You have new email

whats ur email addy? why not speed up things by telling it openly?

@Fhemmy:

Location? Price? and please confirm - this would be a 6 cylinder, right?

Gunnaz:

Your question is stilted in that it answers itself trying to force a mold for any respondent.

A supposed "Christian" could be "filthy" e.g Robert Liardon having carnal knowledge of another man. Or what would you call homosexuality in the light of the Bible?

A supposed "Christian" could be "unjust" e.g. Maurice Iwu "selling" elections to the highest bidder or any MOG who has seats "reserved" at the front for big men forgetting that the God he claims is not a respecter of persons.

A supposed "Christian" could be "righteous" when he truly shows the life of Christ in himself. Indeed, this is the definition of Christian - manifesting Christ (the embodiment of right) so that people wonder just as they did when they met the Apostles or people like Moses or Elijah. Keep in mind that "righteousness" is living RIGHT, not an esoteric feel good definition of "claiming" by "confession"!

A "Christian" should be Holy ALWAYS. Let us use this "example" - if during the time Christ was on the Cross, he at any time wavered and suddenly screamed, "hey, I'm not taking this anymore. Angels, come to my rescue", what do you think would have happened? Then answer this - if they, the angels had obeyed (as surely they must have), would Christ's sacrifice have still been the same? That is what happens to your sinning Christian. At the time when he sins, he IS a sinner and if at that exact second he dies, his "labor" has been in vain. Or would he (as in the example), be the same?

One way to assess this is - The Bible says "If the righteous shall turn away from righteousness and shall turn to do evil,, , ". Would you then say this is not applicable to Christianity?

All you need to consider is that you, myself, all of us were once sinners (as we prefer to say). If the sin nature cannot become righteousness, there is no way you would be able to sit and say you're a Christian today. Same for when you go away from righteousness - you'll not be righteous THEN!

@Joagbaje:

There is something called a pyramid effect. It informs that if Jesus reached 12 and they reached 3000 and those reached 1, 000, 000, it was actually Jesus who reached the 1, 000, 000. Else how would they have gotten the message they passed on? Your words to Ogajim make you sound deprecating of Christ.

Please try to temper down the words you use in describing issues - I get the impression that you do not mean evil but the truth is that not only Christians read these things we write. Your words make you sound like an advocate of the hitler youth syndrome i.e. "we are superior to others". That is saddening coming from not just a Christian (humility being Christ's trademark) but a minister and you might be suprised to find that impression is why so many are vitriolic when responding to you - nobody likes to be looked down upon.

And FYI, you can never dream of reaching the number of people Jesus reached even if you spend another thousand years on earth.

CHEI Mudddddddllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

^^ Whichever you consider it to be, Inesqor, it still comes back to what we're saying and did from the onset

[a] Exclusion from the selection for "tithes" infers Abram "chose" what to tithe and what NOT to tithe; showing it was a choice He made rather than an "obligation" as we're being told to see it today. More a free-will gift.

[b] Division as "Spoils of War" informs that Abram considered at least a part of the "recovered" possessions to NOT BE his property showing that as we said, he'd given up right to "some" if not all. - That solves the issue of ownership of the spoils since the "owner" effectively said "I do not own these".

I walked away from this debate because of the respect I have for Viaro and because we'd so derailed that we were asking/answering questions which weren't the basis of the conversation. Moreso, we ended up playing to a gallery that was coming in to applaud "points" and seek for excuses to self-justify their avarice. I still sincerely believe all this is so so wrong turning Abram into a greedy "winner takes all" warrior. This for the same man who looked ahead at God's promise and stated "he wouldn't touch these things".

Sad. But as Viaro then said - "love and faith". AND TRUTH!

viaro:
At the end of the day, whatever anyone has so chosen to do, let him/her do - as long as we try to hold love and faith above any other issue.

Word !

@jesus2:

I didn't come into this issue to "beat" Viaro. I actually think that the "winning" desire is one of the worst abasements of humanity since it takes us to the extent where we lie and eisegise to get our way.

Viaro knows what I was saying but wanted something for Olaadegbu too - if it was worth the process, fine. Truth cannot be changed.

@Aletheia:

YOU, I expected to make your views known. Why did you keep so quiet? Enigma was the other but I never thought he'd even notice this thread considering enigmalet's demands. Still waiting to read your views, Sir

With the gift of garb you have, I need not go with you. Go do the "needy" at Aso Rock. I'm sure no-one there stand a chance. When ready, inform me and I'll come out from behind my laptop and become landlord at Aso Rock. BTW, you'll get to head a new "ministry of eisegesis".

Until then, keep thanking God Abram ain't around today. I'm sure he was as deft with a sword as you are with words and wonder how he'd felt hearing you say what he said was "the goods are mine so its not your property I'm taking so don't for a minute think you can say it was your stuff that made me rich. I paid my tithe to Melchizedek because its my property so get out of the way".

^^  Yep, Lot wasn't Lot but "Abram's slave Lot" and Lot's possessions were Abram's. Therefore and EXEGETICALLY, every single version of Genesis "lied". Only EISEGESIS CAN REDEEM THE BIBLE'S IMAGE

IMHO, a way with words cannot substitute "truth".

Well at least, I did get a promotion out of this. Commander to Vice-Marshal. Now if you could just use this eisegesical style to convine this Nation I ought to be land lord at Aso Rock, somethingcogent would have come of this thread.

This thread tires me for its flights into realms hitherto not planned

Somethin makes me wonder where our "kabash" specialists are. Their presencehere for good or bad would have show some Bible literacy. anyways, to each his own- some are better suited as mirrors and some as amplifiers

^^^^ The point is that after they were taken away and captured back by Abram, the Bible calls them "lot and his possessions" not abram's spoils

Yomore:

whats your email address and/or phone number? Email would be better though! Write me at nlbomb@gmail.com

BTW Inesqor:

You skimmed through our posts else you'd have seen that I said I use "Sodom" to represent ALL original owners of the possession that became "spoils of war". It would have become somewhat clumsy to name each and every owner each time. The fact that Abram was discussing with Sodom encouraged me to use just that name as representative of all.

^^^ Thank you, Enigma - brilliant question. which makes one wonder: Abram said they were due their PORTION, not the rest of the spoils.

How do you force <we will take nothing BUT what we ate AND "their portion"> to mean <we will take what we ate AND "the rest AS THEIR SHARE">? For portion surely means a percentage/proportion/part/some of the total, doesn't it?  So where's the balance?

Interestingly, its both of you who are quick to accuse of eisegesis. 

^^ How more credible than "lot and his possessions" were amongst what Abram recovered, would you require? So then, who owned those possessions?

I know you won't answer this question with a one word "name"!

^^^ "He recovered all the goods and brought back his relative Lot and his possessions" certainly brings a lot of clarity to the table for here we see the Bible asserting "moral" ownership of his goods to Lot. Which would infer a part of what came back were "Sodom's" "possessions" but in Abram's control.

Thanks Enigma. I was starting to worry why I ever joined in singing "Abraham's blessings are mine" considering he'd turned out to be a bullying warrior baron

Zodiac61:
What kind of a question is this?
Of course a pastor needs private jets (not jet).
How else would he be able to show that his god is a great and wonderful god.
They fail in the miracle department, they fail in the prayer department, they fail in the spiritual healing department.
The only successes our pastors have is in the money making department.
10% of other people's money is a lot of money. And it has to be used to show how the Lawd has been merciful to his own.
It does not matter that there are scheduled flights to wherever he needs wants to go, arriving in a private jet is infinitely better.

Anyone who is against these conmen, sorry, these hard working men of god owning private jets off the backs of their poverty stricken, mostly jobless and ever suffering congregations is only envious. And envy gets you nowhere.

Thats not how they say it, dude - envy "of them" gets you to "hell" is the right phrase

viaro:
Hahaha. . . joking and teasing him, yes sir. But [size=15pt]not [/size] playing the devil's 'advocado' - [size=15pt]no[/size] sir. 

The Bible could not be wrong - translations of the Bible could possibly err. However, there's no "take all" in that verse - that is what the translators want you to believe, and that simply is not anything to go by. I could show you many things that the same Amplified just got wrong in their interpolations in translation. Should I? I promise just one example on the same Abraham's life, if you may.

^^^
minus minus = plus (I studied a branch of engineering).

Another eisegesis?  No thank you, Already traumatised enough and still wondering how you got this quaint idea that Sodom (and associates) got nothing back. Enjoy your days

^^^ which is exactly what I've been saying and stating that Viaro evaded

Thanks, ttalks

@Gary:

You might be suprised at the latter to find Viaro is joking and has been playing Devil's advocate all along.

Anyways, my prayer was answered and now I know I've not lost my mind.

Carbonated Viaro:  

I know the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. The definition I got says it better - Exegesis - drawing out the meaning of a text. Eisegesis - forcing a pre-conceived notion into text. That is why I said I wasn't engaging in eisegesis BUT exegesis! Anyway,

[1] You believe that Sodom (to me) meant that king and him alone (the individual). Wrong, bro! I used "the King of Sodom" then "Sodom" then "the sodomites" to represent ALL the original owners of the properties. You could as well have asked that I start to name every individual and local government. But again, this is a non-issue.
[2] You agree that Abram kept nothing for himself but refuse to state who got them and show this from Scripture
[3] We are back to the meaning of "tenth" as opposed to "tithe". What understanding you want again after Enigma's brilliant summation on the alternative meanings these words "portray" TODAY, beats me.
[4] Why do you quote Hugo Grotius now, when you've previously insisted on "In light of Scripture"?
[5] okay, jokes apart, whats your motive here or is this just a really big joke to you? Remember though, Tonye-T (at least) has you as the guy who's put a stumbling block before him now. I simply cannot believe its you writing this stuff when its so obvious.

BTW, did you read ttalk's post and notice what the Amplified Bible says in the passage? Is that Bible wrong

exegesis not eisegesis, Viaro.

Rather ^^^ over and over again, put me out of my "ignorance" by

[1] showing the reasons why it was a "tithe" to Melchizedek
[2] showing the reasons why inferring "paganism" into it are a farce
[3] showing why it was to Melchizedek and him alone that he could have paid the "tithe" to
[4] explaining Abram's statement