Goshen360: @ Pastor Olu T,

Fornication has a wide range of meanings but never does it mean pre-marital se.x; it is religion that taught such thing. You can always study to show yourself approved unto God, proof all things and hold unto that which is good, using bible concordance. Using a bible concordance for word meanings in context, you will come to a whole new meaning to the religious interpretations.

^^^

Afam4eva: I'm using InternetVisa Web Solutions. That's actually my host and you won't go wrong by choosing it as your host.

You mean you own it

aManFromMars:
More likely Mr. Gay, considering he had so many men following him and never fell for the ashawo that washed his feet with perfume.

OLAADEGBU:
Read your Bible:

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of He-li" (Luke 3:23).

This is a bible commentary on the son of He-li:

son of Heli. Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16), so this verse should be understood to mean "son-in-law of Heli." Thus the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually the word "son" is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either "son" or "son-in-law" in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon's line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah's sin (see Jeremiah 22:24-30 and 33:15-17).

Okay, let's suppose it is son-in-law...

Why do you think this is not simply a means of differentiating which Joseph was being talked about here? Since Joseph was a very common name in the community back then, just like Mohammad is very common in islamic communities, thus "the son-in-law of" is a means of identifying which particular joseph and thus which jesus is also being referred(Jesus: also a common name back then). But you are too eager to justify the illegality of giving the woman(Mary) authority over the man(Joseph) and declare her as rightful link in the genealogy of Jesus. Bros, your analysis are way out of appropriate context and your conclusions ultimately misleading.

OLAADEGBU:
Over the bar! Four women were mentioned in Jesus' genealogy in Matthew 1:3, 5-6 (Thamar, Rahab, Ruth and the wife of Uriah).

Again you confuse the issues. The records says "Mr A begats Mr B through Mrs A, and Mr X begats Mr Y through Mrs X...", it is still reading geneaology of the men, not of the women. Of course there has to a woman to give birth to children, but lineage is not of the woman but of the man. Women do not have names of their own, they take on the names of their fathers or of their husbands. How can you turn around to say that lineage is traced from the woman?? This is just traditionally/lawfully illogical and impossible.

Again, I suspect your yoruba values at play here, because yoruba women tend to have inheritnace rights and hold authoritative roles in yoruba traditional society.

OLAADEGBU:
Foul! Women had inheritance rights under certain conditions. Read Numbers 27:1-11; 36:2.

Bros, you are confusing "exceptional circumstances" for rights. Women have no inheritance rights. But in the exceptional circumstances that a man dies without a son to carry-on his name, then his daughters(if his wife is dead, or past child-bearing age) can hold his inheritance and bear children in his name until a son comes along to carry on with the lineage.

This again, is an almost replica of igbo tradition. If a man dies without a son, then his daughter[s] have the right to hold his inheritance until a son comes along. They accomplish this by opting to bear children while unmarried and these children are born in the name of the late father, not in the name of the man who actually fathered such children. There are a lot more similarities between igbo and old hebrew traditions, but let's not digress.

OLAADEGBU:
You are barking up the wrong tree here. What we are saying is that Matthew was tracing Jesus' genealogy through David's son Solomon while Luke traced His genealogy through David's son Nathan and that Matthew's purpose is to provide Jesus' legal lineage from Solomon through Joseph while Luke's idea is to provide His natural lineage from Nathan through Mary.

The bolded is out of place and illegal. There is no such differentiation between natural lineage and legal lineage, and if there is a conflict(when the father is not legally married to the woman), then the legal course supercedes the natural one and the biological father has no claim on this child, nor can he pass inheritance to such. This is the law\tradition.

I have a feeling that you agree with this "natural vs legal dichotomy" because you are yoruba. I understand that in yoruba tradition, a child has inheritance from his natural father(though he did not marry the child's mother) rather than from the house where he was born( ie: house of the mother's father or of her husband). Thus you are projecting your yoruba culture unto the context. This is mis-analysis. Now I introduce you to the igbo culture, and believe it or not: is one of the very strong reasons for the belief that igbos are descended from the jews, because you can almost map their cultures and values one-on-one. They are believed to be too similar to be regarded as co-incidence. Now in igbo tradition; a child has inheritance from the house where he was born. Either from his mother's father(if mother is unmarried) or from the mother's husband even though he is not the natural father. As long as he is still legally married to this woman, then any child the woman births is his by right, no matter how many strange men may have impregnated her. This was the same tradition in Israel back then.

OLAADEGBU:

How do you spiritualise genealogies if not literal?

I did not say they were spiritual(though they could be. I really don't bother with this). My point is: there are two genealogies that contradict and that is what it is. Trying to break/bend principles of the law to give sense to this contradiction is perverse!!

B_CELLS: if you are religious you will comprehend my points.

Bros, I am a very religious person. i also understand that my religion does not usurp secular/state values and institutions. Why don't you give regard to the bible passage that says "render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's..". You being a christian does not exempt your from observing state/legal protocols and institutional hierarchies. When you get to your church, then by all means exercise your doctrines to the fullest, within your church. The king's palace or the presidential villa or govt ministry is not your church.

OLAADEGBU:

There are different emphases in the genealogies, but there are also explanations for the dissimilarities between these two genealogies. So you have Matthew tracing his genealogy through David's son Solomon and Luke tracing his genealogy through David's son Nathan. And it may be that Matthew's purpose is to provide the legal lineage from Solomon through Joseph while Luke's idea is to provide the natural lineage from Nathan through Mary. It could also be that Matthew and Luke are both tracing Joseph's genealogy, Matthew through the legal line and Luke the natural line. So the legal line diverges from the natural in that the Levirate law stipulated if a man died without an heir his genealogy could legally continue through his brother. But here's the point: There are a number of ways to resolve dissimilarities and that rules out the notion of course that there is some contradiction here. ~ Hank Hanegraaff | http://www.equip.org/audio/why-are-the-genealogies-in-matthew-and-luke-different/

This is the problem when people insist on taking everything in the bible to be absolutely literally unquestionable, thus they end up with using all manner of perversions to try to justify this literal interpretation. I stress again: It is not possible that Jesus was the seed of David through Mary. Under the law, women have no name rights and no inheritance rights. How come the genealogies were traced all through men as written "..and Mr A begat Mr B, and Mr B begat Mr C, and Mr C begat Mr D...", not a single female mentioned in all these, both of the "begetter" and the "begotten". Yet all of a sudden it comes to Jesus and you guys are trying to commit abomination by inserting Mary as the Head of Joseph instead of Joseph as the head of Mary which is in accordance with the law and in accordance with nature. Women just don't carry-on family names. It is a male role.

Kelvin4224: Romans 13:7

King James Version (KJV)

Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

It's refreshing to see people who identify as christians, yet have not abandoned logic and common sense. Good one.

Sadly, OP seems to be in the camp of disregard of all legal and cultural authorities. Trying to make christianity a usurper.

Nahum777: i am not a christian fine, but i believe in the whole bible, Paul didnt condemn the law, you should know some bible books, chapters and verses aint refering to everybody in the world. Thats were you Christians get it wrong, let me give you an example.

Okay, so we've established that you are not christian, and I assume you are of the following of Black Hebrew movement. You are still under the law. No wahala.

You say Paul did not condemn the law?? WRONG!!! There is just only one way that anybody today will see and believe in absolute grace without the law and that is from the letters of Paul. Every other book in the bible we have today does not make a categorical statement nor a reasonable case for grace. The doctrine of grace today would not exist without Paul's letters. Paul was an absolute grace preacher and encourage people to be like himself, though he also allowed people whose conscience and faith were not firmly grounded in grace to continue gradually, as if there were still some remnants of the law that were still active. But as far as he(Paul) was concerned the law was dead and abolished.

"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting." (James 1:1).

To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, which means the book of James was for the Israelites and not the whole world. Same wìth Paul, majority of Pauls letter was for the 144, 000 elect me of Israel going to preach to the Gentiles, these were the people God gave grace and not the whole world.. You are not saying Paul and James are contradicting themselves are you? Paul says faith alone and not by works, mind you he wasn't refering to you, James says works and faith, Jesus Christ says works and faith.

You got it wrong here. The moment christianity comes, it becomes a gospel for everybody whether jew or not. You make the error of referring to a literal israel. Christian doctrine does not deal with that anymore. James spoke of Israel in a symbolic/spiritual sense and not in the literal manner you use.

You seem to not understand faith(actually, almost everybody does not). People continue to carry on with this notion that faith has no works(or evidence), but nothing can be further from the truth. Faith just has no regards to works of the law, but to demonstrate that you have faith you must show the works of your faith. James was not talking about works of the law but of faith. The works of faith is demonstrated by living as though you have no regard for the law. Where the law says "You must not eat meat offered to idols...", I say "rubbish, the earth is the lord's and everything in it. All things are sanctified to the elect...", I go ahead to "demolish" the food with my mouth and stomach . You see, that is the works of faith, in defiance to the works of the law which would demanded abstinence from such food.

Regarding the elect, I am an elect. I am a 100-percent, absolute grace christian. I totally disregard the law of Moses as is interpreted by the world. I am a 100-percent Pauline doctrine christian. I give no regard to holy days, what I eat, what music I listen to, what I wear, whom I have sex with as long as it is woman and the relationship is consensual, etc, My doctrine is just incorruptible. Absolutely nothing in regard to the law. So, yes you are right that there are an elect few who have been selected unto grace but your error is in thinking that they were literal Israelites and have gone with history and would not be in the present time. Well, you are "speaking" to one of them.

Nahum777: yes, destroy the bondage without quoting Paul

So you agree then that Paul destroyed the law??

Surely, nobody today can be a true christian if he does not agree/understand Paul. So I'm assuming you are not christain, No?? Obadiah? Black Hebrew then?

Nahum777: thread abandoned? well dayummm

harbiola1:

Bro u 2 wicked o, c as u just scared the grace aot of d thread.

Lol.., you guys obviously don't know me.

I'd just not had time, and almost forgot that I created this thread. Make una Wait, I dey come back to destroy you law doctrine bondage.

tpia@:
@ okeyxyz

straighten yourself out plz, unless you are in a cult.

I am in the cult of Jesus Christ.

By the way, why is that when the world wants to show disapproval of any philosophy/way of life different from mainstream they label it a cult?? If you as a christian have this same mindset as these people, then how could you be a christain? The scripture clearly states that people who hold the true gospel will be in the miniroty, precisely the kind of groups that would be called "cults".

Secondly, didn't christianity start out as a cult? Was that not why they were persecuted? Because the mainstream religions and institutions labeled them a dangerous cult?

A big lie!!!

On what study have they based this silly claim?? This is just another of those govt agency propaganda they sell to the public when they want to setup or protect a business they have an interest in. In this case, they are trying to sell stoves to millions of people. Like when they made that propaganda that "pomo" has no nutritional value, all in a bid to grow/protect the leather making industry.

chuqudy:

Are u suggesting that one should share his wife?

It is not a sin to share your wife. It is within your right if you want to. God has mandated you guys to use yourselves sexually(& naturally) as you see fit. The Corinthians were sharing before Paul banned it because they were abusing that se.xual liberty. I explain
briefly 1 corinthians 7:

1Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman

To touch, as used here does not mean- to touch a woman sexually, rather it means to cling to, or fasten to. In other words, to posses for yourself only.

2But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.

Now Paul says each man should henceforth have(engage, continue with) only with his wife and each wife should have(engage, continue with) only with her husband... So the question is: Why would Paul give this command if not that sharing was allowed in the first place?, but he banned this practice because of the abuse of this principle of sharing. That is because of immoralities(fornication). This brings to another misuse of words here. "Fornication" has been misused and passed down to us to mean having se.x with somebody you are not married to. This is wrong definition and going back to the law of Moses. Fornication simply means unlawful(without consent) or unnatural sex.

chuqudy: I want answers from good christian believers. If I look at my wedded wife lustfully have I sinned?

This is evidence to show that lust does not mean se.xual urge. This word has been misused and passed down to us through the ages. The true meaning of lust is the desire to posses something for yourself only, without sharing.

How did Jesus fulfill the Law?

He fulfilled the law by firstly having the perfect understanding of it, knew the spirit(principle) behind it, therefore he's the only person with any possibility to deliver(fulfill) it's requirements.

Because Jesus had perfect understanding of this law, he therefore was able to become the personification of it(He lived as the law in flesh and blood). So the words he spoke, he spoke as the law and the works and wonders he performed he performed as the law.

Finally, he died as the law, signifying the death and abolishment of the law. This final act is what gave birth to true christianity, for there cannot be christianity while the law was still standing and the legal standard for righteousness. This is the origin of the saying that "We are no longer under the law but under grace". Since the law is dead and abolished, we no longer define righteousness based on how the law defined it and by not following the law's definition, we become truely free from it and live unto the perfect law of liberty in the resurrected(Not the one who died) christ jesus.

truthislight:

The quoted scripture is a reference to gentiles being brought into the new covenant i think.

You wish what i said was true, smh.

This is the problem with people who identify as christians. They follow strict literal interpretations instead of the principle of the gospel. They read the law and prophets and apply it's message to the strict context and timeline as at when it was first preached instead of the timeless, universal application of the principle therein. Get wisdom bro.

truthislight:

yeah! That ^.

All i do as a christian has been sactified by the blood, the authority i have is over all sins.

Even if i commit funication, nothing will happen, the funication has been sactified by the powerful in the blood of him.

Even if i steal money and another persons wife, she will be clean in his name and his blood.

I cannot commite a sin as a christ. His grace covers all.......

All i do have been clean by the blood of that one that has all power.

If you dont know the power in the blood, it is only then you can denied what i have seen and said in the spirit.


yes, in the blood of that one, do you doubt it ?

Despite the sarcasm & ridicule, the content of your text still remains valid truth.

Let him who has wisdom read and Understand:

25As He says also in Hosea,
“I WILL CALL THOSE WHO WERE NOT MY PEOPLE, ‘MY PEOPLE,’
AND HER WHO WAS NOT BELOVED, ‘BELOVED.’”

26“AND IT SHALL BE THAT IN THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS SAID TO THEM, ‘YOU ARE NOT MY PEOPLE,’
THERE THEY SHALL BE CALLED SONS OF THE LIVING GOD(Romans 9:25-26).”

In other words; In the things where you used to feel guilty and sinful for doing what comes naturally to you, hence you shall glorify God for doing the same things. GBAM!!!

If a christian chooses to celebrate christmas, then his christianity has sanctified the occasion regardless of it's pagan origins. For the earth is the Lord's and all that is in it...

@OP, your kind of reasoning is just heavily flawed in all manner of sound logic.

First of all, how do your possibly conclude that the ignorance of one person as you portrayed above is the same mindset of everybody(or most) who identifies as christian or moslem? You are not even making scientific sense by this kind of conclusion or extrapolation. It is at best an anecdote of what uneducated religious people think. On the other hand, can you argue that an uneducated atheist would show better logic than this guy?? You are simply comparing "apples and grapes" and rather demonstrates the hastiness and wobbliness of your own logic. have you ever pitched these arguments with any christian\moslem of high learning? or do you just pick on people who are obviously light weight so you can easily defeat them and feel good about yourself??

Another unsound argument you made(which your fellow atheists sing on nairaland) is that Christianity/islam is not right because they are not of african origin. I mean, do you guys actually take time to listen to yourselves and really think this is a wisdom I usually never bother to engage with this argument because it is just plain foolish logic and I don't have time to waste on such kind of "intelligence" that i consider to be beneath me. Yet you guys keep singing it everytime and it has become obvious that there is no careful thought behind this obviously hollow assertion. So I challenge you here to please explain to us in a careful, methodical way how christianity or islam is bad or false because it is not of african origin. Must a knowledge/belief system be from your own ancestry before it can qualify to be truthful??

I won't be surprised if you are one of them on nairaland who boasts "I was born an atheist" I just shake my head anytime I hear this. Anybody who even bothers to spend 30 minutes of critical analysis would easily see that this an illogical and embarrassing claim to make. Though this is not an issue on this thread but I just have a hunch that you also believe this silly assertion, hence why i'm throwing it in here. So overt to you, are you or are you not??

Divepen: It is a well known fact that women love to copy men ...

This is true and also GOOD. That is that is the way God(or nature) has designed it. What it means is that the man is meant to lead(create values) the woman, and in spritual terms it means that men should create doctrine, not women, but it is women who will propagate(produce the evidence of) doctrine. I believe you said the above meaning it to be derogatory towards women(because you have a secular mindset) but is actually not derogatory but sound, Godly wisdom for those who are spiritually conscious.

The bible verse talking about not wearing the opposite sex's cloth seems to be created for them

This is actually symbolism(In-fact all of the law is symbolism) and not to be taken literally. The true meaning of this command is that it is a law against homosexuality. Woman should not wear man's clothes(man's role/behaviour) means that woman should not be sexual towards another woman. Likewise a man should not wear woman's clothes(woman's role/behaviour) means that a man should not be sexual towards another man.

Covering of head is actually symbolic to mean that women should not hold spiritual authority in church. Meaning that women should not make doctrine (should not hold offices of pastor, teacher, evangelist, prophet, and apostle) OVER THE CHURCH.

The early christians practiced this acts literally because they were in the era when symbolism and rituals were common and expected practice in society, and disregarding the literal observance was causing a lot of quarrels. So it costs nothing(to your faith) to abide by these practices back then and helped to maintain peace with society. It was convenience.

Surely there is a trinity(Three entities in the Godhead) and they are numerously referenced everywhere in the new testament, but I give you one to chew:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19),

How do the anti-trinitarians argue that this does not refer to three entities of the Godhead??

Let him who has wisdom read and understand Romans 14

I am no longer under the law of Moses nor any covenant before christ, so tithes are of no value to me. However after all debates and points made, there will always be people who are still convinced of tithes. For them, their conscience is strongly tied to it, so let them pay tithes for it is unto God that they give glory for the tithes they pay, just like I give glory to the same God who has freed me from the burden to pay tithes. For the earth is the lord' s and the fullness thereof(1 Corinthians 10:26).

Joshthefirst: wetin you dey tok?



I believe we're under a new law now, the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus.

Under Gods law of life, we're free from the power of sin and death as we walk in love.

We fulfill the previous law, as we walk by faith in love, free in this law of Christ.

It's all well and good to declare you are under a new law(like most Christians do), the law of the spirit, etc. But one thing you'd failed to declare is what this new law says. Every law must have it's mandates and definitions and do's and don'ts. Do you just claim to be under a new law and then when I ask for definitions (according to this new law) you take me back to the law of sin and death(the law of moses) to carry on with it's old doctrines?? My point is: if you claim to be free from the law of moses, then you must not follow it's definitions of right and wrong.

The law of the spirit has liberated us to those things that the law of moses forbids us from. There is no sin in nature. simples. If you still believe that food you eat, clothes you wear, music you listen to, having se.x without marriage, smoking, reading astrology and numerology, etc are sins, then you are still under the law of moses.

There is only one sin I know, that is fornication which includes unnatural(homo/bi-sexuality, bestiality, etc) sex and sex without consent.

vedaxcool:
She suggested that the virgin birth was a metaphor rather than an actual event, which is understood to have angered some in the Swedish clergy. Jackelén has said in the past she was unaware if her comments caused a split.

Wow!!! @obadiah must love this woman

vickyO:
I hope you believe in sin. Your definition of the Holy Spirit is wrong. The Holy Spirit is the Comforter Christ promised, He is not a doctrine. Don't get it all wrong and remember what Jesus said. IF your righteousness doesn't surpass those of the Pharisees, you can't get into heaven. Matt. 5:20

This is the problem with most people professing to be christians and claiming to not being under the law, yet they continue to define sin as defined by the same law they claim to not follow. This is the fact: If you continue to follow the definitions of the law, then you are under the law. Simples. So to answer your question: No!! I don't believe in sin and a person led by the spirit CANNOT sin, else you are not led by the spirit.

As for the Holy spirit, yes it is a doctrine and this is the only way you can recognize him if anyone comes along claiming to be of the spirit. It is first a doctrine before a person, just like christ himself was first a doctrine(The Word of God) before a person.

And when Jesus says your righteousness must surpass that of the scribes and pharisees, he means your righteousness must surpass the Law which is the standard and custody of the scribes and pharisees. You cannot continue to be under the law(define right and wrong according to the law) and think you can surpass it. The only way is to cast it(The Law) away, it has been abolished by christ's death.

Nice piece, except that this part does not actually give an answer as to how we shall now conduct ourselves given that we are no longer under the law:

vickyO:
Many Christians then say, ‘Okay, if they say we are not meant to keep these laws, how do we live a righteous life?’ In the book of Galatians 5:16, we are to obey only the instructions of the Holy Spirit. He is our new guide and will always tell us what to do and what not. When you’re guided by the Holy Spirit, you need no longer to force yourself to obey Jewish laws. If we are now living under the power of the Holy Spirit, we should follow his leading in every path of our lives. Then we won’t need to look for honours and popularity, which lead to jealousy and hard feelings.

So what is the holy spirit then if we are to be led by it? This holy spirit firstly is the doctrine/knowledge that we are free from the definitions(of sin) and restrictions of the Law. We are absolutely free to go about our lives as we please, nothing in nature is forbidden to us, just like nothing is forbidden for God himself to do, we have become equal with the father because we have received the same spirit as him. This is what it means to be holy. It means you CANNOT be defiled(cannot sin) by anything created by God, whether food, drink, sex, clothes/fashion, music, etc. Absolutely nothing!!!. This is the will/guidance of the Holy Spirit.

@OP

You did not specify what these "unacceptable" sexual practices are, so leaving us nothing really to comment on.

As far as I'm(my christian doctrine) concerned the only practices I call fornication are either unnatural sex(eg: homo/bi-sexuality, bestiality, etc) or unlawful/non-consensual(cheating, rape, etc) sex. These principles apply very well to the "bed undefiled".