₦airaland Forum

5solas:

I expected your thoughts on Romans 8:33!

Well, I gave my thought to correct the impression that anyone is sure of salvation as long as they pay lipservice of proclaiming faith in Jesus, even if they continue to disobey God. The thread was drifting towards that and that's not what the bible teaches, not even in this chapter in question.
Well concerning this verse. Paul already asked a question in verse 31b "if God be for us, who can be against us?"
The verse 33 is a rhetorical answer to the question in 31.
Something like: "is it God who justifies (please this a present continuous tense as against your 'not on going') us? Or is it Christ that died for us and has done everything to deliver us from condemnation?
The whole context is an assurance that we need not fear any accusation from that accuser "satan" (Rev.12:10), because God and Christ would certainly not condemn us, as they have done everything to justify us.

Our justification is not an on-going process. It is concluded once we place our faith in Christ. Read Acts 13:39 and Hebrews 10:10.

As stated earlier, the word "justifies" used in that verse is in itself a present tense.
Acts 13:39 Hebrews 10:10 (Read from chapter 1 of this hebrews) talks about the law of Moses/ceremonial laws/law of ordinance and it has nothing to do with keeping the ten commandments, because they are entirely different.

5solas:
Nicemuyoo and Otr1, let's have your thoughts on Roman's 8:33 / the O. P.

We are justified by faith in Jesus, yes, but obedience to God's commandments and the keeping the faith of Jesus are two sides of a coin.
No sinner will see God. And who are sinners? Those who disobey God's Law. Which Law? The Ten Commandments.
I don't see how a christian proclaiming Christ but living in sin is going to get justification from God.
That's why Jesus made it clear that not everyone that calls him "Lord" will see the kingdom of God. If not all who proclaim Christ are elects, what are the elects doing differently? Rev. 14:12 has the answer.

Who are the elect/chosen ones?
Rev. 14:12 has the answer; "THESE ARE THEY THAT KEEPS GOD'S COMMANDMENTS AND THE FAITH OF JESUS."
I don't know any other way anyone would become God's elect/chosen one without the obedience to His Laws and having the faith of Jesus. You can't have one without the other.
Let's remember that it is this same law we're trying to explain away that will be used to judge everyone on the judgement day.
Let's wake up from our delusion thinking Christ or any of his followers preached the doing away of the moral law. None of these people would do that.
"If ye love me, keep my commandments" is what Jesus said and I don't know of any other commandments than the one the so called christians have been trying to explain away.

The Moral Law was never against anybody.
James 2:10-12 tells us that it's the LAW OF LIBERTY and all men shall be judged by it. He that offends in one point of the law is guilty of all.
The law that was against us was the ceremonial law and it's been nailed to the cross.
Rev. 14:12 says "Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the COMMANDMENTS OF GOD AND THE FAITH OF JESUS."
This verse is telling us that the end time saints are keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. That is, it's a waste of time to claim to keep God's Law without believing in Jesus. Likewise, you can't claim to believe in Jesus without perfect obedience to the law of God.

Raymondfayowole:
My bro stop arguing like you don't read what you are typing, u just agreed a new day starts at sunset, what is wrong in having a church at night, the time of the service does not matter, the day at which the service holds is the most important thing. For Christ sake i gave u other versions of the bible for better understanding, u choose to ignore that.
Brother from all these uve written i see where the problem is. To avoid unnessary argument and understand the message m tryin to pass across to u please read dis carefully wit understanding.

Christians are under a different law from the law that Israel was under. Israel was under the Law of Moses given by God to Israel at Mt. Sinai (Exodus, chapters 19-31). This law continued in force until Jesus Christ
died on the cross ( Colossians 2:14 ). Jesus was an Israelite. The Law of Moses was in effect during His lifetime. Therefore, He kept the Law of Moses in order to be faithful to God. This explains why Jesus worshipped in the synagogue on the sabbath.

The Law of Moses taught: "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is a sabbath unto Jehovah thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates" (Exodus 20:8-10 ). "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and he entered, as his custom was, into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up to read" (Luke 4:16 ).
While Jesus lived on earth, He kept the Law of Moses and taught others to do so. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said: "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished." (Matthew 5:17-18 ). Please notice that Jesus said nothing would pass from the Law "till all things be accomplished."
Jesus fulfilled all that was written in the Old Testament—the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets.
"And he said unto them, These are my words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me" ( Luke 24:44 ).

"What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions , till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; and it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator" (Galatians 3:19 ). The Law was to be in effect "till the Seed should come." The promised Seed was Jesus Christ ( Genesis 3:15 ; 12:1-3 ; Galatians 3:16 ).

Please notice again, "So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor." ( Galatians 3:24-25 ). If we are no longer under the Law of Moses, then obviously the Sabbath law is not binding upon us today.
When did the Law of Moses as a law binding upon God’s people end? The answer is, it ended when Jesus died on the cross thus fulfilling it. Please notice: "But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace" (Ephesians 2:13-15 ). Jesus abolished the law of commandments (the Law of Moses which included the command to keep the sabbath, Exodus 20:8 ). He abolished it "in the flesh;" that is by His death on the cross (Colossians 2:14-17 ).

The new law , the Law of Christ, came into effect on Pentecost Day ( Acts 2 ). On that day, the church of Christ was established ( Acts 2:36-47 ). From that time, we find Christians meeting to worship upon the first day of the week which is Sunday.


What you are not understanding here is the concept of the collection of the saints(giving). Please read carefully.
First, Read from verse 1 of 1Cor 16 and tell me Paul did not ask the Galatians church to give on the first day of the week.

Secondly, Paul was collecting money from Gentile churches to help the poor in Jerusalem (Romans 15:25-27 ; 2 Corinthians, chapters 8 and 9; Galatians 6:6-10 ). God used this occasion to set forth His pattern of church finance. It was to be done upon the first day of the week for this is the time the church assembles to
worship (Acts 20:7 ; Revelation 1:10 ). It involves every member of the church. None is left out. It tells us how much we are to give. It is not a tithe as was the practice under the Law of Moses , for we are not under that law today ( Colossians 2:14 ; Hebrews 8:6-13 ). The more we have, the more we are required to give. It tells us the reason for giving. Funds will be available when needed.

God has given a plan by which His church can finance the work He has given us to do. God’s plan is recorded in I Corinthians 16:1 , 2 : "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come." Please notice the parts of God’s perfect plan:
1. What? "The collection for the saints"
2. When? "Upon the first day of the week” "
3. Who? "Each one of you."
4. Do what? "Lay by him in store"
5. How much? "As he may prosper"
6. Why? "That no collections be made when I come."


Here, i see u dont understand the concept of the Lord's supper and relating it to the first day of the week. please read with understanding, the work of envagelism was been done here, and i told u before its not compulsory the church service holds in the church, the members are the church and not the building. please read Romans 16:5 ,
1Corinthians 16:19 , Colossians 4:14 , where the same formula is used, seem to show that that is not the meaning here. They met in the Temple, they met also in what, in the modern sense of the word, would be the “church” of the new society, for the act of worship, above all, for the highest act of worship and of fellowship, for which the Temple was, of course, unsuitable.

Am happy at least u agree that meat in that context means food, cos tge words imply that as yet the solemn breaking of bread was closely connected with their daily life.

Now relating the Lord's supper to the first day of the week, please read carefully.
The accounts of the Lord’s supper are found in
Matthew 26:26-29 , Mark 14:22-25 , Luke 22:19-20 , Acts 2:42 ; 20:7 , and 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 ; 11:20-34 .
Some call the Lord’s supper “the Mass.” Others refer to it as “the Eucharist.” But what does the Bible call it? Often it is simply referred to as
"the breaking of bread" ( Acts 2:42 : 20:7). It is also called "communion" for it is a sharing in the body and blood of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16 ). It is called
"the table of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 10:21 ). It is also called "the Lord’s supper" because the Lord is the One who gave it (1 Corinthians 11:20 ).

When should it be eaten and how often?
The only day mentioned in the Word of God for eating the Lord’s supper is the first day of the week ( Acts 20:7 ). The first day of the week is Sunday, the day Jesus Christ arose from the dead (Luke 24:1 ). It is the day the church began for Pentecost came on the first day of the week ( Leviticus 23:1-17 ; Acts 2 ). It is the day Christians met to worship ( Acts 20:7 ; 1 Corinthians 16:2 ; Revelation 1:10 ).

It is evident you don't know anything beyond the basic. No wonder you argue blindly and I don't have time for it.
It's a big shame a supposed christian who has a brain would call 10 commandments the law of Moses. There are 10 commandments (Exo. 20. The 2 Tablets of law was placed inside the ark 'Exo. 40:20') and there are ceremoial law/law of ordinance (law of Moses placed beside the ark 'Deut. 31:26).
One was written on tablets of stone by God's fingers and the other was written by Moses. Please know the difference before you reply or don't reply at all.
If it was the custom of Jesus to keep the sabbath just as a verse you quoted here mentioned and even Acts 17:2 said the same thing Paul, whose example are you following?
Don't be afraid to research. I've been there. Long quote won't make your point right.

Raymondfayowole:
Obviously you don't know that the Jewish day starts at nightfall, and continues throughout the night and following day, until the next night.

May be you forgot I was the one that told you days start at sunset for jews. Go figure.
And this brings us to the fact that they don't hold service in the night. I've already told you the situation surrounding that particularly meeting, but somehow, you ignored.
Sabbath has just passed and Paul, travelling the following morning (being sunday) had to meet other believers before his departure in the next morning. You certainly don't know these don't even go on a long journey on a special day like the sabbath. So if sunday means anything to Paul like you want us to believe, he won't journey on a first day.

Better Explanation of 1cor 16:1-2
That there is here clear proof that the first day of the week was observed by the church at Corinth as holy time.

Nothing suggests that first day of the week is of any significance.
Read this; Acts 13:42 "And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath"
Now if the first day meant anything to Paul, he could have said that "don't worry, tomorrow is our "holy time" , I'll preach these topic again. Instead, it had to wait till the next SABBATH.
Paul was still there the next sabbath (verse 44). This was the Church in Antioch.
Concerning the Church at Corinth, read, Acts 18:4 "And he reasoned in the synagogue EVERY SABBATH, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks". So for how long did he reason with the Corinthians in the synagogue EVERY SABBATH? Verse 11 "And he continued there a YEAR AND SIX MONTHS, teaching the word of God among them".
That's 18 Months between verse 4

There can have been no reason why this day should have been designated except that it was a day set apart to religion, and therefore deemed a proper day for the exercise of benevolence toward others.

May be you missed the part where I said believers at Jerusalem need help and they had to solicit support from believers in other places? Please just read down from verse 3-5. If he will be passing through
their city on his way on a monday and he wants them to get something ready for him so that they won't have to be gathering for the collection(verse 2b), when will it be the best time for this people to gather what he asked them to gather if not on sunday? He's trying to save his time. He made it clear that he wants the collection before he comes and this made it clear that the collection could still have been on another day but the first day. This is common sense.

(2) this order extended also to the churches in Galatia, proving also that the first day of the week was observed by them, and was regarded as a day proper for the exercise of charity toward the poor and the afflicted. And if the first day of the week was observed, by apostolic authority, in those churches, it is morally certain that it was observed by others. This consideration, therefore, demonstrates that it was the custom to observe this day, and that it was observed by the authority of the early founders of Christianity.

There is no mention of him telling the galatians to do the same thing on the first day, but we know he asked them to do it.
No Apostle observed or recognised the first day of the week for anything. They eat together, preached just like any other day of the week.

If u say breaking of bread has nothing to do with church service:
1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
Relate dat verse with matt 26:26, and john 6:47-58

You don't get it, the Lord's Supper was essentially not a church service thing. Were you not the one that quoted a verse that admonished believers to reason together in the temple daily, breaking bread from house to house? You want to tell me breaking bread from house to house is church service? Even the Lord's Supper was not a church service. It was the last dinner Jesus had with his followers and it didn't take place on the first day. You missed this part too?
They certainly held communion any day of the week
.

Now please read
Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
D latter part of that verse said the "Lord added to the church".

See for yourself: "continue daily" (everyday, no mention of first day) in one accord in the temple". Now he continued by saying "breaking bread from house to house (not in the temple where services normally hold), did eat their meat ( he is referring to food here).
Here is Paul telling believers to break bread together daily and you think this is reserved for sunday and it takes place at church services. I still don't know why, for some strange reasons, you look at this verse and still think it supports your sunday importance.

Please try and meditate and research better on these things.

No, you're the one who needs the meditation and research.

majekdom2:
do this in remembrance of me... does not mean celebrate my death forever.

That was Lord's Supper, not easter.

Birthdays weren't something that was a tradition. Choosing a day to celebrate the birth is nothing wrong as long as it is practised with the right mind.

Since when has our faith in Christ been about what we feel is right?
A pagan festival turned christian and it feels right?
Why do you think God sent the Israelites on exile? They were compromising with paganism, just like we're doing today.

Has God left the church because Christmas is praciced?

That remains to be seen. The Israelites for many centuries were disobedient to God and worshipped strange gods, but He still called them His people, ain't it?

Raymondfayowole:
Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

It was after sabbath and Paul was departing the next morning to Jerusalem for penticost (see verse 16). What took place here was Paul meeting the believers there before departing. It was his last time with them. Did Paul preached? Yes, they do everyday sameway they break bread together daily from house to house (acts 2:46)
In the verse which mentioned Paul asking believers in corinth to lay in store what they have upon the first day of the week. He didn't instruct anyone to meet anywhere, he only asked them to gather what they have to support their needy brethren back in Jerusalem. Again, not a church service.
But if you look up Acts 18:4 the end, you'll see a mention of Paul reasoning in the temple every sabbath for 6months. That's 72 Sabbaths. Ponder on that!

Raymondfayowole:
u are just confusing yourself cause u are not sure when the breaking of bread took place. let me bring the bible to u for better understanding. The bible said upon the first day of week, not evening of of Sabbath .

Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Listen to yourself. The verse you just quoted says upon the first day of the week...and then Paul continued his speech until midnight.
Does that sound like a morning to you? Let me bring english closer to you: what does it mean to say for example "the end time is upon us?" Does it mean it's the end already? Isn't it obvious from the verse you quoted that Paul continued his speech until midnight? From when? When it was upon the first day.

For Christ sake what is wrong in having a church service at evening. The important tin is dat the service holds on the first day of the week. The latter part of that verse said he continued his speech until midnight.

The physical structure of a church is not the church nd can never be the church, the members are the church.

Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

1 Corinthians 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
Mark 16:2, John 20:19

The I Cor. 16:2 was about Paul telling believers in Corinth to gather whatever they have to assist believers back in Jerusalem on the first day of the week.
If you study the background to that verse, you'll see that believers in Jerusalem were having hard times because of persecution. Paul was telling them to lay in store what they have for their brethren in Jerusalem before he comes so that they won't have to gather again. It was a sabbath. And if they don't work on sabbath, when would be the next most appropriate day to gather what they have if not on the first day?
Breaking of bread simply means, having meals. Read Acts 2:46. It encourages believers to break bread together from one house to another
. It's a church service right? You still ignore the fact that the breaking of bread of Jesus with his disciples was not on the first day?

if after u read all these bible passages nd u tell me tgat the Lords day is not on the first day of the week, then my brother mayb we try anoda language in interpreting the bible.

I'm a Berean, and I don't accept anything unless proven by the scripture.
You still haven't proven to me that the first day is the Lord's Day. Rather, it's a proven fact that sabbath is the Lord's Day and it's not first day of the week.

majekdom2:
all these I too know christians. You are talking passover, breaking of bread. I am talking death and resurrection. And check for the word "after" in my earlier post. Did Jesus himself celebrate his resurrection "after" death not "before". We read about the 3 wise men celebrating Jesus' birth. The fact that birthdays didn't have much record in the bible doesn't make it a bad practice. Has God left the church because of Christmas celebration. The church has grown over the years and more people celebrating Christmas. Many of you don't even understand God and how he works..... you dont!

The Church has gone into apostacy rather. Why do you think Jesus Himself was worried he will not meet the faith he came to die for at his second coming?
There must be a falling away first, then the end will come. The falling away started a very long time ago when strange doctrines started creeping into the faith. It's a fact that christmas and easter have pagan origins.
This is why I feel that many people will readily accept the "mark of the beast" because they won't expect it to be what it would be.
If you don't have any problem celebrating a pagan festival with christian coloration, you won't have any problem if tomorrow they pass a law that goes against the law of God.

Raymondfayowole:
I agree i don't know what am saying,
First, you said the Jewish day starts at sunset which i agree with you but did u know that the Sabbath ended at sunset, the first day of the week would begin at sunset, read John 20:19;26, Matt 28:1. countries in the world dont share same time zone, when is your own fist day of the week, is it Saturday evening, our time here is that 12:00 am starts a new day. You wrote that the breaking of bread started almost at the first day of the week... but it is clear in the bible that "upon the first day f the week".

Secondly, how will you say coming together to break bread is not a church service read 1cor 10:16, Acts 2:46-47. To break bread simply means to celebrate the Lords supper every fist day of the week.

The first day of the week is also the Lord's day in which the disciples gather to break bread, give unto the Lord. Acts 2:42, 1cor 16:2.

I don't have time for back and forth argument.
It should be clear to you right now that the breaking of bread in question either took place late on sabbath day or very early on the first day, either way, it's in the evening and don't tell me they held church services in the evening.
It's a common practice for early believers to do everything in common including breaking of bread. The acts 2:46 makes it clear that they break bread from house to house. Does breaking bread from one house to another have anything to do with church service? The verse also said that they usually go to the temple daily.
And yes, breaking of bread means having meals together. For God's sake, even the "last supper" where Jesus broke bread with his disciples was a dinner with his disciples. The major significance is that it was his last with them...and it didn't take place on the first day. It was the night before the passover which should be about a thursday night. So what's your point of tagging the breaking of bread with the first day if the example we are following didn't take place on a sunday.
No brother, sunday was not and can never be the first day. Jesus is the Lord of the sabbath and so, sabbath is the Lord's Day and by no means is it the first day.

Raymondfayowole:
The bible clearly stated when we are to celebrate his death and how we are to celebrate his death, every first day of the week. Acts 20:7, I cor 11:23-26

You don't know what you're saying and the verses you quoted has nothing to do with celebrating anything on the first day.
Acts 20:7 said upon the first day of the week (which means, it still the 7th day. Remember the jewish day starts in the evening at sunset, these verse is talking about saturday evening, not sunday). The disciples came together to break bread. This is not a church service, but dinner and sure it's Paul going on a journey on sunday morning. This makes sense when you realise that this breaking of bread took place on saturday evening (almost 1st day of the week since their day starts in the evening).
This has nothing to do with celebrating the death of Jesus. Jesus only enjoins believers to break bread together in communion and even the day he said this was on passover day, and it wasn't first day of the week.

bnovative:
So did christ die in April?

Not April per se, but the first month of Jewish Calendar. The celebration of the resurrection of Christ should be 2 days after passover, and not always fall on a sunday.

kelib:
U call Monday to Sunday d way it is but always quick to remember pegan when it comes to Xmas read ur bible again God has given us right to Make a degree n He shall honour it so look for another topic cos if u want to follow history we r not suppose to go to church on Sunday cos it was a day set aside to worship d sun god but God does not reason like man we choose it as our Sabbath day n God himself honours it, Jesus never set a day n call it Sabbath day so read ur bible well n obtain d Devine knowledge n pray to d Holy Spirit for understanding

And where in the Bible did God honor sunday? Jesus never set a day and call it Sabbath? How then was he referred to as the Lord Of The Sabbath if it's not his day?
And for records, Sabbath is the 7th day, not sunday the 1st day. And yes, Jesus and his Apostles did keep the Sabbath. You should rather read your Bible.

AkpaMgbor:
There are many things we practice that Christ himself didn’t talk about..like a woman preaching in the church (it was Paul who talked on it and not Christ)..circumsicion wasn’t talked on by Christ (but Peter allowed Jewish converts to get circumscised)...so what say you on these? Are the Christians who listened to Paul and Peter condemned because Christ didn’t talk about these things in his teaching?

The essence of the death and resurrection of Christ is that it invalidates some old ways of life. Like animal sacrifice, jewish holidays (sabbath not among). Animals sacrifice is no longer necessary because Jesus has already sacrificed himself for us once and for all. The observation of jewish holidays like the passover is no longer an obligation, because all these are pointing to Jesus Christ that's why Paul said that they are shadows of things to come...when the perfect shall replace the imperfect.
In essence, not following the law of Moses (it's the law that specify what food, meat and drinks Jews should take; It's also the law that talks about the festivals) in this era is not obligatory and altogether not necessary.
Why? Because the 10 commandments defines what a sin is, the law of Moses (Handwriting of ordinance; Col. 2:14) specified the remedy for sin. And now that Jesus has been made sacrifice for us once and for all, that latter law is no longer necessary. So whether you get circumcised now or not, it does not compromise your faith in Christ. Whatever food or meat you decide to eat now, does not matter.
What then matters? Keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus (Rev. 12:17b).
What are these commandments? They are the 10 commandments in their true forms. And what is the faith/testimony of Jesus? It's the faith we have in Jesus Christ as the Chosen One that came to die for our sin.
What's the place of christmas (a festival with pagan origin) in all of this? None.
Christmas was not mentioned in the bible nor was it celebrated by Jesus or any of the Apostles.
The same people that changed the day of worship from the 7th day to sunday (changing the 4th commandments) are the same people that incorporated christmas and easter (pagan festivals that previously had nothing to do with Christians) into Christianity.

lunacol:
But you worship the Almighty God on a "sun day" (A Pagan deity) or a Saturn day(A pagan deity also)

Whether or not someone decides to name Sabbath, Saturn Day, is not an issue, The issue is, Almighty God sanctified the 7th day (friday sundown to saturday sundown) after creation ( Gen 2:3) far back before the first man walked the earth. Before now, 7th has always been known to be synonymous with Yahweh's day and not saturn.
We all know sunday has been a day for worshipping the sun by pagans and has no place in the Bible

Dnaz:
16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath.
Colossians 2:16

Christmas is our festival to celebrate Christ, don't pass judgement on us

The Man you're quoting was not trying to justify the celebration of christmas, but was trying to tell us that the death of Jesus has blotted out the handwriting of ordinance ( the law of Moses and should not be confused with the 10 commandments: compare the difference between the Law in Exo. 40:20, and that in Deut. 31:24-26)
Apostle Paul was talking about the law written by Moses (see Deut. 31:24) because that was the handwriting of ordinance written as a witness against us: compare Col. 2:14 and Deut. 31:26b).
The Colossian 2 has nothing to do with christmas nor is it a point of justification to break any of the 10 commandments.

Since when has our faith in Jesus been about what we feel?
No Christian is obliged to take part in Christmas. In fact, its pagan root alone is a reason not to have anything to do with it.
I still worship in a Church that celebrates Christmas, but whatever they do concerning Christmas, is none of my business. They are on their own.

baralatie:
so according to you sokoto state and the south south States in Nigeria are in the same region?
so also Morroco is now a part of west Africa?

While Sokoto can not be said to be a South-South state, we could argue it's a western state, just like Morocco now being a West African State (or a North-West African country if you don't want to separate it from North Africa)

baralatie:
ECOWAS is being considered to be a lazy body to you.let Morroco encourage it neighbouring countries such as Egypt,Tunisia, Libya,Algeria etc to form the economic community of north African states and pursue the same goals like ECOWAS.
what is difficult about it.

Let's not pretend to know Geography more in Nigeria. If Kwara State is considered Northern and a State like Cross River is South-Southern and not South-Eastern, I don't see a reason why a Morocco can not be a West African State.
This people want to belong somewhere regionally, and ECOWAS is the only option that comes to their mind and that's fine.

I can't close my account with GTB even if Innoson is my Father.
I mean, what's in it for me beyond worthless sentiment?

Even when EcoBank f*cked me up, I simply abandoned them, not close the account.

baralatie:
believe me Morroco is a wrong door.it is a one way door that only opens into west Africa and stays shut.it does not open the other way on any ground

Let them come. We've been lazy for too long. May be it's time for us to sit tight and prove to them that we're still the big brother we've been and make them realise how they've made a huge mistake thinking they could upturn our influence in West Africa.
This is not the time to be paranoid.

SSBN:
Well i dunno. Remove Ghana and Nigeria ECOWAS takes on a Franco identity. The only reason ECOWAS is Anglo dominated is because of Nigeria's sheer economic might that sees it contributing %70 to the Bloc. Take in Morocco we already have a Franco counter weight to Nigeria in every indices. If Morocco decides to outspend Nigeria for influence (there is no reason why they cant) and decides to engage militarily on regional issues...............

Believe me, you're over rating Morocco. They are no match for Nigeria. That's even if they have ulterior motives at all.
And the last time I checked, francophone states have always been in the majority in West Africa, so I don't see a Morocco making anything more difficult.

In every situation there are hidden opportunities waiting to be discovered. Even if the admission of Morocco will pose economic challenges for Nigeria, this is an opportunity for us to shine even brighter in the affairs of West African sub-region.
Who is afraid of challenges? Believe me, all I see in this is a door of opportunities.

DevdanSanguine:
Sabbath starts on Friday dumbo. I keep questioning how people can be so ignorant even with the internet. SMH

(Gen. 1:5b)..."and the EVENING and the morning were the first day."
Jewish days start at sundown everyday, not in the morning like our normal days.
It has nothing to do with Islamic Jumat.

petra1:
Not true pastors are not preaching law. they teach the whole counsel of the word of God . salvation,holy spirit ,speaking in tongues,prayers,righteousness,evangelism. how come you didnt mention all these? you are the one dwelling on money .

They dwell most on monetary matters than on salvation. No Sunday will go by without the mention of how important it is to give in most churches.
Giving is not a priority in Christianity, salvation is. And no one can be saved by just giving.

People give in the hope of getting blessings from God in return (that's the preaching). How many people give nowadays without having that expectation?

sabbath is shadow . christ is sabbath

No Bro., Sabbath of the fourth commandment is not a shadow of anything or anyone. It's a law of God and it's not pointing us to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It's a pity if you don't know the difference between the 10 commandments ( placed within the ark of covenant :Exodus 40:20) and the law of moses/ceremonial laws (placed outside the ark:Deut. 31:24-26). The formal points us to sin, while the latter was the remedy for sin. In this dispensation, the 10 commandments still point us to sin, but now, Jesus is our remedy for sin. In essence, the ceremonial or the law of Moses was a shadow of the death and resurrection of Jesus and was nailed to the cross, not the 10 commandments. Except of course, you don't know that it's part of the law that says 'thou shall not kill', 'thou shall not commit adultery', 'thou shall not have any other God beside me', etc. They are all cast in stone (you know that's a symbol of eternity right?).

i said this many times , principles in the kingdom of God existed before the law and in the law. prayer ,fasting, offering ,tithe ,almsgiving ,worship etc are all eternal why do you do all these and its only tithe you single out nit to do? thats the question

There is no principle that existed before the law. If you think the law first came into existence at Sinai, you're mistaken. On what basis was Lucifer banished from heaven? On what basis was Adam and Eve sent away from Eden? On what basis was the world destroyed during the days of Noah? On what basis was Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed?
We all know that the law defines what sin is and that there is no sin without the law. How then can you say anything existed before the law of God when sin itself is older than all the principles you've mentioned?
Of all the things you mentioned, it's the law of God and worship that are eternal. There won't be any need for prayer, fasting and offering in paradise, you know?

its not about how it was done. Abel gave first fruit ,God told isreal to give first fruit because they came out of slavery.but Abel did not come out of slavery . first fruit ,first born all belong to God. because he's alpha. its not the HOW that counts but the WHAT. the offering structure or tithe structure may differ but the important thing is that tithes and offerings are principles in Gods kingdom

Giving first fruit was not a requirement for Abel. He did it out of free will. Anybody can do that now. Now the principle of giving first fruits and tithes as specified for the Israelites are contained in the same law that Apostle Paul refers to as the handwriting of ordinance that was nailed to the cross.

of course some honest saints see tithe as a limitation and thats the problem they have with the legalism. my own is if God hasn't stopped tithe . we must keep giving tithe . it does not stop us from giving more for other things



there are different kings of givings or collections in the bible ,thats only one of them

Tithe-as specified in the old covenant-is not a requirement for Christians under the faith of Jesus Christ. You may check the whole New Testament and you will not find a single mention of tithe. What we had was believers giving according to their will -even selling their belongings -to take care of the less privileged among them.

thats not true. how many members go to bed on empty stomach?

This is like asking how many people are poor in Nigeria. Common man, are you seriously asking me that question?
How many people can afford to send their children to these universities owned by churches?
What's the essence of building a school with God's money when most God's children can not afford to study there? Proceeds of offerings in the time of the apostles were used to take care of the less privileged and not to make profits out of it.

are you saying the God they serve and pray to does not answer prayer?

No, that's not what I'm saying. But it's a fact that we will always have the poor among us (Jesus actually said it).

we should not rubbish the word of God because we don't want to give him his tithe, God promise those who give to receive.

Nobody is rubbishing the word of God. It's no more God's tithe if it's not serving the purpose of God.

im not aware any preacher connects tithes to heaven

That's the point. Why so much emphasis on a subject that can't get you eternity?

petra1:
We are not under the law as s system , how ever there are principles the law contains that are principles of the kingdom of God . These principles have no expiry date . Many of them even existed before the law came . Such as Prayer , fasting , Tiyhed and offering , helping strangers , honoring parents . Etc. These are not shadows which christ fulfilled .



What You’re talking was in the law too. It’s called FREEWILL OFFERING . No matter how much a man condemns content of the law . He will still find himself contradicting himself . Because the content of the law is good because if it is the law of God . It reveals Gods mins but seeking justification by the law is a curse .

So the most important laws that Pastors preach about these days are those pertaining to giving and money?
Whatever happens to the law concerning Sabbath. As far as I'm concerned, this was instituted at the 7th day of creation, yet we hear pastors preaching this law has been nailed to the cross (I wonder how a part of the moral can be nailed to the cross).
A point of correction, tithing laws didn't preceed the moral laws (ten commandments). What happened at Sinai was just a reminder (you can read up the verses). People have always known that killing, adultery, theft, worshipping images, profaning the Sabbath, etc, are sins. The moral laws of God is as old as sin itself (without the law, there is no sin, right?). What's new is the ceremonial laws which pertains to festivals, rites, first fruits, etc. All the mandatory givings are under this ceremonial laws.
I'm not aware of anyone in the New Testament paying tithes as it was done under the old covenant. What we had was believers giving according to their capabilities (may be more than a tenth) and how it was spent, was not at the discretion of one G.O. And it's on record that it wasn't all money. They used the proceed to assist believers who were lacking.
What do we have today? Pastors flying jets while church members go to bed empty stomach.
It's OK to pay tithes, but it should also be made clear that tithers may not necessarily make heaven.

petra1:
Free will offering nko?

I'm not against offerings or even tithes. But being selective in obedience to some laws is what I'm against. Why should pastors preach that we're no longer under the law, yet still preach about the importance of paying tithes, even when they know that payment of tithes is part of the law they preach has been nailedto the cross.
Believers should have the liberty to give according to their will. That's Christian giving.

Ubenedictus:
you have been misinformed.

The state prosecuted people who knowing wrongly translated the Bible or distributed those wrong translation..

The state? You mean the pagan Rome in conjunction with papacy? Since when has it become the role of the state to censor religious beliefs? Wrongful translation of the Bible, like changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday? Justifying the worship of images? Tell me who misinterprets the bible better than the Catholic Church?

since you are looking for a verse where an apostle call the Church Catholic maybe I'll give it to you when you show me where a apostle call the follower of Jesus a Christian or show me the word Bible in the Bible. yet you call followers of Jesus a Christian even though no apostle did that.

It's a common knowledge that the followers of Christ were first c alled Christians in Antioch (Acts 11:26). Yes, bible simply means "book" which is exactly what it is, a book.

7 Church in revelation are located in Asia minor the place where apostle john taught before he was exiled, they weren't different denominations with different doctrine you ask how I know they were Catholic, it is simple, the early Christian from around that era say so.

Yes, seeing the way most of the churches were compromising with pagan doctrines, they must Catholics

btoks:
I’ll give you an analogy (although no analogy is perfect).

If I were to pull Nigeria’s 1963 constitution, you’ll find the basis of running the country – parliamentary system etc. What you won’t find in there is the entire history of Nigeria or any future developments. You won’t even find most of the current names of states in there.

If someone were to come in from outside Nigeria and point out that the states we have can’t be part of Nigeria because they aren’t listed in the 1963 Constitution, won’t you find that absurd?!!


There is rich Christian history that was recorded outside of the books of the bible. The bible is not a historical document that recorded everything that happened in early Christianity. Try studying the early church fathers to get more knowledge.

You won't find where all 12 apostles went to within scripture , you only find this within the tradition of the church.

Sola scriptura was never taught in early Christianity and is a relatively new invention after the protestant reformation.

Biblical records point to the fact that there were Christians in Rome before Paul and Peter ever went there. The book of Acts 18:2 led credence to this fact. So the claim that Peter founded the church in Rome or ever became a Bishop there can not be proven, not from the Bible, not from any other source. It's a wild claim by those who are only interested in claiming supremacy over the church of Christ even when it's clearly written in the scripture that Christ is the head of the church.
Well, the church of Christ can not likened to Nigeria in any sense. The Bible is clear on how we should worship God, and this, is not subject to change like our constitution. Christianity is a very simple religion and doesn't require all the complexities we're giving it. Early believers gather on Sabbaths worship God and pray together, they preached the gospel in pure form. Not adding their own knowledge or point of view. The Bible was their guide.
Scriptures would enable men to discern Satan's deceptions and withstand
his power. He opposed the wisdom and power of the word. The Bible would exalt God and place finite men in their true position; therefore he always sought to conceal and suppress its
sacred truths in the name of "church tradition ". This logic was adopted by the Roman Church. For
hundreds of years the circulation of the Bible was prohibited. The people were forbidden to read it
or to have it in their houses, and unprincipled priests and prelates interpreted its teachings to sustain
their pretensions.
When men abandon sound doctrines, they fall prey to fables. Apostle Paul warns
his brethren that "the mystery of iniquity doth already work." 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4, 7. Even at that
early date he saw, creeping into the church, errors that would prepare the way for the development
of the papacy. The mystery of iniquity attained perfection when the Papal church chose to exalt traditions of men over the scriptures.

Ubenedictus:
this only shows your ignorance dear.

the Armenian Church was called the Catholic Church in Armenia, it wasn't alone, it was part of the Catholic Church and was in communion with the pope and other Catholic bishops. Their bishops fell into heresy and was excommunicated from the Catholic Church in the council of chalcedon, they were doubting the nature of Christ, apart from that they agree 90% with the Catholic Church, actually they recently cleared up their difference and are now part of the Catholic Church.

2ndly if you actually read up on early Christianity you would have found out that the first and most important Christian city about 40Ad was Jerusalem, that is where the apostles James and Peter sat, when Paul ran into trouble during his preaching and he was attacked by the judaizers he took the matter to Jerusalem to be settled in the council of Jerusalem... that was the main Christian center. after Paul began to preach he records that he went to Jerusalem to make sure he wasn't running in vain and he was received by Peter and James in Jerusalem.
soon after James was killed peter left Jerusalem for Antioch, he sent his disciple Mark to Alexandria and those places became the most important Christian centers,... finally apostle Peter and even Paul came to Rome, Paul was a prisoner but Peter wasn't, Rome finally became the most important Christian center as it was the church of the apostles... any church that had issues referred it to Rome... in fact there are letters available of the church of Rome intervening in Corinth in the 1st century. That prominence is recognized by all the early Church.

Neither Paul, nor Peter founded the Roman Church. I wonder where you get your evidence, while even the Bible states otherwise. If you read your Bible very well you'll see that there were believers in Rome before the apostles made a visit. And there is no evidence that Peter stayed long or ever became a Bishop in Rome. It's one of the lies from the Roman pit.
And if you'd agree with me, evident in the Bible itseif, Rome was never a prominent Christian center, at least, not until after the last chapter of the Bible was written.
And I asked again, was Jesus referring to different branches of Catholic Churchtthehis message to the seven churches in the book of revelation? Please note that all the churches mentioned were in Asia minor.

petra1:
I was analyzing daddy freeze error. He dwell on an irrelevant tithe to deceive the people. As though that is what tithe was meant for. I'm not advocating for mosaic law. Just analyzing . We are not tithing based on maosaic law. Tithing existed 400 years before the law came . Tithes and offerings are eternal principles .

Anything that's not in the moral law (10 commandments) us not binding on anyone. We can give accordingly as the spirit leads us.