₦airaland Forum

Darling KunleOshob,

I don't think it is fair that you accuse your sweetie in public like this. Haba, if we get kwanta, can't we hug and sort it out behind the curtains? I really would have loved to once again succumb to your 'oga-ship', but it seems this 'ship' is carrying us to somewhere of unstable currents.

Okay, with all due respects, let me point out a few things, okay?

KunleOshob:
On the contrary i answered every question you posed thoroughly, it was you who refused to answer questions.

I hear. No vex. I disagree, though - but for Barrack Obama's sake, make i chill.

KunleOshob:
Point out one single question i haven't addressed.

Dem dey there, but again I go chill.

KunleOshob:
To date you have refused to tell us the difference between what you consider as tithes and other offerings.

I was going to do so, after answering sleekymag's questions in detail. Initially I had wanted to refrain from posting my reasons for tithing because I sourced early that, rather than discuss them, opposers would just dismiss and attack them without reflection. I went ahead and did so - and in due course I shall post them.

KunleOshob:
Also you refused to answer my question on which law (in specific terms and with biblical evidence) was being refered to in hebrews 7: 12 & 18.

Again, I for chill here. But to help you see that these allegations you often throw at me are quite often unfounded, let me point out just this single case.

It is not true that I refused to answer that question, Kunle. Please see for yourself:
[list]

(c) The Law you are referring to here is the very same one that the people received under the Levitical priesthood according to verse 11 -

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood,
(for under it the people received the law,)
what further need was there that another priest should rise
after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Now as such, you cannot assume that Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek fell under the Levitical order to pressume therefore that with the change of the Levitical priesthood, therefore the "law" has been changed and woosh! - no tithes! That is not what that chapter says at all.

(d) The tithes of Abraham to Melchizedek (verses 2, 4, 6) were never once based on any Law! Never!!!!!!!! It is for this reason that verse 8 makes clear that here men who die receive tithes - but THERE He receives them of whom it is testified that He LIVES PERPETUALLY!! How clear could that be, Kunle? Are you going to deny that very verse and allege that "no, he does not live perpetually and so does not receive them"?

[/list]

At least, you can see that I answered that question - and there is just no basis to allege that I refused to answer it. Besides, I have answered that same question repeatedly from others who used them as the basis for their arguments. The same thing about the several questions you alleged I never answered on Hebrews 7 - I answered them, discussed them in detail and never once ran to any website to ferret ideas for my answers! The questions I raised there were glibly ignored by you, only to come back and allege these things against me.

No worries, though - I still love you all the same.

ud4u:
When the preacher stepped off of the bus, he literally grabbed the nearest light
pole, held on, and said, oh God; I almost sold your Son for a quarter.'

I enjoyed the devotional. Thank you, and be encouraged to share more.

Holy.

nanayisha:
As a Muslim I have to be careful of my response with this post.

Okay, you're a muslim - thanks for throwing in your worries here and not in the muslim section. I have imagined that people who are too gleeful to applaud every idea passed off without weighing their underpinnings would not see that. There are several threads that have been raised about this issue already; but why this one on "The Ignorance of Christians"? On the contrary, Christians are not ignorant - and the OP being a muslim should have known this right out of his quran that Christians are intelligent people!

It's easy to point accusing fingers at others - what do we make of your own slobber in capital letters:

nanayisha:
SHAME ON ALL OF YOU.

??

Could we also see you open a thread in fairness and tagged: "The Ignorance of Muslims"?

Tasma:
Why can’t we build a system that works on education, enlightenment, care and concern for our fellow man?

By that, you assume that the Christian faith is allergic to education, enlightenment, care and concern for our fellow man?

Chrisbenogor:
Why God requires people to starve is a wonder, and somebody says he does not like pain.
Who knows the psychological effects of staying without food for forty days and nights?

It is not a requirement to fast forty days and nights.

Matthew 15:10

And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand

KunleOshob:
True you quoted scripture but you forced your own interpretation into it and chose to ignore clear biblical injunctions i pointed out to you.

If at all they were my own interpretations, Kunle, how come you were never able to simply answer the questions I offered? How come you were making huge mistakes about the Law in the NT? How come you never referred to those bloopers after I pointed them out to you? Do you want us to compare notes and outline just how many instances you tripped yourself?

By the way, what do you make of this: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-178839.128.html#msg3035262 ??

huxley:
Invisible forces. What do you mean by forces here? If you meant it in the scientific/engineering sense (such as gravity, electromagnetism, etc), then most such forces are invisible anyway, but the cause of the force may not be. If you meant it in the spiritual or metaphorical sense, I thought these are usually invisible anyway.

Lol, no - I do not mean it in the scientific/engineering sense such as we know it. In some instances, they may seem to operate in similar ways; but by force, I mean a being that is present in that environment but not visible to anyone's eyes. All one sees it that some effects are taking place where no one sees the actual 'force' or 'being' effecting it. Sometimes, though, these forces or beings are only a little apparent or visible for a brief moment and then they melt into thin air.

Does that mean that it is brain tricks that are supposing we had seen something that is just not existing? I doubt so. Lol, think about it this way: would 9 people have their brains playing tired psychotic tricks on them at the same time if they all saw someone being dragged across the floor with legs a little off the floor in the opposite direction against her will? We have heard of objects thrown and being upturned violently without anyone having touched them - could that be a trick of the brain?

There are indeed forces/beings that are invible to our eyes - that they are not visible does not mean that they are non-existent. As an example, think about the UFOs posted earlier at one time where the objects appear and disappear without a trace - and they were captured on the cameras of space scientists! I don't think anyone would be arguing that such appearing and disappearing forces/beings/objects are merely mental tricks of brain-fatigue/ These things are indeed real, though not always visible to our eyes.

huxley:
The effects. What really were these effects? Would they be things like fits, muscle spasms, uncontrollable use of invectives, etc, etc? Are any of these known to be caused only by "invisible forces"? Could all or some of these be explained by well known naturalistic means?

I submit that some of these effects could be explained naturally - insome cases, these forces take over and control their victims in such a way as to force them to do extra-ordinary things. In such instances, these things are done by the victims themselves, especially when they injure themselves.

However, how does one explain situations where some of these effects are not caused by the victims themselves? Granted, this does not happen in every single case, for these forces/beings act in dynamic ways. But how does someone interprete a situation where someone finds marks and injuries on their bodies that they did not self-inflict?

If I allude to another witnessed incident, I have seen where a roommate of mine woke up with long, dark-red lines all over her body like they were scratched on her by long female nails. There was nothing seemingly wrong with her, no illness, nor was she thought to have been possessed - but those marks just appeared on her body. After she had sought medical help (not even that she felt ill), there were no medications prescribed other than ointments which she was advised to use several times during the day and before she went to bed. Of course, by this time I had become very worried indeed; but my amazement was rather that she had not even used the ointment when those marks had all disappeared! How would I know? We both went together to the pharmacist, and she had asked me to help give a thorough embalming afterwards. I saw the marks, and the commotion was even greated when it was learnt that they had all disappeared. I will not go beyond what I knew had happened, though up until now I don't know if another girl in our room was responsible for it - since she had threatened the victim of "opko" (some incantations) the previous night on . . . a missing underwear! By then I had not known Christ, so I ducked for my life.

Anyway, even leaving that subjective experience, I'm sure that a few other reports point to the effects of invisible forces which are inexplicable on natural terms.

Cheers.

Hi huxley,

Many thanks for those salient questions, and I shall try to be as objective as possible, and refrain from imposing or pointing to my own subjective experiences (though I have witnessed some of these phenomena). Where applicable, I might make references to them, if they would help.

However, I'm doing okay, and trust the same for you, yes?

huxley:
I am really interested in three entities here - the witnesses, the invisible forces, and the effects of these forces.

The witnesses. What did they see? Did they see the forces or the effects of the forces? If they saw the effects of the invisible forces, how could they have known that these tangible effects were caused by invisible force.

Supposing the victim was suffering from some neurological condition that caused involuntary muscle spasms, fits, etc. How would this be distinguishable from the effects of "invisible forces"?

Are the witnesses discerning enough to make reliable "diagnosis" of the victims plight?

Okay, let's take them in two parts:

- the qualifications of the witnesses

- the pointers of what they saw

If I kep my answers within the context of the scenario posted in the vid above, I would say that there are two groups of credible witnesses in that event. First, there were the relatives of the victim, especially the woman's daughter, Mitchell - and the question is, what would they gain anyway if they alleged false information against their own family member? The second, is the professionally trained personnel who dealt with the paranormal. In this case, the question was directly asked if it were not possible that the victim was suffering from just a psychosis - and both medically and physically, such an inference was ruled out only after thorough investigations were conducted on those premise.

The second issue now is what did they see? How would we know about the effects of invisible forces responsible for these attacks? Let's note a few things they stated:

(a) these force(s) would rip out hair from the scalp - they saw it happen:

This is not about the victim ripping hair out of her scalp, as distinct from what
she could do to herself under such conditions. If she was doing these things
by herself, no big deal - they would know and be able to say that was what
she was doing to herself.

(b) appearances of marks which could not be explained as self-inflicted:

One who was trained would be able to tell if she could do such a thing to or of
herself; however, we could see indeed that after checking the case, such ideas
or suggestions that she did so herself was ruled out.

Now, from what I have seen in display, I can't explain what force was responsible for the case where the victim was dragged backwards across the floor before our very eyes. Okay, I know this sounds spooky and hard to be believed - but there are cases where this has happened; plus, objects in the house moving without reference to anyone touching them (the over-turning of the furniture in the home which were not attributed to any person among them?). I take these as mild reports: in more serious cases that I have witnessed, I had to leave run from the scene: how do you explain a phenomena where someone's neck begins to crackle as she wreathed in excruciating pain and was being dragged across the floor? This dragging happened in such a way that she could not have done it on her own - her hands were stretched out as if longing to grab hold of something in front of her or longing for help, and then both her legs immediately left the floor and were suspended a bit off the ground as she was pulled in the opposite direction? How does one explain such incidents?

KunleOshob:
I have nothing more to say because you have clearly demonstrated that you have no interest in learning what the word of god says and you would rather stick to the "Gospel according to pilgrim.1"

Not true - the things I pointed out are still there, the questions I offered are still there: all of these issues were pointed out from the Bible and not from some desperate ferreting of websites from outside the Bible. If you had real issues instead of imagined ones, you would be setting your thoughts on Scripture rather than the excuses offered so far.

Cheers.

KunleOshob:
As usual no substance, just running round in circles

See? I knew you would have nothing more to say!

https://smileyjungle.com/smilies/celebrate0.gif  Let's celebrate your otiose arguments o jare!

naomijt:
Your questions:

* does the spirit of man depart his body at death?

: The Bible does not say

* is the spirit of man conscious after the death of the body?

[b]: No; there is no consciousness in death (Psa 115:17; Eccl 9:5)[/b]

* what happens to the body at death?

: It disintegrates back to dust (Gen 3:19)

* what happens to the incorporeal parts (spirit/soul) at death?

: Apart from the fact that the incorporeal parts are said to be unconscious (asleep), the Bible doesn't tell us much more

* if the incorporeal parts survive death, where do they go?

: Hades, used to refer to death itself, or the state of death. But it is a state of unconsciousness, as seen from other scriptures.

As you must have noticed, where scripture is silent, I prefer to be silent.

Trying to find to almost everything sometimes leads us into trouble. We usually reach a dead end.

Knowledge is important in our walk with God, knowledge of scriptures. However, let's stick to the things that are clearly stated and that agrees with the general theme of scriptures.

Cheers!!!

P.S
jus seeing ur response. . .

I will be back

I've seen you riposte and will take time to point out a few things for your consideration as well. Thanks again and cheers.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
On the contrary Paul mentioned tithes three times in one chapter and the crux of the message he was taliking about was not even tithes(or it's relevance) neither was he talking about the the priesthood of melchizedek, Paul was essentially talking about the superioirity of Jesus christ over Abraham and he used the Melchizedek/ tithes issue as an analogy. So please stop trying to force another meaning into what paul clearly explained.

In the first place, the apostle was not comparing Jesus to Abraham, nor was he trying to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus over Abraham - there just is no basis for that contrast there, because the greatness of Abraham as the father of faith to believers is never an issue throughout the Bible. No Jew or Gentile believer had an issue with Abraham, nor were they seeking to make any contrast there - having pointed that out to you several times, I hope you would wise up on it and not suffer your argument another wasted effort.

Tithes may not be the particular issue discussed in that chapter, neither is Jesus superiority over Abraham the issue there. But the fact that several times Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek was mentioned in that chapter alone should make you begin to think deeply. If Abraham's greatness in contrast to Christ's superiority was the issue, there were other issues that could have been used for that greatness. In Genesis, Abraham's greatness was demonsrated in several ways, which the NT highlights all throughout:

* in him shall all the nations of the earth be blessed

* in him was his seed to be called

* he is called the friend of God - James 2:23

* he is called the father of believers (father of us all - Rom. 4:16)

* he is the one through whom the promised blessings would come to Jews and Gentiles

These are all pointing to the greatness of Abraham - and no Jew or Gentile Christians had any issue with Abraham's greatness at all - not a sinle time! It is remarkable that some of the things outlined there above were specifically said of Abraham and no one else -

* Moses, great as he was, was never called the 'father of us all'

* the nations were not called through Moses to inherit any blessings

* it was not through Moses that the called seed was to be blessed!

Many other men of faith were great as well; but no one worried about Abraham's greatness to be a matter of being contrasted or compared to Jesus Christ's superiority! These excuses that people inject into the passage are unfounded, because they beg the question! The apostle deliberately mentioned Abraham's tithes thrice - not as a irrelevant remark, but to show us indeed in verse 8 that there is someone who receives our tithes because it is testified that He lives perpetually!

This is not injecting my own thoughts into that verse - I've been pointing it out for millenia now and all you guys have been doing is scuttling here and there and seek further untenable excuses. Sorry, bro. . you haven't started sweating yet. He receives our tithes, but He will never force it upon anyone, just as He did not ask it of Abraham by command, Law or compulsion. As He did not force it on us, so we cannot legislate to force it on anyone else. Yet, He receives them because He lives perpetually! But not so with opposers - they will try to stand in His place and legislate for Him to "collectively condemn" what he never condemned one single time! And if someone asks you guys questions, you will return with sob stories for your excuses.

KunleOshob:
Sufficee to say i would remind you once again of Hebrews 7: 12 & 18. Which CONDENMED TITHES in all it's ramifications.

Sorry, those verses did not mention tithes as being condemned - it is the excuses that have taken permanent residence visas in your mind that is causing your problems. This is why I have asked simple questions about Romans 3:39, and up until now none of your adulators have dared to take up that challenge. Shay you assume the Law is dead and buried? Sorry, the apotle said: "God forbid: yea, we establish the law."

KunleOshob:
you are yet to explain with sound biblical basis which laws/ commandements were being refered to in thoses verses. _{Don't worry i would understand if you shy away from answering the question, might be a bitter pill to swallow}

Olodo. . . how many times have I repeated myself and pointed out the answers already?

Lol, just an email after the above posts:

                      Pilly, have you actually checked out what that guy huxley
                      was directing you to? Are you even acquainted with
                      Dr. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran? Just my observation though,
                      but it seems you dimissed huxley even before acquainting
                      yourself with Ramachandran. I think you should give it a try:
                      it won't hurt you ego.

                      V.J.


Okay, just so nobody misunderstands me, I'm actually acquainted with Dr. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, and I think I earlier mentioned a reference to him sometime ago ('ever dreamed of Mr. Vilayanur in San Diego').  I'm quite familiar with some of his works, have perused and enjoyed them, and have some other vids of his lectures in my fav folder. So, no - I wasn't dismissing huxley's offer at all.

Infact, I should go one step further and make a recommendation in addition to what huxley has offered - there's a fantastic website where readers could enjoy the various thoughts of thinkers around the world, whether arts, music, culture, technology, philosophy, entertainment, education, religion, etc. That website is TED.com - Ideas Worth Spreading - there you will find Dr. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran's talk on his study of the brain, 'A journey to the center of your mind' (divided into subsets - "capgrass syndrome, phantom limbs, sythesis" - TED.com.

Beyond that, browse or navigate the site and you will find so much to fascinate your mind.

Enjoy.

Word.

There is no brain trick that explains why several witnesses see the same effect of invisible forces attacking people.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
My dear pilgrim.1, whilst there are lots of other extra biblical literture that says a lot more melchizedek, i chose to only refer you to the ones backed by the bible so as not to cause further arguments. However the submissions in the links i provided are theoretical. ( iam not saying they are wrong). Lets even assume going by the analogy we have read that Jesus is the same person as Melchizedek, does the one off unsolicited, uncommanded tithes of the spoils of war given to the King of salem justification for christian tithing from regular income today

Kunle, this is rather funny because it seems to be a circular reasoning that many people present when they have had nothing else to condemn tithes. Think about it for a moment - that so-called "one-off" tithes that Abraham gave, do you know how far it went? People who argue the way you are resorting to are too busy making such excuses that they fail to observe two very important matters:

      *  God's WORD calls it a tithe - and that is enough for me!

      *  Abraham's tithes were not casual - they affected his unborn progeny: the Levites!

Bros, excuses are too flimsy on this remarkable point. One may also make so much excuse to argue against Melchizedek's priesthood by the same idea - since it was mentioned only once in Genesis that he was the priest of the most high God!

Or, one may excuse Melchizedek's priesthood and treat it flippantly just because there is no mention anywhere of what exactly he did in his priesthood.

Thus, to keep arguing against Abraham's tithes is very immature - it blinds people to the fact that what happened in that event was far more significant than how many times we have to count his tithing, before we can be convinced that God repeatedly mentioned it in the NT no less than thrice (Hebrews 7:2, 4, 6). If God's Word would mention it 3 times in just one chapter, I think you guys should wake up and pay good attention!

KunleOshob:
You see my dear no matter how you want to argue this topic, you would keep running around in circles because it is now very clear to us that tithing as no sound scriptural basis in christian doctrine and that is why you have to come up with way off unrelated issues such as Abraham's one off tithes melchizedek to justify this unbiblical practise.

You're funny!  Who has been spinning all around every single time, other than yourself Kunle? How many excuses have you presented now to force your "collective condemnation" of tithes into Scripture and they have all been wasted? Let us even come to this frantic recommendations of websites - did they not help deflate your own arguments and rather confirm solidly the very things I had been saying about Hebrews 7:8?

You see, you would have to look for tougher excuses to come up with - ferret them anywhere from the net as please you - and when you are ready, give it your best shot to scuttle round that verse (ch. 7:, and let's see how well you survive the effort! Whatever you argue for that verse, you would still have to come back to the problems they present to you from tessellating them with other clear statements in other verses in that chapter.

Cheers.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
What do you think might be the connection with Tourette's syndrome if there is any connection at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourette_syndrome

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=G_jBFbCCleY&feature=related

Compulsive actions that are beyond conscious control often have a psychiatric explanation.

Have you considered one thing that has not been explained by psychiatry? That is, the witness to events caused by invisible forces? This is not a matter of what the victim does to himself or herself - there are usually witnesses who see things happen which no one would presume to be explanable as caused by the victim themselves.

Dear KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
My dear as i stated earlier, you are not well equipped enough to dabble into this topic. I have always known about the mysterious nature of melchizedek( which i am sure you know little about) so i am not making excuses because of this arguments. If i were to start telling you about the little i know about Melchizedek it would completely derail the topic. One thing is certain the bible provides very little information on Melchizedek so stop carrying on as if all there is to know about him is already recorded in the bible.

Please read me well - I was not carrying on. This is clearly what I stated:[list][quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg3035201#msg3035201 date=1225798983]There is no mystery about Melchizedek that is given in the Bible that we can't understand.
. . .

When you calm down and open your heart to see the simplicity of these matters and ask salient questions to guide your thinking, the "mystery" about Melchizedek becomes easier to grasp.
What do you really know for a fact about Melchizedek outside the Bible?

In other words, if these "blanks" were included, you would have had Melchizedek "rival" your own Saviour and Redeemer? You, Kunle, would be so confused as to not be able to know for certain that nobody matched the Person and power of Christ?[/quote][/list]

Even in your riposte, I don't see anything significant that you have presented that deviates sharply from what I stated earlier.

KunleOshob:
There are several other sources of info on melcizedek which you may not be aware of, but i won't go into it now. And i am not being evasive because as i said earlier we are not well equipped enough to dicuss the topic thogroughly.

Let's see from the sources you quoted:

KunleOshob:
A lot of bible scholars have done a lot of research on Melchizedek you can check out some of their submissions on this links:

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/who-is-melchizedek.html

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2003/20030126.htm

http://ad2004.com/Biblecodes/Hebrewmatrix/melchizedek.html

So again, what essentially are they saying that I was largely unware of about Melchizedek that I have not highlighted in relation to this subject? Agreed, this thread is not about Melchizedek per se; but it's my observation that while you may have some problem about what I presented, the links you provided are saying essentially the same things - by going to the same Bible, rather than seeking to blame the Catholic Church for some "blanked out" documents about Melchizedek. Let me refer you to a few:

(1) From here: http://www.biblestudy.org/question/who-is-melchizedek.html

● 'Christ only is the Son of God and a priest continually.
The Bible labels Jesus our High Priest ( Hebr. 6:20).'

(2) From here: http://www.keyway.ca/htm2003/20030126.htm

● Jesus Is The "High Priest For Ever"

Both sites were part of what I had perused before my engaging you in this thread on tithes. But what essentially are they saying that I have not said about Jesus Christ alone being the High Priest? Did they say that Melchizedek, instead of Jesus Christ, is the High Priest?

The only shade of interpretation which I did not mention but was mentioned by your source (http://www.biblestudy.org/question/who-is-melchizedek.html) is this:

● There can be no doubt that Melchizedek of the Old Testament
was the Word ( John 1:1) that later became Jesus Christ.

Now, I did not draw that inference anywhere, because if I did, I know a lot of people who would come down on me that I was going beyond what Scripture states. But isn't it funny that you're the very person directing me to those sites making such assertions?

If I were to follow your lead to those sites and set my thoughts on their own interpretation, then it only means that you have recommended something which deflates your own arguments.

How?

The simple point here is to look again about what I said about Christ being the High Priest. He alone is the One who lives perpetually. And going by that, if your sources are saying that Melchizedek is the same as the Word (John 1:1) that later became Jesus Christ, then does that not strike you that they would be saying that Jesus Christ is the One who is pointed out in Hebrews 7:8?!?

Look again:

● There can be no doubt that Melchizedek of the Old Testament
was the Word ( John 1:1) that later became Jesus Christ.

In other words, Melchizedek (according to them) IS Jesus Christ. That being so, my question is this:

● WHO is HE that receives TITHES because He lives perpetually??
Hebrews 7:8.

If they say that Melchizedek is Christ, they are saying that Christ receives tithes because He lives perpetually (Hebrews 7:8). If you wan complain, address your complaints to them - not to me. You're the one who recommended those sites, and you should be addressing your reco, not me!


Kunle, there is no way you guys will argue this matter. Left or right, any excuses you make will only return to show you how weak and untenable is your position for "collectively condemning" tithes! There is not a single verse that condemns tithes - not one!

Your arguments and recommendations are only confirming what I have repeatedly stated.

Cheers.

2. Dead Girl Causes Accident?

This is intriguing. Some guys picked up a girl late on night, who apparently was on her own on a lonely road. Shy, withdrawn and reserved, she continued the ride and was vague about what had happened to her. It turns out that she started pointing to a ‘spot’. . and finally told how she got an accident on that very spot! Before they could digest that, her face had changed somewhat, and. . . crash!!  It is said that police confirmed a girl by name as was picked up had died some years earlier on that spot before she appeared to get a ride from these unsuspecting chaps!

[flash=425,355]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnH9OJP6FTk&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnH9OJP6FTk

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
The video link you posted is no longer available.

That's something. I just clicked again and I'm watching it - both here on the forum and at YouTube site:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB2kMgC_vyE

1. Ghost Girl Caught On Tape?

What would you think of this scenario? Two girls turned to walk away, and from the ground a figure rose (apparently had been crouching) and speedily joins the girls to walk away.

[flash=425,355]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB2kMgC_vyE&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

Source: YouTube

Guys, sorry to have kept you waiting. Like I said, I don’t want to be an alarmist, and that is why I’m taking my time to sort things through the crop circle bit in order to sift the chaff from the wheat. Get what I mean? So, after having gone through every possible source critiquing the many reports, the gist will be in. . . and then UFOs will be back on air.

For now, a different variety of orphic phenomena will be posted. Unfortunately, there’s no way I could independtly ascertain the veracity of these occurences; but that is not to say that they were not real situations and events. What is clear is that these things happen in our world, and people are still studying them to understand their nature and intents. Observe, reflect, and draw your own conclusions – remember my disclaimers.

Many thanks.

obinna5000:
@KunleOshob & pilgrim.1
I hope it will be better than How To Fly To China As A Witch

Lol, obinna5000. . e go better!

naomijt:
The idea of a close proximity between heaven and hell that people present in that passage is not consistent with scriptures. (View my first post on this topic). Are u saying heaven and hell is that close? And if the dead are asleep, how come Lazarus, the rich man and Abraham were having a discussion. Like i said earlier, the message is what is important.

I will get back on the questions you asked soon.

Lol, No. . I did not mean to say or imply that heaven and hell were that close. In my entries on this subject, there is only one thing that I have had to rethink carefully - paradise. I am still researching on what it is, and where that sphere is located; though, it does not mean that I had totally abandoned my perceptions on it - just that the new shades of interpretations on previous entries from others have made me think deeply about my assumptions.

That said, my persuasions have been that when people depart this world, they do not all go to the same place. Whatever the spheres they arrive at, it is not the place of final judgement (the Lake of Fire) nor heaven itself. In hades, the wicked dead experience torments as described in the Bible; and the blessed dead are in a different experience not involving the torments - but that does not mean that they are in heaven as yet.

Look forward to your thoughts to come.

Regards.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
As i said i my last post neither of us is equipped enough to argue on this issue of Melchizedek, there is too much mystery sorrounding his history. But one thing is certain the bible is clear that "he is a priest forever" and he also "lives forever" the fact that the bible says he was "made like unto the son of God" does not preclude the fact that he lives forever. Other characters that did not die and are assumed to still be alive in the bible are Moses and Elijah ( they both never died and both appeared to Jesus physically during the transfiguration) we can also assume they live perpetually.

There is no mystery about Melchizedek that is given in the Bible that we can't understand. It seems that those who argue the way you do only make these excuses because they do not want to reason out of Scripture but rather reason into Scripture. Where their ideas fail, they come back with excuses about Catholic Church did-this-and-did-that! This is why it should be clear to you by now that all the while, you have been making so many mistakes in so many issues - the Law was "dead and buried", the "collective condemnation" that is non-existent, Jesus being compared with Abraham whereas not so, and several others.

When you calm down and open your heart to see the simplicity of these matters and ask salient questions to guide your thinking, the "mystery" about Melchizedek becomes easier to grasp. This was why I asked questions - and because I guessed you would not answer them, I provided answers upfront. If you saw something there in all what I had discussed that was not clear to you, do kindly point them out. Otherwise, you could carefully reflect on the questions I asked and see what answers could come to your mind. If you have no answers, is there any surprise that your new excuses now is to keep screaming about Catholic Church did this, that and the other?

KunleOshob:
My dear pilgrim.1 it was because of this kind of reason/ argument that you have raised that Mechizedek was essentially blanked out of the bible.

What do you really know for a fact about Melchizedek outside the Bible?

KunleOshob:
The church essentially did not want any rival figure for Jesus christ in the bible. The exact reason you find it soo difficult to fathom is the reason why he was blanked out.

In other words, if these "blanks" were included, you would have had Melchizedek "rival" your own Saviour and Redeemer? You, Kunle, would be so confused as to not be able to know for certain that nobody matched the Person and power of Christ?

Dear sir, even if some other figures were intentionally to be added more powerful than Melchizedek, it would not faze me in any way from knowing who the Saviour and Redeemer is! It would not confuse in my mind who is the One that lives perpetually! It would not confuse in my mind who the High Priest truly is, and the fact that there is only ONE HighPriest in the heavenly sanctuary. It would never confuse in my mind who is being spoken of as receiving tithes because it is testified of Him that He lives perpetually! There would be no doubt as to WHO this same Person is, that is able to save to the uttermost - seeing that it is through Him that we come unto God (Hebrews 7:3, 8, 24-25).

When you try to read your own musings into Scripture and find that you cannot establish your assertions therein for your collective condemnation, it would not come as a surprise that you would appeal to the excuse of "blanked out" books and accusations against the Catholic Church. My dear, I was not born a Catholic, never grew up as one; I also stupidly attacked the Catholic Church on many things (though some of my convictions remain the same). But if blaming our every misgivings on the Catholic Church is all we can do, we should cover our heads in shame! This is just a sign that we don't even know our own Bibles before blaming the Catholic Church.

Whatever we need to know about Melchizedek in relation to the heavenly priesthood is in your Bible. Open it and read with an open heart, and refrain from excusing your misgivings on Catholics. That way, it would be easier to receive from God.

Blessings.

1. Exorcism: The Power of Faith

Highlights:

■    uncontrolled screaming
■    scatological yelling
■    loud and angry obscenities
■    animal-like groaning
■    strange voices and unusual strange strength manifested in the victim.

A woman witnesses firsthand the diabolical operations of “something invisible. . so heinous and so disgusting” on someone she loves – her own mother. It started with strange banging noises in their home, which moved on to a mysterious overturning of their furniture; and eventually to attacks on the mother – from an invisible force.

‘It would rip her hair out, and there would plenty of witnesses. . an invisible force.’

Did she have actual physical marks on her body?

‘Absolutely.’

And they couldn’t have been self-inflicted?

‘No. . . She would end up with white or blue marks in the most bizarre places that she couldn’t have been able to do by herself.’

How do you know that it is not somebody with a psychological problem?

‘Medically, physically, everything had been ruled out.’

(You could click on the image below, or click on the links below to go to the sites directly.)

[flash=425,355]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdi1b3E6qoM&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

Vid above posted on YouTube and sourced from ABCNews

Well guys, here are some vids of acclaimed exorcisms – casting out demonic spirits from those alleged to have been possessed. Although some of us may have come across some of these vids before, there are a few striking things that seem to be recurrent decimals in reported cases and observed demonic-possessions. It is not in my place to dismiss them out of hand as simply cases of psychosis – there are features and occurences in some of these cases which could not be explained merely on the basis of a medical condition. Whatever one may draw from these reports, it is up to the individual to not take diabolical events for granted. The basic question now is not so much if these phenomena exist; but rather, if they do not exist, then what is responsible for the inexplicable aspects that could not be explained away (like supernatural strength in the victim, and the observation of invisible forces clearly demonstrated)?

As I often say, I do not have all the answers nor do I make special claims to defend anything. What I do know anyhow, is that there certainly are orphic realities in our world which defy ordinary explanations. You observe and draw your own conclusions: but don’t play with fire.

Hi naomijt,

Many thanks for your response. It's refreshing to read your thoughts and see how we all have varying shades of understanding.

naomijt:
Secondly, Jesus didn't go to hell like some (e.g Copeland) have errornoeusly preached. He went to hades, the place of the dead.

Well, if we read the KJV of Acts 2:27-31, the word used there is 'Hell', and this has caused some problems for many people. Actually, the Greek word (as we all now know) is "hadēs" (αiδης). However, the sad thing about this is the way some have taught and interpreted that passage - as Copeland did.

naomijt:
Thirdly, I don't agree with your submission on Luke 16:26

The pattern of Jesus' stories can't be taken as something literal. We have other stories like the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son that doesn't seem like real life experiences either. What we do with such stories is to pick the lesson from it.

The parables in many instances point to real life situations, such as the Prodigal Son and the Samaritan. That they are parables does not mean they don't seem like real life experiences - as in the case of the prodigal, we know many people who have gone down that road and after a while returned home. So many instances of this could be harvested in real life, but perhaps two would suffice: (a) Ron Kenoly and (b) Billy Graham - these two men have known firsthand the pain of parents when their sons turn away from God and leave home. However, it is great that they returned home, were embraced by their families, now serving God. . and that incident was the theme of one of Ron Kenoly's songs, 'Welcome Home' remember?

Anyway, some of the parables may seem to many as mere allusions and not relating to real life experiences.

naomijt:
What Jesus is passing across in the story in Luke 16: 20 - end is in Vs 29;

From the story, we see that there is a warning that there is a final judgement coming upon all flesh and God has provided himself enough witnesses, as such we do not need 'spirits' - extra biblical revelations to tell us about the gospel of Christ.

Extra biblical revelations is responsible for a lot of false teachings in the body today.

That's true, and in relation to Matthew 27:52-53 perhaps that was what IDINRETE was asking me to enuciate (I may be wrong, though)?

However, it does not playdown the importance of the previous verses before v. 29 of Luke 16. If we look at the principle of 2 Peter 1:20, we find that Scripture is best understood as we compare verses on a subject, instead of seeking to take them in isolation. To this end, one may ask several questions such as:

* does the spirit of man depart his body at death?

* is the spirit of man conscious after the death of the body?

* what happens to the body at death?

* what happens to the incorporeal parts (spirit/soul) at death?

* if the incorporeal parts survive death, where do they go?

Several other questions could be proffered; but what is important is that the Bible has answers to these questions - some of which have been highlighted already. We may come off with some wrong notions if we isolate verses and just seek interpretations based only on singular verses. However, as we compare verses with verses, we get a full picture of these matter.

That is why some have read only Ecclesiastes 9:5 and inferred that there's no existence beyond the grave ("but the dead know not any thing". However, these same people fail to understand that the same Ecclesiastes declares that "the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it" (Eccl. 12:7). The question then is: are the spirits conscious of anything at all beyond the grave? While some say No, my answer is yes.

How is that possible?

There are so many allusions to this point in both the OT and NT. But basically, the statement of the Lord Jesus in Matthew 22:32 says it all - "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." I deduce from that (in connection with other verses), that those who are regarded as "dead", are actually "living" - but it just is a matter of existence in another realm altogether.

naomijt:
My dear, I will advise that we all stick to what is plain in scriptures and the others that are not too clear, we should leave till we meet face to face with Jesus when nothing will be hidden.

Granted. As we seek these matters from Scripture, that same exercise is what we will help us determine whether someone is holding flawed assumptions or honest convictions.

Blessings.

KunleOshob:
My dear pilgrim.1 as usual it seems as if you are working towards a predetermined answer. The bible is clear that Melchizadek lives forever don't try and force another meaning into that scripture. That apart i don't think either of us is adequaetly equipped to argue this issue of Melchizedek because we don't have enough facts on him. The bible is rather scanty as far as melchizedek is concerned yet he was probably the most importat high priest in biblical times. Even the new testament compares him to Jesus. The truth is that the catholic church deliberately ommited books written on melchizedek when compiling the bible so that it would not cause confusion as to the superiority of christ since they both had a lot of similar attributes. The catholic church was more intetersted in projecting the superiority of christ hence they blanked out melchizedek. Several writings on melchizedek are to this day still locked up in the vaults of the Vatican

Dear Kunle,

You had formerly been pointing to the Bible for your idea that tithes were condemned. When you argued forever on that, you never appealed to any "blanked out" or "omitted" books by Catholic hands. I didn't expect anything other than the excuse above, because I indeed made the same mistakes you are making until my eyes were opened about verses 3, 8 and 24-25 of Hebrews 7.

When we read the Bible today, the Holy Spirit guides us to pointers that would help our thinking. In discussing those verses, one could not just blankly assume what you are assuming - because by doing so, we would find huge problems between verses. This was why we needed to identify the very One in those verses that point to just one thing: He alone lives perpetually. Who that Person is cannot be confused at all when we read verses 24-25. Melchizedek was made like unto the Son of God, never the other way round. That is an important factor to help you see the whole chapter - and failing there, is to fail to understand verse 8.

Think on these things, and let me know if you find anyone else who lives perpetually (or, "continueth ever" apart from Christ.

Shalom.