₦airaland Forum

nlMediator:
Exactly, my major beef with them. Nothing to offer. Somebody is out there preaching to souls headed to hell, and they'll complain he's wearing an expensive suit. Somebody prays for the sick to get well, they complain the healings are fake. Why don't they go and do it the right way themselves? In all of these, has anybody heard them share stories of many souls they have won? Or how they have helped the sick do better, and perhaps save them from going to the fake healers? No, it's always criticize and complain and feel good. What value are they really adding to the Kingdom of God?

You have no idea Bro, you have no idea!

Gombs, I haven't forgotten about the questions I asked about CE. I just want you to be done here before I pick that up again

mbaemeka, Image123, I want to know your stance on firstfruit taught by Hagin?

nannymcphee:
]I have been silent since because of the bickering. It is too much, one can even get lost, this thread was supposed to be on the Midas touch & maybe the subject of prosperity not covered by the book.

I noticed

Gombs you are still of the opinion that the so called "anti WOFers" have problem with giving(because of the bolded part)

No, I am not, I thought I corrected the notion 12 pages back? I don't think they have a problem with give, but hagin mentioned consistent nd systematic giving, obligation to give to those who bless you spiritually etc, that's where they were caught pants down, most of them though.

you are wrong & I stand to be corrected,

You've been corrected

I give, I believe in giving & also believe that love should be one's motivating factor. My stand on the Christian giving is summarized in 2 Corinthians 9.

I never said you don't, your slot for IPPC tells alot. Lest I forget, you said you've been in CEC for 11years now?

I have also seen from scripture how God intervened on behalf of men as they gave sacrificially & how he also moved without them giving(eg extension of hezekiah's life & miracle oil with the widow)

Leave Hezekiah o, they'd soon say OT things

Striking a balance between the above lies on the leading of the Holy Spirit & not some man made formular

Correct me if i am wrong, So, Hagin was not kead of the Spirit? Or what.? He gave a man made formula?

At this junction, I want to call on DrummaBoy, WinsomeX, vooks, Candour, trustman, BabaGnoni, Loobeez & all the "anti WOFer's to state their stance on the Christian giving, so that we all know where we stand on the subject for posterity sake

Gbam! I would be glad 4o fish posts they made in time past, if they try to contradict what they've said before.

Thanks

You welcome ma'am! A good morning to you!

[quote author=vooks post=27484578]

It's been years since I left employment and i gave out all my suits. I work in my own terms, am my boss. Wage slaving is for sissies and the utterly un-creative or babes

So suits are for those under employment? See how idiotic your reasoning is?
If a pastor said the above you'd run down here and make threads out of it. Hypocrite. Paul spoke about workers and wages, no? Ah! It's you! #Senseless posts

So my dress-sense on suits is Jurassic. In one sentence, what is Hagin's stance on Firstfruits?

Ash on sky blue it is then!

nannymcphee:
Gombs, I haven't forgotten about the questions I asked about CE. I just want you to be done here before I pick that up again

mbaemeka, Image123, I want to know your stance on firstfruit taught by Hagin?

Can you please put the question up again!?

Gombs:
I'm more interested in your sanity than your new ID. I won't go round circles, flip 4 pages back. This was how I

Now, if you don’t mind, I've got to go prepare for work. Help me decide, an ash suit with sky blue shirt, red and white dotted tie, or a black suit with sky blue shirt and white and blue stripped tie?

Is the suit among the 3k clothes you bought?

Na so you take dodge my question abi, no worry!

nannymcphee:
I have been silent since because of the bickering. It is too much, one can even get lost, this thread was supposed to be on the Midas touch & maybe the subject of prosperity not covered by the book.

Gombs you are still of the opinion that the so called "anti WOFers" have problem with giving(because of the bolded part)

you are wrong & I stand to be corrected, I give, I believe in giving & also believe that love should be one's motivating factor. My stand on the Christian giving is summarized in 2 Corinthians 9.

I have also seen from scripture how God intervened on behalf of men as they gave sacrificially & how he also moved without them giving(eg extension of hezekiah's life & miracle oil with the widow)

Striking a balance between the above lies on the leading of the Holy Spirit & not some man made formular

At this junction, I want to call on DrummaBoy, WinsomeX, vooks, Candour, trustman, BabaGnoni, Loobeez & all the "anti WOFer's to state their stance on the Christian giving, so that we all know where we stand on the subject for posterity sake

Thanks

I had already given some information on Christian giving, part of which included the following:
One of the key things regarding Christian GIVING is that it is to be a gracious response to the grace of God the Christian has experienced. There is no compulsion in it. There is NO DEMAND placed on the Christian to give. He can choose what to give. He can equally decide HOW to give. Christian giving IS NOT LEGISLATED. No burden is placed on the Christian regarding giving. 

However if you wish to have more detail we can have a go at it.

Cerelac for babes. You gloat about your suits and I returned favor. True freedom is working in your own terms. That's DOMINION, not answering to guys you don't like doing what you never went to school for for much less than you really believe you are worth.
I pray you get there one day. It takes boldness and some serious brains though

[quote author=Gombs post=27484819][/quote]

vooks:
Cerelac for babes. You gloat about your suits and I returned favor. True freedom is working in your own terms. That's DOMINION, not answering to guys you don't like doing what you never went to school for for much less than you really believe you are worth.
I pray you get there one day. It takes boldness and some serious brains though

Gloat about suits? Did you just learn a new word? Obviously you just did! Let me school you
To Gloat means to exhibit a conspicuous sense of self-satisfaction, often at an adversary's misfortune. Can you see how senseless your posts are? How did I gloat about suits? Does that your sentence still make any sense to you now? You just keep getting sillier with your posts. Why?

When a pastor preaches the above bold, you will be the first that'd run down here and create threads, plus videos. So, we all should work on our terms? True freedom? You hypocrisy is legendary. Brains? You brains? In the words of Nlmediator, only a loving God can make someone as you rich with your sense of reasoning and mammoth ineptitude!

I don go work jare! See y'all in some hours time.

AM just feeding you your garbage. You overused GLOAT, I served it right back. Am that kind

Why do you need a pastor to tell you the obvious? DO you suspend thinking when you go to church? Self employment is better than employment and it is an opportunity to create employment. Very few people rake millions in employment, probably in not-for profit organizations or those in extremely specialized jobs such as rocket scientists. But since we all can't be self-employment or we may not be bold enough to venture out, or we are still gaining skills, wage-slaving will just do

Gombs:
Gloat about suits? Did you just learn a new word? Obviously you just did! Let me school you
To Gloat means to exhibit a conspicuous sense of self-satisfaction, often at an adversary's misfortune. Can you see how senseless your posts are? How did I gloat about suits? Does that your sentence still make any sense to you now? You just keep getting sillier with your posts. Why?

When a pastor preaches the above bold, you will be the first that'd run down here and create threads, plus videos. So, we all should work on our terms? True freedom? You hypocrisy is legendary. Brains? You brains? In the words of Nlmediator, only a loving God can make someone as you rich with your sense of reasoning and mammoth ineptitude!

I don go work jare! See y'all in some hours time.

^^
Quit being childish already, you keep losing respect with your posts. Can you point anywhere, anytime gombs has used the word gloat? I follow him, and must have missed it in his posts. If you do, I will unfollow him and be on 3 months exile from NL.

Your ideology about working and earning wages is disrespectful to alot of us here who work. Wage slaving! How could you be this insensitive to people's lives?

Nannymcphee, good morning to you, seems we are the only ladies here!

vooks:
It's been years since I left employment and i gave out all my suits. I work in my own terms, am my boss. Wage slaving is for sissies and the utterly un-creative or babes

Hey vooks, the statement above is childish and very unnecessary.
It makes me wonder what kind of boss you are. Imagine if folks under your payroll get to read this, how do you think they would react to it?

By the grace of God, some of us are CEO's and still have a paid employment.
I double as an employee and a business owner. Being an employee does not and has not reduced my creativity, instead, it has launched me to greater dimensions.

There are perks I get from being an employee now, that you may not necessarily enjoy and if you want I can list them for you.

If we were all CEO's, you'd probably not get some of the basics you enjoy as a person.

Learn from this:

1 Corinthians 12:16-19New King James Version (NKJV):
16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? 18 But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased. 19 And if they were all one member, where would the body be?

#lookuandlaafumodedeacttivated#

Gombs:
In the next couple of days, I'd be sharing the above book, and it's a book on balanced approach to biblical prosperity. What's God's mind about prosperity, and why we should be careful prosperity principles in the Bible should not be abused and how to avoid false practices, as it were, the possibility of abuse is very possible.

Isn't this ^^^ the essence for this thread?

Why are we all so full of ourselves? Why do we clutch on the most irrelevant things just as we despise/eschew the more relevant things. 'Self' as become our god; we do all we possibly can to keep self in the comfort zone, ignorant of the fact that achieving the comfort the flesh crave is equivalent to suppressing the the spirit man in us.

I believe most of us on this forum and in the religious section especially have a fundamental problem with 'self'. Some of us see the religious section as a place where we can selfishly boss our beliefs, some see it as a place where you can display your ability to use the armoury of grammar to win arguments and some of us are just not interested in broadening our mind beyond that which we know et al.

Gombs have decided to review a book, I think he should be allowed to review the book. I believe the rest of us have the right to challenge his position based on the particular topic raised. If he sees things differently, we can only say what we believe in line with scriptures and not get drawn in in to arguments.

Any attempt to get confrontational or belligerent will change nobody, it will only lead to strife, and a clash of ego which might eventually defeat the purpose of the thread or any other of its kind.

This isn't a football fan club section where we should be divided by the club we support. I believe the purpose we all come here is for the love we have for God and the word of God. I advise us all to suppress 'SELF' and project God, which is our reasonable service..


#lookuandlaafumodereacttivated#

Gombs:
Can you please put the question up again!?

You have already answered me, I wasn't ok with ur response, responding would have derailed the thread. though I asked if I should create a separate thread.

nannymcphee:
You have already answered me, I wasn't ok with ur response, responding would have derailed the thread. though I asked if I should create a separate thread.

please do

nlMediator:
This your guilt-by-association approach to discussions is getting tiresome. One day it's christian science; another day it's Aladura. Does it occur to you that in the subject of Religion, unlike many other subjects, there's quite some overlap. So, you're likely to see a practice or doctrine in one faith existing in another. I guess we should all stop meeting in buildings, praying in the name of Jesus, holding communions, engaging in vibrant prasise and worship, because we're likely to see these in white garment churches? Don't get me wrong: there's room for legitimate use of this tactic, as one's associates may tell much about that person or doctrine. But your abuse of the concept is getting embarrasing.

Regarding angels, I'm willing to discuss with you or any other person to share and learn. But I need an answer to this question first: Is there a scripture that says that christians cannot or should not command or dictate to angles or send them on assignment?

The appropriate question is: Is there a scripture that says Christians should command angels?

As for your "overlap" in doctrine and practices with Aladura, I hope now you are getting the picture of our grouse with WOF? Christianity does not "overlap" with demonic practices. We practice the BOOK!

No offence to employees, we all were there once. Business is where the money @ and that jab was directed at Gombs for obvious reasons; he brought up his job unnecessarily. Let's just say that my main thrust was am jobless, unemployed unlike Gombs but deep in the money and very free. I never brag about it, in fact I introduce myself as jobless

My employees, I encourage them to be faithful while under me but to look outside me. I have two already self-employed and best of buddies btw.

Lobeez:
Hey vooks, the statement above is childish and very unnecessary.
It makes me wonder what kind of boss you are. Imagine if folks under your payroll get to read this, how do you think they would react to it?

By the grace of God, some of us are CEO's and still have a paid employment.
I double as an employee and a business owner. Being an employee does not and has not reduced my creativity, instead, it has launched me to greater dimensions.

There are perks I get from being an employee now, that you may not necessarily enjoy and if you want I can list them for you.

If we were all CEO's, you'd probably not get some of the basics you enjoy as a person.

Learn from this:

nannymcphee:
I have been silent since because of the bickering. It is too much, one can even get lost, this thread was supposed to be on the Midas touch & maybe the subject of prosperity not covered by the book.

Gombs you are still of the opinion that the so called "anti WOFers" have problem with giving(because of the bolded part)

you are wrong & I stand to be corrected, I give, I believe in giving & also believe that love should be one's motivating factor. My stand on the Christian giving is summarized in 2 Corinthians 9.

I have also seen from scripture how God intervened on behalf of men as they gave sacrificially & how he also moved without them giving(eg extension of hezekiah's life & miracle oil with the widow)

Striking a balance between the above lies on the leading of the Holy Spirit & not some man made formular

At this junction, I want to call on



WinsomeX
vooks
Candour
BabaGnoni
Lobeez
shdemidemi

& all the "anti WOFer's to state their stance on the Christian giving, so that we all know where we stand on the subject for posterity sake

Thanks

ah! assignment. I will get to this later.

Am really liking the way WOFers shift the burden of proof;
-' nowhere are we commanded NOT to tithe therefore tithing is cool'
-'nowhere are we commanded NOT to command Angels therefore we can command them'

But this line of reasoning can be applied to so many things and lead to absurd practices being incorporated into Chriatianity. For instance,
-nowhere are we told NOT to pray facing Jerusalem,
-nowhere are we told NOT to offer free will offerings that have nothing to do with sin (why not offer Bulls in this manner)

A more sane approach should be dissecting all scriptures with Angels and observing their manner of interaction with God's people whether in NT or OT.
1. Are there incidences of angels being put under man's command?
2. Do we have records outside the scriptures of the primitive church where this was practiced?
3. When FIRST did this doctrine of commanding Angels emerge?

WinsomeX:
The appropriate question is: Is there a scripture that says Christians should command angels?

As for your "overlap" in doctrine and practices with Aladura, I hope now you are getting the picture of our grouse with WOF? Christianity does not "overlap" with demonic practices. We practice the BOOK!

vooks:
You are the mother and father of all conjectures. Can't point to a thread on Eve-had-sex-with-the-serpent yet you label anti-WOFers as hypocritical for NOT rebuking one of 'their own' who claimed such. But Winsomex was spot on. It is a last resort when you are cornered. I never knew hallucinations could be a defense mechanism

And while at it, point where and when I said Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia or be a man for once and apologize for this false accusation against vooks

Who is this uncircumcised Philistine? Didn't you see the person in question concede (albeit subtly) that he made such statements? Didn't you see Bidam even go as far as mentioning that Trustman even tried to call the accused to order in the said thread? How ignorant can you really be.

And as per the quote, I already made it. What's left for you to do is to claim it means something else and then let it rest. You have nothing to say save conjectures. I am sure you have now accepted the "pentecostal heresy" that Jesus went to the Holiest place in heaven with his blood. The last time we discussed, you blurted some incoherent nonsense out and even your clique were forced to leave you shamefaced and alone.

mbaemeka:
Who is this uncircumcised Philistine? Didn't you see the person in question concede (albeit subtly) that he made such statements? Didn't you see Bidam even go as far as mentioning that Trustman even tried to call the accused to order in the said thread? How ignorant can you really be.

And as per the quote, I already made it. What's left for you to do is to claim it means something else and then let it rest. You have nothing to say save conjectures. I am sure you have now accepted the "pentecostal heresy" that Jesus went to the Holiest place in heaven with his blood. The last time we discussed, you blurted some incoherent nonsense out and even your clique were forced to leave you shamefaced and alone.

^^^
I don't know why this uncouth self confessed "My location is where the money is" mbaemeka WoF hooligan is obsessed with repeatedly derailing this thread.

The demons that possessed you the other day when you were raining curses on vooks are on standby, about to jump on to your shoulders again

Your tittle-tattle is well known and legendary. Don’t fear the facts. If you have the stomach for it Mr chief inquisitor, why not go and open up another thread, a separate thread, instead of dragging up topics or issues in here that aren't related nor relevant to this thread.

I give your wife respect and kudos, that's if you're married at all. SMH. Ah.

A continual dripping on a rainy day and a quarrelsome wife are alike;
- Proverbs 27:15 ESV

Gombs:
Now that we've come this far, mfrom the book, irrespective of the derailing the thread has endured, plus those who use extra monikers, but their line of reasoning betrays them, can we all agree that the book by Hagin was very needful at a time as these, even though the anti WoF folks seem to be innperfect churches and hence Hagin wrote the book for churches like CEC, LFC, RCCG, etc?

I'd put up chapter 9 today (hopefully), it'd then remain one last chapter. It was not surprising anti WoF guys har nothing to say about Hagin's 24 principles from the Epistles regarding money, givin and receiving-why? It caught them pants down

Hmmm Gombs, at the bolded. Really?? What is in those 24 points that will scare any honest person? i dare say they further indict preachers whose main reason is enriching of theor own pockets and families with the money of others. i'd wanted to engage in them but the unecessary derailing by you and almost every other person made me abandon the thread since page 17.

For instance, what is your take on point 11

[size=20pt] 11. Ministers should be ethical and above reproach in their handling of church finances. [b][/size]

Avoiding this, that no man should blame us in this abundance which is administered by us: Providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.
—2 Corinthians 8:20,21

In The New English Bible, verse 20 says, "We want to guard against any criticism of our handling of this generous gift." And in the New International Version, verse 21 reads, "For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of men."

How many of the pastors you defend can boldly say they abide by this admonition? How many pastors publish their statement of accounts so their members can really know what their contributions are actually used for? Rather we see the ones in america appeal to their ''First Amendment rights to freedom of religion'' when the govt came calling. The ones in Nigeria are even worse. who is the senator that dare start a probe against the Lord's anointed? Let's even assume they forgot the machines that print their books can also print financial statements, can you as an individual walk up to your pastor in CEC to ask for details of how money was spent?

I raised the poser below earlier in the thread to give us something to ruminate about. i reproduce it here again

''Does anyone think our Mega churches actually lack funds? i watched the video of the mog owning a $16,000 dog. Does that guy have any moral justification to request donations into his 'ministry'? I know plenty of them even in this country who indulge in worse waste of scarce funds. Do you in all good conscience believe such prodigals should be entrusted with the contributions of any hardworking child of God? This is just an aside for us to think about''

If the secular world can ask accountability of it's leaders, how much more the church? Rather you my dear Gombs put up a thread to promote the idea that the church isn't a democracy and the G.O answers to no one on earth and telling us he's higher than lesser 'gods' like you. Is that not effectively confirming your pastors WILL NEVER pay attention to any scrutiny? particularly any bordering on financial? Did Paul forget that too when he insisted on ''providing for things [size=16pt]honest in the sight of all men[/size]? like WOF make it seem he forgot the 'principles' they sell today?

The others i'll touch when i have the time

vooks:
Utter unnecessary verbiage

Galatians 2:12-14King James Version (KJV)

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?


The question is,
How do you read THEM ALL in verse 14 to means the Jews from Jerusalem of verse 12?

THEM is a pronoun referring to some plural noun mentioned earlier. What leap of Christ Embassy grammar or logic do you employ to IGNORE the most obvious reference to the immediate THEY of the same verse, skip the OTHER JEWS of verse 13 and land at CERTAIN THAT CAME FROM JAMES in verse 12, while ignoring ALL other plural nouns of the verse namely, Gentiles and THEM of Circumcision?


Am still waiting for you to paste a link not a paraphrase of where I said Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia. But of course you have a policy of not naming names so am sure you won't. I have evidence of your claims to immortality should you deny Jesus consent to take you home. I quoted you lest you go back and correct yourself. Please reciprocate.

goD mbaemeka, you are a highly intelligent primate unlike you know who and you know how to steer clear of controversies. I have observed your loud silence on Hagin's position on Firstfruits. You don't want to contradict and confuse your dumb church-mate with facts, don't want to break ranks . But you are not honest enough to admit you are wrong and your mentor, Spirit baptized or not is also wrong in their 'private-rebuke-before-leaders' theory. This is not supported by grammar nor logic but is a mere convenient doctrine to shield these men from scrutiny,rebuke and criticism. You don't need PhD in Koine Greek to understand verse 12-14. You don't even need to appeal to and recite the entire Acts or church history to see the obvious. You don't even need spiritual discernment or revelation; it is PLAIN and CLEAR to all. All you need to buy your theory is to arm yourself with tons of presumption and then read this into the text. You are embarrassing yourself

This takes the cake for cow dung of the year!!! You have what it takes to give Kevin Hart a run for his money. How you couldn't understand Verse 14 from 13-12 clearly shows how bereft of pure reasoning you are. And to think of the fact that you're an employer of labour. Hmmmmmm, God is a good God.

Mr Man the 'they that walked not uprightly ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH' in V14 referred to the Other Jews in V13 as well as Barnabas and the same lot were described as certain that came from James in V12. How can we tell? Because according to Paul a) they knew the truth already since they attended the meeting in Jerusalem b) they brought the letter to the church in Antioch c) they pretended in public but in secret still held unto their pharasical beliefs d) they were JEWS like Peter so his antics swayed them. So what are you on about? Paul corrected them all not just Peter. The reason he singled Peter out in his letter was to show the Galatians how that even someone as "important" as Peter was once guilty of the same error that 'men from James' were guilty of.

It seems you have nothing else to say. So you are trying to clutch to save face. You can also choose to engage me without injecting CEC or any names into the post or I'd just ignore you.

BabaGnoni:
^^^
I don't know why this uncouth self confessed "My location is where the money is" mbaemeka WoF hooligan is obsessed with repeatedly derailing this thread.

The demons that possessed you the other day when you were raining curses on vooks are on standby, about to jump on to your shoulders again

Your tittle-tattle is well known and legendary. Don’t fear the facts. If you have the stomach for it Mr chief inquisitor, why not go and open up another thread instead of dragging up topics or issues in here that aren't related nor relevant to this thread.

If your skull was protecting anything at all you would take a cursory look at this thread again and see how you left the prosperity aspect of the book being discussed to start posting videos that had nothing to do with the thread. Now you have been served by your own dish and you don't like the taste. I know what is annoying you is that you cleaned the egg off your face all alone. The only cheerleader you thought you had absconded as soon as the heat was on. Ma bi nu si mi oooo.

As per my location, yes, money always is around me most times chasing me even when I am not running. It is part of the Abrahamic blessings and I am very conscious of it. Some other folks here have only two things chasing them (albeit sluggishly): Goodness and Mercy . Some of us have graduated from that level and we beseech you to "come up tither" because if you are not Calvin Harris or say David Guetta as a DJ. You don't have much to talk about. (Oh how I pray this doesn't walk past you).

vooks:
Am really liking the way WOFers shift the burden of proof;
-' nowhere are we commanded NOT to tithe therefore tithing is cool'
-'nowhere are we commanded NOT to command Angels therefore we can command them'

But this line of reasoning can be applied to so many things and lead to absurd practices being incorporated into Chriatianity. For instance,
-nowhere are we told NOT to pray facing Jerusalem,
-nowhere are we told NOT to offer free will offerings that have nothing to do with sin (why not offer Bulls in this manner)

A more sane approach should be dissecting all scriptures with Angels and observing their manner of interaction with God's people whether in NT or OT.
1. Are there incidences of angels being put under man's command?
2. Do we have records outside the scriptures of the primitive church where this was practiced?
3. When FIRST did this doctrine of commanding Angels emerge?

GBAM!

I think they're scared to delve into this discussion for obvious reasons.

Gombs bragged about the good book teaching about Christians giving angels instructions, Oya give examples from the good book na, my guy started talking about GEJ and his orderly

mbaemeka:
If your skull was protecting anything at all you would take a cursory look at this thread again and see how you left the prosperity aspect of the book being discussed to start posting videos that had nothing to do with the thread. Now you have been served by your own dish and you don't like the taste. I know what is annoying you is that you cleaned the egg off your face all alone. The only cheerleader you thought you had absconded as soon as the heat was on. Ma bi nu si mi oooo.

As per my location, yes, money always is around me most times chasing me even when I am not running. It is part of the Abrahamic blessings and I am very conscious of it. Some other folks here have only two things chasing them (albeit sluggishly): Goodness and Mercy . Some of us have graduated from that level and we beseech you to "come up tither" because if you are not Calvin Harris or say David Guetta as a DJ. You don't have much to talk about. (Oh how I pray this doesn't walk past you).

I didn't know you were this dense. You're an unredeemable numbskull.

You need to shed off the area/garage boy excess baggage nonsense in you, maybe then you will see that it was nora544 and Lobeez that posted/pasted videos related to Hagin and Leroy on prosperity that Hagin touched in the book

"Ma bi nu si mi oooo" ke. Oh no, I am not mad at you, instead I've been looking and laughing at your antics and futile obsession with derailing this thread

20-25 years ago, tithing was a no-no subject to talk about,
no one dared bring up the subject for discussion or debate, but now, not anymore
The Church had taught that the world was flat and unnecessarily hounded Galilleo for his discoveries.
If not for Christopher Columbus that sailed across the Atlantic to prove that the Earth was round and not flat...

There is a glimmer of hope for you, as you effectually saw sense and had the gumption to edit your "Location" phrase/text...

I am not joining or following you there, so please roll in the gutter and wallow in your narcissism and egotistical preoccupation with self

Proverbs 3:9 AMP

Honor the Lord with your capital and sufficiency [from righteous labors] and with the firstfruits of all your income; [Deut. 26:2; Mal. 3:10; Luke 14:13, 14.]

That's my stance. Besides, Hagin gave firstfruits and his son teaches it in his books till date so I wager that some of the folks quoting him thinking they are raising new information do not understand him. I even found it ridiculous that they are picking and choosing what aspect to believe and endorse from the same book. Anyone can do that even to the bible hence the so much confusion and bitterness. Is that clear enough?

nannymcphee:
Gombs, I haven't forgotten about the questions I asked about CE. I just want you to be done here before I pick that up again
mbaemeka, Image123, I want to know your stance on firstfruit taught by Hagin?

mbaemeka:
Proverbs 3:9 AMP

Honor the Lord with your capital and sufficiency [from righteous labors] and with the firstfruits of all your income; [Deut. 26:2; Mal. 3:10; Luke 14:13, 14.]

That's my stance. Besides, Hagin gave firstfruits and his son teaches it in his books till date so I wager that some of the folks quoting him thinking they are raising new information do not understand him. I even found it ridiculous that they are picking and choosing what aspect to believe and endorse from the same book. Anyone can do that even to the bible hence the so much confusion and bitterness. Is that clear enough?

Luke 14:13, 14
But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: And thou shalt be blessed:for they cannot recompense thee:for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.

There's nothing about first fruits from the Luke reference you gave as can be seen from the text above. you might want to check again

Also if Hagin said the below

The concept of firstfruits is not used in the New Testament in reference to financial giving. There is not even the vaguest hint of it by any New Testament writer in reference to money or the support of ministers.

"Firstfruits" in the New Testament primarily refers to Jesus Christ. He is the Firstfruits—the first One to be raised from the dead—and represented all those who would follow after him.
Other New Testament uses of "firstfruits" refer to the "firstfruits of the Spirit" in the life of the believer. In other words,
"firstfruits" refers to the initial working of the Spirit in a believer's life—the first evidence of His indwelling us. It refers to those signs of His Presence in us now, as compared to what He will do with us later when we have our glorified bodies.

Another use of the word "firstfruits" is totally figurative. It has to do with the first individuals to be born again in a certain location.

What then is the basis you used to draw your conclusion that he gave first fruits? If in his own words, first fruits HAS NO RELATIONSHIP WITH FINANCIAL GIVING IN THE NEW TESTATMENT? Also if we want to assume that he did, did he continue it after writing this book and saying all he said about first fruits? Also remember he admitted preaching the false '100-fold return' doctrine before he was told it was a false doctrine.

BabaGnoni:
I didn't know you were this dense. You're an unredeemable numbskull.

You need to shed off the area/garage boy excess baggage nonsense in you, maybe then you will see that it was nora544 and Lobeez that posted/pasted videos related to Hagin and Leroy on prosperity that Hagin touched in the book

25 years ago, tithing was a no-no subject to talk about but now, not anymore
The Church had taught that the world was flat and unnecessarily hounded Galilleo for his discoveries.
If not for Christopher Columbus that sailed across the Atlantic to prove that the Earth was round and not flat...

I am not joining or following you there, so please roll in the gutter and wallow in your narcissism and egotistical preoccupation with self

If this is the action you are putting to the threat you made earlier then you are not only a failure as a reasoner as i suspected. Your idiocy encompasses your entire being and livelihood. How else can we explain how you were warned repeatedly to keep your stu.pid videos off this thread but you failed to oblige? Now you are trying to whip sentiments because your lunacy pushed a lady to assert that she would slap Belzeebub away from your spirit when you made cretinous statements on the other thread.

Talking about Galileo and his discoveries I could not help but SMH. I can write a book and even give simpler interpretations of the theories and formulaes he employed while making his discoveries. The one thing any Physicist, Astrophysicist, Historian and even Engineers will tell you is that Christopher Columbus sailing across the Atlantic had nothing to do with Galileos discoveries that were to come years later. So I wonder how an event that occured years before Galileo helped him to prove the discoveries he made years later to the world. I mean Columbus was born in 1450s and Galileo in 1670s yet Columbus (resurrected from the grave) and helped Galileo prove his discoveries which even gets funnier when we consider that Columbus died before Galileo was born! But why am I not surprised you would make such a nauseatingly ignorant statement when you are in the camp of ignoramuses that speak before they think or know.

Now take my advice and never mention my moniker again on NL or I would make you deactivate this handle to come up with a new one (as you are known for). Irredeemable oaf.

nannymcphee:
I have been silent since because of the bickering. It is too much, one can even get lost, this thread was supposed to be on the Midas touch & maybe the subject of prosperity not covered by the book.

Gombs you are still of the opinion that the so called "anti WOFers" have problem with giving(because of the bolded part)

you are wrong & I stand to be corrected, I give, I believe in giving & also believe that love should be one's motivating factor. My stand on the Christian giving is summarized in 2 Corinthians 9.

I have also seen from scripture how God intervened on behalf of men as they gave sacrificially & how he also moved without them giving(eg extension of hezekiah's life & miracle oil with the widow)

Striking a balance between the above lies on the leading of the Holy Spirit & not some man made formular

At this junction, I want to call on



WinsomeX
vooks
Candour
BabaGnoni
Lobeez
shdemidemi

& all the "anti WOFer's to state their stance on the Christian giving, so that we all know where we stand on the subject for posterity sake

Thanks

Every giving in the new covenant from the inception of the church was tailored to meet needs, not to get rich. That's the simple way i approach giving. I hold the scripture below close to heart

1 John 3:17
But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

This is because if you don't love your brother whom you can see, how can you claim to Love God whom you have not seen? (1John 4:20). So be it our fellowships, a pastor, a layman or even a pagan, a Christian must be willing to bail the needy out of their needs. I believe there is no better way to give to God than by giving the needy because Christ said if you give to those in need, you give to him.

Candour:
Luke 14:13, 14
But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: And thou shalt be blessed:for they cannot recompense thee:for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.

There's nothing about first fruits from the Luke reference you gave as can be seen from the text above. you might want to check again

Also if Hagin said the below



What then is the basis you used to draw your conclusion that he gave first fruits? If in his own words, first fruits HAS NO RELATIONSHIP WITH FINANCIAL GIVING IN THE NEW TESTATMENT? Also if we want to assume that he did, did he continue it after writing this book and saying all he said about first fruits? Also remember he admitted preaching the false '100-fold return' doctrine before he was told it was a false doctrine.

I copied that verse et al from the AMP version of the app on my phone. I probably didn't cross check the verses placed on the margins.

Concerning Hagin and what he stood for I have read a handful of his books even to revised editions and I have read a couple of his son's till date. On these basis I can say he gave firstfruits. Besides, the verse I posted said one could honor God with the firstfruits of his income so in that light the 'firstfruits' as described in the NT (meaning the first and the best) can be applied to my income hence why some people give their first salaries, the increase from a promotion or a profit as their firstfruit.

I personally believe Hagins grouse was with Ministers who claimed (like the tithes) that the firstfruits belonged to them. I believe he said firstfruits weren't written in the NT in relation to financial givings in SUPPORT FOR MINISTERS. In other words, this isn't like when people give gifts to bless their pastors or what not.

I believe he was positing that like the tithe, the firstfruits belonged to the church and was to be used for only the needs of the church (and Gospel) and not for the Pastor's personal needs. That's what I think. I stand corrected.

mbaemeka:
Proverbs 3:9 AMP

Honor the Lord with your capital and sufficiency [from righteous labors] and with the firstfruits of all your income; [Deut. 26:2; Mal. 3:10; Luke 14:13, 14.]

That's my stance. Besides, Hagin gave firstfruits and his son teaches it in his books till date so I wager that some of the folks quoting him thinking they are raising new information do not understand him. I even found it ridiculous that they are picking and choosing what aspect to believe and endorse from the same book. Anyone can do that even to the bible hence the so much confusion and bitterness. Is that clear enough?

The bold, I decided to let them believe what they want, that Hagin condemned firstfruits, some said I endorsed a false doctrine, anyways, I find it ludicrous they endorse some, and condemn some, later, they just decided to nail Hagin!